I'm not sure if you are going to follow this, but even if Oswald did it (alone or with others) the WC cover up, to wrap the crime around him, was also a conspiracy.
Believers in Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy Theories all think that their theory is true, because it is an established fact, in their mind.
How to tell the difference between a Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy Theory and a much more reasonable Conspiracy Theory?
1. The number of people the CTer thinks were involved in the conspiracy. One hundred or more, who all keep silent throughout their life, is unbelievable.
2. However, since many CTers are dishonest with themselves on this number, a more reliable way is to ask “What was the goal of the conspiracy”?
If they give a huge goal, this is unlikely to be obtained by a small conspiracy.
So, if the goal of the conspiracy is:
• To have the Jews control the world – Elders of Zion Conspiracy Theory – Too large a goal for a secret conspiracy
• To fake the Moon Landings – hundreds of thousands working on a project they think will work
• 9/11 attacks – Planting tons of explosives in large busy buildings with no one noticing.
• 2020 Presidential Election Rigging – many programmers, many others making millions of bogus ballots needed.
All of these are unbelievable because it would take a large number of people to pull this off, and then have them all remain silent about it. Or the goal is so huge it would have to be a large conspiracy.
Other conspiracy theories seem to require psychic knowledge from the conspirators:
• The “Roosevelt knew about Pearl Harbor and did nothing” requires him to know ahead of time, that as a result of Pearl Harbor, Germany will declare war on the United States. Otherwise, the U. S. will be in the wrong war, not against Nazi Germany but Japan.
• “JFK was assassination to get the U. S. in a large Vietnam war, requires the conspirators to know that North Vietnam will greatly escalate the war in 1964. Otherwise, there is no need to send a large army to defend South Vietnam. How did the conspirators know, in November 1963, that North Vietnam would do that?
Even the “Oswald did it with just a few others, but the Warren Commission covered it up” is unbelievable, because there were a lot of people involved in the Warren Commission investigation. Always having an investigator who decides to cover up something that he stumbles on is unlikely if only a few people in the investigation were involved in the coverup.
While Allan Fritzke has been heavily criticized on this thread, he really isn’t being logically inconsistent. He is doing the same sort of reasoning he always does.
The Election wasn’t rigged in just one way, by mailing in fraudulent ballots. It was rigged in many ways, like using fraudulent computers to count the ballots.
Just as many people have stepped forward to talk of being involved with Jack Ruby in various gun running and other questionable activities, many have stepped forward to say they saw people counting the same ballots over and over again, saw ballots being smuggled in, saying all sorts of things. Allan accepts all these stories just as many CTers tend to accept all the stories they hear about Jack Ruby.
The heavy use of a large number of points, hoping that something sticks, is common to both groups.
The statistical sorts of arguments so loved by many CTers in the JFK, the astronomical odds of a certain set of people involved in the JFK case dying in the next 5 years, is mirrored by the statistics that Trump himself tweets about, that the odds of Biden overtaking his lead in all 6 swing states are astronomical. Believers in Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracies tend to use the same sort of arguments for various different conspiracies.
Question:
Is the type of thinking Allan Fritzke uses to evaluate the “2020 Presidential Election was rigged” Conspiracy Theory all that different from his type of thinking regarding the “JFK” Conspiracy Theory? If so, how is it different?
