The number three CT nightmare question ...

[John Iacoletti]

I'm going to "dodge" all of them, because:

a) Views on other non-related JFK subjects are irrelevant to the topic of the JFK assassination.

and

b) You seem to be automatically equating "flaky" as contradicting official government pronouncements -- as in the Warren Commission Report.

[Joe Elliott]

I'm going to "dodge" all of them, because:

a) Views on other non-related JFK subjects are irrelevant to the topic of the JFK assassination.

and

b) You seem to be automatically equating "flaky" as contradicting official government pronouncements -- as in the Warren Commission Report.

No. I do not equate “flaky” with contradicting official government pronouncements. Afterall, I disagree with the HSCA pronouncements that the Dictabelt recorded four shots, when it was later discovered that the four “shots” occurred about a minute after the assassination.

No, I equal “flaky” with believing the Holocaust never happened. Or believing that the theory of Evolution is false and Creationism is true. Or that the South was justified in seceding from the Union to preserve slavery. Or that the government is conspiring with the space aliens for some secret purpose. Or that Jim Jones did not order a massive murder-suicide action but this was instead conducted by the U. S. Government. Those are the views I consider to be “flaky”.

Since you dodge my questions, I will give the answers for you.


1.   Do you deny the CT side tends to attract more “flaky” supporters who become the prominent spokesmen?

No.     If you could name prominent LNers who are just as “flaky” you would say “Yes” and name them. But since you can’t you dodge the question.


2.     If so, do you deny that James Fetzer, Michael T. Griffith, Jim Marrs and Mark Lane held “flaky” views on other non-related JFK subjects?

No.      Answering “Yes” would be absurd.

3.   If not, can you point out prominent LN spokesmen who had non-JFK related views that were just as “flaky” as the CT spokesmen?

Again, you cannot point out prominent LN spokesmen with non-JFK related views.

4.   Can you point to a true theory that, just like the “true” JFK conspiracy theory, which also tends to attract the most “flaky” spokesmen?

No.      If you could you would name some, or at least one.

And so, if it did turn out that the CTers were right, this would be the only example, in history, that the “flakey” advocates were all attracted to the side that was true on some major issue of contention.

[Jim Brunsman]

Best post I've ever seen from Tommy. There's hope for you yet! But LHO? Come on, you have to be smarter than that! I have not seen one piece of evidence that convinces me that LHO fired a weapon that day. Every piece of evidence has been tampered with, lied about, or covered up. It's so obvious if we are open-minded enough to read enough material. Sure, there are some rather idiotic theories out there, but I don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

[John Iacoletti]

Joe, all LNers are flaky, because they believe that the evidence conclusively shows that Oswald killed JFK. This is akin to creationism.

By the way, it’s news to me that Mark Lane ever denied that Jim Jones told his followers to commit suicide, so you probably need to come up with something else to smear him with. Even so, it’s still a poisoning the well fallacy. Their views on the JFK assassination stand (or fall) on their own merits.

Can I likewise try to smear prominent LN authors? Sure. Posner was a plagiarist. We’re now learning that Bugliosi’s theory that Manson was trying to start a race war was so much hogwash. And he was accused of beating and choking a woman he had impregnated out of wedlock because she refused to abort his child.

[Michael Walton]

There's a lot of bias in the JFK case. People who don't like him, his family and so on, simply cannot overlook the things that make them biased to see the case in another light. It reminds me of the dead prostitute syndrome with detectives. Because some cops think she deserved it, they don't pursue her killer vigorously like they would, say, the respected and well-known country club member who was murdered by his wife.

[Bill Chapman]

Joe, all LNers are flaky, because they believe that the evidence conclusively shows that Oswald killed JFK. This is akin to creationism.

All CTers (and knee-takers @DeadOswald) are flaky, because they believe that everything is either faked, planted, or altered in some way. That is akin to Oswald Arse Kissing.

[John Iacoletti]

All CTers (and knee-takers @DeadOswald) are flaky, because they believe that everything is either faked, planted, or altered in some way.

All CTers? Name even one.

Says the guy who can’t even correctly articulate what the evidence is.

[Bill Chapman]

All CTers? Name even one.

Says the guy who can’t even correctly articulate what the evidence is.

All CTers? Name even one.
> You lot: In one big lump.

Says the guy who can’t even correctly articulate what the evidence is
> You are not the arbiter of what 'correct' is, Judge Johnny