"A" conspiracy? What is "a" conspiracy?

[Jim Hawthorn]

As little a two people involved = a conspiracy.

[Lance Payette]

As little a two people involved = a conspiracy.

Sure, as I have pointed out (and been hooted down). Certainly, a conspiracy with Oswald and someone else not in Dealey Plaza, or Oswald and a rear gunman, is more plausible and easier to rationalize. But two-person conspiracies are no fun, are they?

Bear in mind, when I speak of epistemology I'm not talking about whether you can convince me or anyone else. I'm talking about YOUR OWN thought processes: examining whether you are thinking rationally and whether your ideas are coherent and deal with the weird sh*t in a realistic and plausible manner.

If someone's attitude is, "I don't really care whether anything I say makes sense, BS-ing about the JFKA is just fun. I can juggle four irreconcilable theories and 25 irreconcilable pieces of evidence at once, no problem" - well, OK I guess, but in most areas of my life I prefer to examine whether I'm thinking rationally and coherently and can articulate and defend a realistic, plausible idea. That's why epistemological justification MEANS; it doesn't mean my ideas must be TRUE.

[Lance Payette]

The world does not revolve around you. Your preferences are personal yet you seem to be arguing that everyone should analyze things the way you do. You're the smartest person in the world in your own mind. 

It's reasonable for others to draw different conclusions given that there are so many holes in the JFKA evidence and problems with the investigations.

You continue to completely miss the point. See my response to Jim immediately above.

You ... are ... completely ... missing ... the ... point.

[Lance Payette]

One more attempt, my fellow philosophers:

"There is no God. The physical universe is all there is or ever has been."

"There is a triune God who created everything and who hears and answers our prayers."

Both of these metaphysical positions can have epistemological justification. Both are held by philosophers, theologians, Nobel laureates and others of the highest intellectual caliber.

Both are held by True Believers (or Non-Believers, as the case may be) for pretty much mindless reasons having nothing to do with the truth of the position. If I say there is no God because babies wouldn't die of terrible diseases if there were, this is not an epistemologically justified position.

EITHER POSITION COULD BE TRUE. BOTH COULD BE FALSE. BOTH CAN BE EPISTEMOLOGICALLY JUSTIFIED.

I want my position on the JFKA to be as justified as I can make. At least in my own mind, I want to be able to explain it to myself in a way that seems rational, coherent, realistic (plausible), that confronts and deals with the problem areas, and that I can articulate and defend if I need to do so.

It seems to me - perhaps you disagree or don't care - that an awful lot of CTers don't feel the need for much if any epistemological justification for THEIR OWN BELIEFS and rather obviously avoid articulating and defending them if called upon to do so. Witness my CE-399 thread where only Martin even took a stab at addressing my very basic "What sense does that make?" questions. They are rather curiously content with just "a" conspiracy.

In the abstract, a conspiracy theory with Oswald as a complete patsy, multiple three-man kill teams and LBJ at the helm COULD BE as epistemologically justified as the LN narrative. That's why I'm still waiting, waiting for someone to provide a plausible, realistic set of answers to "What sense would have that have made? Why would the conspirators have done that? How would that actually have worked, from the time it was a gleam in someone's eye until all was said and done?"

[Richard Smith]

To me almost as compelling as the evidence linking Oswald to this crime is the absolute absurdity of any alternative explanation that explains away all this evidence as the product of fakery or bad luck. There is no coherent alternative narrative that could be the product of any plan.  In the CTer fantasy, Oswald is forever like the cartoon character Mr. Magoo innocently blundering into situations that appear to link him to the crime.  At times he is Gomer Pyle going along in blissful ignorance while being framed.  At other times he says "Shazam" and realizes his patsy status.  It's a dizzying array of often mutually contradictory explanations to shoehorn a conspiracy theory into the known facts and circumstances.

[Jon Banks]

Sure, as I have pointed out (and been hooted down). Certainly, a conspiracy with Oswald and someone else not in Dealey Plaza, or Oswald and a rear gunman, is more plausible and easier to rationalize. But two-person conspiracies are no fun, are they?

Bear in mind, when I speak of epistemology I'm not talking about whether you can convince me or anyone else. I'm talking about YOUR OWN thought processes: examining whether you are thinking rationally and whether your ideas are coherent and deal with the weird sh*t in a realistic and plausible manner.

If someone's attitude is, "I don't really care whether anything I say makes sense, BS-ing about the JFKA is just fun. I can juggle four irreconcilable theories and 25 irreconcilable pieces of evidence at once, no problem" - well, OK I guess, but in most areas of my life I prefer to examine whether I'm thinking rationally and coherently and can articulate and defend a realistic, plausible idea. That's why epistemological justification MEANS; it doesn't mean my ideas must be TRUE.

Most conspiracy theories in general are BS. Even in the world of JFK assassination theories, I'll grant you that there are many implausible theories in the JFKA CT universe.

Nevertheless, conspiracies happen. Both criminals and governments conspire to do crimes or unethical stuff.

If you say: "90% of conspiracy theories are implausible", I can agree with you if you say that.

But we're probably going to disagree on the remaining 10% because as I noted, conspiracies do happen sometimes. I'm not convinced that all the weird stuff in the JFK assassination is coincidental or due to incompetence, therefore, I'm not convinced of the LN'er narrative.

[Tom Sorensen]

One more attempt, my fellow philosophers:

"There is no God. The physical universe is all there is or ever has been."

"There is a triune God who created everything and who hears and answers our prayers."

Both of these metaphysical positions can have epistemological justification. Both are held by philosophers, theologians, Nobel laureates and others of the highest intellectual caliber.

Both are held by True Believers (or Non-Believers, as the case may be) for pretty much mindless reasons having nothing to do with the truth of the position. If I say there is no God because babies wouldn't die of terrible diseases if there were, this is not an epistemologically justified position.

EITHER POSITION COULD BE TRUE. BOTH COULD BE FALSE. BOTH CAN BE EPISTEMOLOGICALLY JUSTIFIED.

I want my position on the JFKA to be as justified as I can make. At least in my own mind, I want to be able to explain it to myself in a way that seems rational, coherent, realistic (plausible), that confronts and deals with the problem areas, and that I can articulate and defend if I need to do so.

It seems to me - perhaps you disagree or don't care - that an awful lot of CTers don't feel the need for much if any epistemological justification for THEIR OWN BELIEFS and rather obviously avoid articulating and defending them if called upon to do so. Witness my CE-399 thread where only Martin even took a stab at addressing my very basic "What sense does that make?" questions. They are rather curiously content with just "a" conspiracy.

In the abstract, a conspiracy theory with Oswald as a complete patsy, multiple three-man kill teams and LBJ at the helm COULD BE as epistemologically justified as the LN narrative. That's why I'm still waiting, waiting for someone to provide a plausible, realistic set of answers to "What sense would have that have made? Why would the conspirators have done that? How would that actually have worked, from the time it was a gleam in someone's eye until all was said and done?"

This is basically about how badly you crave attention, and it's bad. As high as eight ramblings a day at one time, now roughly five. It's the ego thing, case closed.

[Lance Payette]

This is basically about how badly you crave attention, and it's bad. As high as eight ramblings a day at one time, now roughly five. It's the ego thing, case closed.

I guess if I were inclined to be snide - me? - I might say, "This is the best you can do?"

The comments section at FOX News is always humorous because someone is always posting, "Yet more clickbait garbage from FOX." To which the response is always: "And here you are, clicking and commenting on it."

BTW, you are averaging 2.4 posts per day while I am averaging 4.8. An additional 2.4 posts per day is apparently the difference between a desperate craving for attention and out of control ego and - what? - restrained and statesmanlike participation.

A greater mystery to me is participants such as yourself and several others who never actually say anything of substance. What is the psychological explanation for that, I wonder?

I just scrolled through your posts. They are almost entirely non-substantive, mostly one-line observations with a distinct reliance on ad hominem attacks. Whatever.