The following definitions say you only need to believe a conspiracy theory ("the idea that a group of people secretly worked together to cause a particular event") is afoot, not that you have to provide a specific theory.
- someone who believes in a conspiracy theory (= the idea that an event or situation is the result of a secret plan made by powerful people)
- One who believes in, follows, or advances a conspiracy theory.
And this certainly sums up you and Iacoletti, with your aversion to practically-all LN evidence, LN books/websites, the LN findings of the WC, most of the LN work done by the FBI, the HSCA finding that the shots that struck JFK/JBC were fired from the SN by Oswald, etc.:
"A conspiracy theory is not the same as a conspiracy; instead, it refers
to a hypothesized conspiracy with specific characteristics, such as an
opposition to the mainstream consensus among those people (such as
scientists or historians) who are qualified to evaluate its accuracy."
This is just plain stupid. It's a logical conclusion that if Oswald wasn't the lone gunman, there must have been a conspiracy. By this definition everybody who does not believe or simply doubts that Oswald was the lone gunman would be a CT. The fact that they do not propose, support or even believe in a particular theory somehow doesn't matter. That's wacky!
The following definitions say you only need to believe a conspiracy theory ("the idea that a group of people secretly worked together to cause a particular event") is afoot, not that you have to provide a specific theory.
- someone who believes in a conspiracy theory (= the idea that an event or situation is the result of a secret plan made by powerful people)
- One who believes in, follows, or advances a conspiracy theory.
Hilarious.
I'm not sure where you got those definitions but I suggest you read them again before you say something else stupid.
You may not have noticed it but they clearly state that you have to believe in, follow or advance a conspiracy
theory.
So, pray tell, in which theory do I believe in or have I ever followed or advanced?
And this certainly sums up you and Iacoletti, with your aversion to practically-all LN evidence, LN books/websites, the LN findings of the WC, most of the LN work done by the FBI, the HSCA finding that the shots that struck JFK/JBC were fired from the SN by Oswald, etc.:
"A conspiracy theory is not the same as a conspiracy; instead, it refers
to a hypothesized conspiracy with specific characteristics, such as an
opposition to the mainstream consensus among those people (such as
scientists or historians) who are qualified to evaluate its accuracy."
your aversion to practically-all LN evidence,Oh please, stop whining! This is just a variation of the idiotic "your standard of evidence is too high" argument all over again.
I have an aversion to all the BS assumptions and speculations the LNs call evidence as well as the weakness of their arguments when they try to attach far more evidentiary value to a piece of evidence than is really there.
Along the same lines, I have a similar aversion to most CT arguments when they are not supported by conclusive evidence.
"A conspiracy theory is not the same as a conspiracy; instead, it refers to a hypothesized conspiracy with specific characteristics, such as an opposition to the mainstream consensus among those people (such as scientists or historians) who are qualified to evaluate its accuracy." Pathetic. The classic appeal to authority fallacy again.... It's the biggest demonstration there is that somebody hasn't got a mind of his own and is happy to take anything they tell him at face value (that would be you, Jerry)
Translation; you have to believe what we say because we say it, no matter how incredible and unsupported by evidence it is what we say. If you disagree with us, you are a CT....
Counter argument; you can be an expert as much as you like, but if you have an agenda or get questionable evidence to work with (or both) your conclusions are going to be equally questionable.
The only book I have ever read about the Kennedy case is the WC report. Prior to reading it, I was just one more of those shallow minds who didn't give Oswald's alleged guilt a second thought. Once I finished reading the book it was beyond clear to me that whatever really happened on 11/22/63 it wasn't what the WC reported. The question for me was not if Oswald was innocent or if there had been a conspiracy. I came away from reading the report wondering if they simply wrapped this case around Oswald regardless of his guilt or innocence.
