Debunking the JFK Conspiracists: New Book

[Mike Orr]

You can't debunk the facts .

[Charles Collins]

You can't debunk the facts .

But the conspiracists keep trying…

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Gagne says he spent two decades as a conspiracy believer. Then he wised-up….   

It's not what he concludes it's what he bases his conclusions on.

But in conspiracy world - skeptic world too - everything he bases his conclusions on is faked, false, corrupt, uncertain, unknown, not possible, made up, lies. And all of the people who conducted the investigations were liars too. Multiple generations of people from a wide variety of backgrounds: all liars too. Or either not smart enough to know that they were using lies, corrupt, false evidence.  Yes, hundreds and hundreds of people - top legal minds, forensic pathologists, photographic experts, ballistics experts - all of their conclusions are just waved away.

[John Iacoletti]

But in conspiracy world - skeptic world too - everything he bases his conclusions on is faked, false, corrupt, uncertain, unknown, not possible, made up, lies. And all of the people who conducted the investigations were liars too. Multiple generations of people from a wide variety of backgrounds: all liars too.

Strawman.  Next?

[John Iacoletti]

Gagne says he spent two decades as a conspiracy believer. Then he wised-up….   

There are few things more insipid and uninspiring than a true believer who has found a particular religion and declares "I once was blind, but now I see!"

[Steve M. Galbraith]

They haven't read a single page of the book, looked at a single argument he's made, but they immediately dismiss it. Just wave it away. Every part of it. Not some of it or most. Does he have some things right? It doesn't matter, they don't care. They just reject all of it.

Yet they say they are here to discuss the evidence.

[John Iacoletti]

They haven't read a single page of the book, looked at a single argument he's made, but they immediately dismiss it. Just wave it away. Every part of it. Not some of it or most. Does he have some things right? It doesn't matter, they don't care. They just reject all of it.

Yet they say they are here to discuss the evidence.

Another strawman.  Next?

But every lone-nut oriented book just regurgitates all the same misinformation and conjecture -- they don't actually objectively analyze the evidence. From what has been posted here, there's no reason to think this one is any different.

Based on the review, it also smacks of special pleading, given how much the official narrative is filled with hackneyed fallacies, factoids, and fundamental contradictions.  It's the oft repeated argument:

Look at these crazy conspiracy theories.  Aren't they crazy?  Therefore Oswald did it.

[Charles Collins]

There are few things more insipid and uninspiring than a true believer who has found a particular religion and declares "I once was blind, but now I see!"

I disagree with your opinion. But the comments from the peanut gallery definitely are insipid. The people who are relegated to the peanut gallery don’t usually have any conspiracy theories that they have the balls to defend. And they typically have insignificant but critical remarks whenever the authorities are mentioned.