Why did Oswald go to the movies?

[Martin Weidmann]

Aha! The old CTer 'Appeal to Rebellion' fallacy: Believe anything you want except the official story.

Similar:
>Henry Ford: You can have any color as long as it's black.
>Orwell's Animal Farm 'All pigs are created equal, but some are more equal than others'
>You can believe in any shooter, as long as it's not Oswald.

And so on.

Aha! The old CTer 'Appeal to Rebellion' fallacy: Believe anything you want except the official story.

So, it's "believe the official story or you commit a fallacy"?

Btw, does your comment expose that you believe everything you are told by authority and have no mind of your own?


>You can believe in any shooter, as long as it's not Oswald.

Who said that? I'm sure John never did, there is no "probably" about it!

But why don't you answer the question I asked you?

Man, your standard-of-proof level is downright insane

If you have an opinion about that, you surely must have one about just how low the standard of proof should be.

So please tell us all; just how much should be ignored and dismissed to achieve the standard of proof you prefer?

[Bill Chapman]

Aha! The old CTer 'Appeal to Rebellion' fallacy: Believe anything you want except the official story.

So, it's "believe the official story or you commit a fallacy"?

Btw, does your comment expose that you believe everything you are told by authority and have no mind of your own?


>You can believe in any shooter, as long as it's not Oswald.

Who said that? I'm sure John never did, there is no "probably" about it!

But why don't you answer the question I asked you?

The 'rebel' fallacy points directly at CTers

Appeal to Rebellion fallacy defined
Cite: warp.pov.net

Conspiracy theories in general, and the "n% of people doubt the story" claims in particular, appeal to a sense of rebellion in people.

As Wikipedia puts it, "a rebellion is, in the most general sense, a refusal to accept authority."

People don't want to be sheep who are patronized by authority and told what they have to do and how they have to think. People usually distrust authorities and many believe that authorities are selfish and abuse people for their own benefit. This is an extremely fertile ground for conspiracy theories.

This is so ingrained in people that a sentence like "the official story" has basically become a synonym for "a coverup/lie". Whenever "the official story" is mentioned, it immediately makes people think that it's some kind of coverup, something not true.

Conspiracy theorists are masters at abusing this psyhcological phenomenon for their advantage. They basically insinuate that "if you believe the official story then you are gullible because you are being lied to". They [conspiracy theorists] want to make it feel that doubting the original story is a sign of intelligence and logical thinking. However, believing a conspiracy theory usually shows, quite ironically, a great lack of logical thinking.

This is an actual quote from a JFK assassination conspiracy theory website. It's almost as hilarious as it is contradictory:

In the end, you have to decide for yourself what to believe. But don't just believe what the U.S. Government tells you! (In other words, believe anything you want except the official story!)

[Martin Weidmann]

The 'rebel' fallacy points directly at CTers

Appeal to Rebellion fallacy defined
Cite: warp.pov.net

Conspiracy theories in general, and the "n% of people doubt the story" claims in particular, appeal to a sense of rebellion in people.

As Wikipedia puts it, "a rebellion is, in the most general sense, a refusal to accept authority."

People don't want to be sheep who are patronized by authority and told what they have to do and how they have to think. People usually distrust authorities and many believe that authorities are selfish and abuse people for their own benefit. This is an extremely fertile ground for conspiracy theories.

This is so ingrained in people that a sentence like "the official story" has basically become a synonym for "a coverup/lie". Whenever "the official story" is mentioned, it immediately makes people think that it's some kind of coverup, something not true.

Conspiracy theorists are masters at abusing this psyhcological phenomenon for their advantage. They basically insinuate that "if you believe the official story then you are gullible because you are being lied to". They [conspiracy theorists] want to make it feel that doubting the original story is a sign of intelligence and logical thinking. However, believing a conspiracy theory usually shows, quite ironically, a great lack of logical thinking.

This is an actual quote from a JFK assassination conspiracy theory website. It's almost as hilarious as it is contradictory:

In the end, you have to decide for yourself what to believe. But don't just believe what the U.S. Government tells you! (In other words, believe anything you want except the official story!)

I don't need a cut/paste explanation of the fallacy.

I would like you to answer my questions. Why don't you?

Here are the questions again;

Aha! The old CTer 'Appeal to Rebellion' fallacy: Believe anything you want except the official story.

So, it's "believe the official story or you commit a fallacy"?

Btw, does your comment expose that you believe everything you are told by authority and have no mind of your own?

Edit: as Tom has already pointed out, there is a massive difference between not just believing what the Government tells you and believing anything you want except what the Government tells you.


>You can believe in any shooter, as long as it's not Oswald.

Who said that? I'm sure John never did, there is not even a "probably" about it!


But why don't you answer the question I asked you?

Man, your standard-of-proof level is downright insane

If you have an opinion about that, you surely must have one about just how low the standard of proof should be.

So please tell us all; just how much should be ignored and dismissed to achieve the standard of proof you prefer?

[Walt Cakebread]

I don't need a cut/paste explanation of the fallacy.

I would like you to answer my questions. Why don't you?

Here are the questions again;

Aha! The old CTer 'Appeal to Rebellion' fallacy: Believe anything you want except the official story.

So, it's "believe the official story or you commit a fallacy"?

Btw, does your comment expose that you believe everything you are told by authority and have no mind of your own?

Edit: as Tom has already pointed out, there is a massive difference between not just believing what the Government tells you and believing anything you want except what the Government tells you.


>You can believe in any shooter, as long as it's not Oswald.

Who said that? I'm sure John never did, there is not even a "probably" about it!


But why don't you answer the question I asked you?

>You can believe in any shooter, as long as it's not Oswald.

Who said that? I'm sure John never did, there is not even a "probably" about it!

I don't know that anybody has said that ...("You can believe in any shooter, as long as it's not Oswald.")

But I'll certainly second that idea....Because we KNOW that Lee Oswald was NOT wearing light colored khaki clothing and eye witnesses swore that the man on the sixth floor WAS wearing light colored clothing.....

Therefore we have demonstrated that Lee Oswald was NOT the sixth floor shooter....so unless you're a real loon ...

 You can believe in any shooter, as long as it's not Oswald.

[John Iacoletti]

Aha! The old CTer 'Appeal to Rebellion' fallacy: Believe anything you want except the official story.

There's no reason to believe any story that can't be backed up with sufficient evidence.  Calling it "official" isn't evidence.  Saying that it came from the "U.S. Government" isn't evidence.

While you're looking up logical fallacies, I suggest you take a peek at "false appeal to authority".

[Bill Chapman]

>You can believe in any shooter, as long as it's not Oswald.

Who said that? I'm sure John never did, there is not even a "probably" about it!

I don't know that anybody has said that ...("You can believe in any shooter, as long as it's not Oswald.")

But I'll certainly second that idea....Because we KNOW that Lee Oswald was NOT wearing light colored khaki clothing and eye witnesses swore that the man on the sixth floor WAS wearing light colored clothing.....

Therefore we have demonstrated that Lee Oswald was NOT the sixth floor shooter....so unless you're a real loon ...

 You can believe in any shooter, as long as it's not Oswald.

It's meant as sarcasm you dolt

[Bill Chapman]

There's no reason to believe any story that can't be backed up with sufficient evidence.  Calling it "official" isn't evidence.  Saying that it came from the "U.S. Government" isn't evidence.

While you're looking up logical fallacies, I suggest you take a peek at "false appeal to authority".

There's no amount of evidence that would be accepted by you lot

[Matt Grantham]

 Bill Chapman when you go around dismissing CT's as an identifiable pathology, you need some markers for such a diagnosis One prime criteria of course would be a lack of a simple investigatory spirit and consistent principles Lets just go with the investigatory spirit aspect Do you really believe that if we were to add the depth of understandings within the CT community it would be less that of LN's ? For the LN the story is already wrapped in a tight little package and the need to investigating beyond the wrappers is of little purpose  Of course that is not likely to be demonstrable, but even here we see people such as yourself coming up with all kinds of reasons for the facts from CT's to not be as reliable as others Or we must  answer a series of question requiring conclusions of various types before we can just consider evidence in a prima facie manner I see very little psycho pathologizing of the zombie follower approach of how individuals relate to authority if we wish to wrap things in clear container