Infamy = Glory??

[John Iacoletti]

What Chapman in his infinite wisdom refuses to admit is that the WC hypothesis has its own set of logical fallacies.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Appeal to rebellion: Conspiracy theory logical fallacies
http://warp.povusers.org/grrr/conspiracytheories.html

Most conspiracy theories don't make sense nor withstand any scrutiny. They usually involve operations so immense that it's basically impossible for them to be kept secret, and all the proof given by conspiracy theorists usually have a very simple explanation (usually much simpler than the explanation given by the theorists).

Yet conspiracy theories are very popular and appealing. Even when they don't make sense and there's just no proof, many people still believe them. Why?

Here are some typical logical fallacies used by conspiracy theorists:

One big reason for this is that some conspiracy theorists are clever. They use psychology to make their theories sound more plausible. They appeal to certain psychological phenomena which make people to tend to believe them. However, these psychological tricks are nothing more than logical fallacies. They are simply so well disguised that many people can't see them for what they are.

Conspiracy theories in general, and the "n% of people doubt the story" claims in particular, also 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 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!

As Oswald's late brother Robert once said (paraphrasing): "Asking questions about what happened is good, it's fine to challenge things. But after the tenth time, the twentieth.....it's over, let it go...."

Good faith questions are fine, are necessary. But these aren't good faith questions. When we have people saying there's "no evidence" that Oswald shot JFK  or "no evidence" he shot Tippit - no evidence at all - then we're not dealing with rational people or people engaged in good faith. We're dealing with a sort of cult mentality that is simply not reachable. It's useless. You can go over it again and again and again and you'll get denial after denial.

As to the "official story": You don't have to believe "the government." The assassination was investigated by major news organizations. They interviewed all of the key witnesses. Yes, they had to rely in part on evidence provided to them, e.g., the rifle, et cetera. But they conducted their own investigation and came to the same conclusions.

But they all lied. Or something. The fact that they found no conspiracy - that Oswald likely shot JFK - is just proof of the need for more investigations. And more questions.

[Bill Chapman]

As Oswald's late brother Robert once said (paraphrasing): "Asking questions about what happened is good, it's fine to challenge things. But after the tenth time, the twentieth.....it's over, let it go...."

Good faith questions are fine, are necessary. But these aren't good faith questions. When we have people saying there's "no evidence" that Oswald shot JFK  or "no evidence" he shot Tippit - no evidence at all - then we're not dealing with rational people or people engaged in good faith. We're dealing with a sort of cult mentality that is simply not reachable. It's useless. You can go over it again and again and again and you'll get denial after denial.

As to the "official story": You don't have to believe "the government." The assassination was investigated by major news organizations. They interviewed all of the key witnesses. Yes, they had to rely in part on evidence provided to them, e.g., the rifle, et cetera. But they conducted their own investigation and came to the same conclusions.

But they all lied. Or something. The fact that they found no conspiracy - that Oswald likely shot JFK - is just proof of the need for more investigations. And more questions.

 

'Oswald shot and killed President John F. Kennedy. Unless you ask a Kennedy assassination conspiracy theorist, that is. And if you ask enough Kennedy conspiracy theorists, you'll eventually reach the conclusion that Oswald was the only person alive in 1963 who wasn't involved.' — Steve Shives

[Bill Chapman]

What Chapman in his infinite wisdom refuses to admit is that the WC hypothesis has its own set of logical fallacies.

Nothing to admit: How would I know about any WC logical fallacies, since I apparently 'don't know the first first thing about the assassination' according to you. Not like you're contradicting yourself by trying to have it both ways.

[John Iacoletti]

Nothing to admit: How would I know about any WC logical fallacies, since I apparently 'don't know the first first thing about the assassination' according to you. Not like you're contradicting yourself by trying to have it both ways.

Not only is that a false quote (shame on you), but there’s no contradiction either. You can be ignorant about something and still refuse to admit it.

[Zeon Mason]

IDK why LN have concluded that conspiracy is out of the question

The  theory that iF Oswalds is the one and only assassin , that his motive may be due to OCD and or schizophrenia is certainly a possibility.

The high school counselor thought Oswald might have had delusions of grandeur. However, it’s not  really unusual that teenagers may exhibit such symptoms.

There were the incidents of Oswald supposedly shooting himself in the USMC and the incident supposedly of attempting to slit his wrists in the USSR.

Not really sure myself if these events happened or not , however, EVEN IF they did and EVEN IF this can be posited as some kind of “evidence” to support a lone gunman theory, there is STILL a possibility of a conspiracy to USE this mentally unstable person and place him in proximity to JFK offered  on a silver platter, totally exposed,  and knowing just by arranging that simple proximity event, that the mentally unstable USMC defector will very likely act on his impulse.

[Bill Chapman]

Not only is that a false quote (shame on you), but there’s no contradiction either. You can be ignorant about something and still refuse to admit it.

You've always said that I don't know anything about the assassination, in one way or another. Here's a variant:



There are several more variants in my files and I'll be posting them as I come across them. For all to see.

Run, Johnny... run.

[John Iacoletti]

You've always said that I don't know anything about the assassination, in one way or another. Here's a variant:

“Variant”, LOL.

I guess that’s your way of apologizing for falsely quoting me earlier. Apology accepted!