Debunking the JFK Conspiracists: New Book

[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.

[John Iacoletti]

The idea that it takes “balls” to make up a story that cannot be substantiated (like the official narrative) is patently absurd. It takes an overactive imagination.

[Charles Collins]

The idea that it takes “balls” to make up a story that cannot be substantiated (like the official narrative) is patently absurd. It takes an overactive imagination.

Who said anything about “making up” a story? The comment says “defend” a theory.

What’s truly absurd is to have a plethora of theories (59-years worth) to select from, and to pretend that none of them are valid. It appears that the people in the peanut gallery have decided that a theory of how the assassination happened is optional. That’s why they belong in the peanut gallery.

[John Iacoletti]

A “theory” with no basis is no different from a made-up story. It’s not some kind of virtue to be able to make up stories. People with no valid arguments resort to juvenile nicknames and hope that they somehow will make up the difference.