What a Conspiracy Theorist Needs to Do to be Taken Seriously.

[Joe Elliott]

What a Conspiracy Theorist Needs to Do to be Taken Seriously.

A Conspiracy Theorist needs to establish that he does not believe in a Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy. Hence, his theory cannot not be dismissed out of hand as being wildly unlikely to work, without someone betraying the conspiracy. So, of very high priority is to provide a list of:

* All the tasks carried out by the conspiracy.
* The number of people required to carry out this conspiracy.

JKF Conspiracy theorists have not done so. Even when challenged to do so (with one lone exception) they do not do so. They make excuses for not doing so, like the classic “I’m not going to play your game.” A sure sign that the JFK CTers are Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy believers.

JFK CTers generally give the strong impressions that they are Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy believers. They talk of multiple shooters. Of CIA, FBI, Dallas police, doctors, film experts, photograph experts, Oil companies, etc. participating in this conspiracy. And talk of false autopsy reports, false autopsy X-Rays and photographs, false ballistic evidence, dishonest investigators, etc. And the goal of the conspiracy? To steer the U. S. into a larger Vietnam war. And even to permanently control the U. S. government, as they do to this very day. This does not sound like a small conspiracy.

JFK CTers will claim that they are not Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy believers. But won’t provide a list of what they believe that would support this.

Questions:

Why don’t JFK CTers demonstrate that they are not Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy believers?

Why are JFK CTers reluctant to admit that they are Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy believers?

I suspect CTers will dodge one or both simple questions.

[Jon Banks]

Define “Large Conspiracy”. 3 people? 10 people? 50 people?

Obviously the more individuals who are involved in a conspiracy, the less likely it is to succeed or be kept secret indefinitely.

[Jerry Freeman]

I suspect CTers will dodge one or both simple questions.

If it is all so simple why are people adamantly interested 58 years later and most...unyielding in their viewpoint. Including you.
So Joe Elliot...I don't know who you are but I propose that you know nothing about power..or fear..and most of all.. fear of power.
I also suggest that you don't read posts that you don't agree with anyway. 

[Dan O'meara]

What a Conspiracy Theorist Needs to Do to be Taken Seriously.

A Conspiracy Theorist needs to establish that he does not believe in a Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy. Hence, his theory cannot not be dismissed out of hand as being wildly unlikely to work, without someone betraying the conspiracy. So, of very high priority is to provide a list of:

* All the tasks carried out by the conspiracy.
* The number of people required to carry out this conspiracy.

JKF Conspiracy theorists have not done so. Even when challenged to do so (with one lone exception) they do not do so. They make excuses for not doing so, like the classic “I’m not going to play your game.” A sure sign that the JFK CTers are Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy believers.

JFK CTers generally give the strong impressions that they are Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy believers. They talk of multiple shooters. Of CIA, FBI, Dallas police, doctors, film experts, photograph experts, Oil companies, etc. participating in this conspiracy. And talk of false autopsy reports, false autopsy X-Rays and photographs, false ballistic evidence, dishonest investigators, etc. And the goal of the conspiracy? To steer the U. S. into a larger Vietnam war. And even to permanently control the U. S. government, as they do to this very day. This does not sound like a small conspiracy.

JFK CTers will claim that they are not Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy believers. But won’t provide a list of what they believe that would support this.

Questions:

Why don’t JFK CTers demonstrate that they are not Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy believers?

Why are JFK CTers reluctant to admit that they are Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy believers?

I suspect CTers will dodge one or both simple questions.

The very instant a second (or more) gunman is proposed we have entered Large-Secret-Enduring-Conspiracy territory.
Every single CTer who believes in more than one gunman automatically finds themselves in the LSEC group.

I propose a single gunman firing three shots from the SN.
This requires four conspirators, on the ground, who had foreknowledge of events - Dougherty, Truly, Shelley and Fritz.
Involving a second gunman would increase the complexity of the co-ordination, logistics and execution of the operation exponentially which then requires an ever-increasingly large cover-up.

Here's a very simple question for you Joe - why is it, if these are just everyday working men going about their business, that almost everyone who was on the 6th floor that day lies to the investigating authorities?

You would be the fourth LNer I've put this question to.
All three previous LNers fled from it.
Two of them (wise old heads) refused to even touch it.
The third tried it on another thread you started and you saw what happened to him.

It's not just CTers who have big questions to answer.

[Richard Smith]

The very instant a second (or more) gunman is proposed we have entered Large-Secret-Enduring-Conspiracy territory.
Every single CTer who believes in more than one gunman automatically finds themselves in the LSEC group.

I propose a single gunman firing three shots from the SN.
This requires four conspirators, on the ground, who had foreknowledge of events - Dougherty, Truly, Shelley and Fritz.
Involving a second gunman would increase the complexity of the co-ordination, logistics and execution of the operation exponentially which then requires an ever-increasingly large cover-up.

Here's a very simple question for you Joe - why is it, if these are just everyday working men going about their business, that almost everyone who was on the 6th floor that day lies to the investigating authorities?

You would be the fourth LNer I've put this question to.
All three previous LNers fled from it.
Two of them (wise old heads) refused to even touch it.
The third tried it on another thread you started and you saw what happened to him.

It's not just CTers who have big questions to answer.

You have provided no credible evidence to support the baseless claim that Dougherty, Truly, Shelley and Fritz had any "foreknowledge" of the JFK assassination.   Just asking why these folks "lied" over and over again is not evidence of complicity in the JFK assassination.   In classic CTer tradition, you have substituted your own desired subjective narrative to fill gaps and account for minor, pedantic differences in the testimony.  Witnesses had imperfect knowledge of events.  They often used imprecise language to describe events.  But don't take my word for it.  Since you appear to be convinced of your theory and are dismissive of any other explanations take your "evidence" to the NY Times, Wash Post or some other media outlet and make your case to them.  Surely it is Pulitzer Prize material to solve the JFK assassination by proving the involvement of folks like Truly, Fritz, Shelley, and Dougherty.   If you did so, it would be dismissed as the stuff of Bigfoot and UFOs.  Even the most of the more outlandish JFK CTers have not gone so far as to implicate these ordinary folks in a conspiracy to assassinate the president.  You can dress it up all you want, but it is still tin foil hat nonsense.

[Joe Elliott]

Define “Large Conspiracy”. 3 people? 10 people? 50 people?

Obviously the more individuals who are involved in a conspiracy, the less likely it is to succeed or be kept secret indefinitely.

Three people in a conspiracy is plausible.

Ten people starts to become a little unbelievable, particularly for as outrageous a proposition as assassinating a President. Would someone know nine other people that one can safely approach to invite them to join this scheme? Even if one thinks one knows nine others, is it not the possible that one of them might decide to become a big hero. If one of them alerts the authorities, and the gunman is captured within the last hour red handed with the rifle, the person who turned them in would be a big American hero. Who could resist such a prize? If there is only a ten per cent chance that a certain person would betray the conspiracy in hopes of becoming a big American hero, the odds of success are just under 35 per cent, with about a 65 per cent chance that up to nine would go to prison.

Fifty people in a large conspiracy becomes totally unbelievable. Even if one is 98 per cent confident that each invitee won’t betray them, an implausibly high percentage, the odds that these conspirators will fail and go to prison is still around 63 per cent.

And, I should again note, that assuming there is only a 2 per cent, of even only a 10 per cent chance that a person would betray the conspiracy, is a wildly optimistic estimate. With a more reasonable estimate that there is a 20 per cent chance that a person would make the selfish decision, even if they hate Kennedy, for a chance to be lauded as a great hero, the odds of failure with 10 people is 89 per cent (1 - .8 ** 10) and with 50 people is over 99.99 per cent (1 - .8 ** 50).



So, I have answered your question. How about answering mine. The side without the truth on their side will always dodge questions. Both questions address what you believe probably happened, not what you know for certain happened.

Question 1:

What tasks did the conspiracy successfully complete (the assassination, faking the Zapruder film, faking the autopsy reports, etc.)?

Question 2:

How many people would you estimate would be needed to do all that?

[Joe Elliott]

If it is all so simple why are people adamantly interested 58 years later and most...unyielding in their viewpoint. Including you.

Because Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracy stories have a powerful grip on the imagination. 58 years? That’s nothing. People have been concerned about the powerful Bavarian Illuminati conspiracy for over 250 years. Fear of a large world-wide conspiracy of many Jews, possibly all Jews, as been an obsession with some CTers (not talking about the JFK CTers but the antisemitic CTers), notably the Nazis, for many centuries.

I confess that getting me to yield on my viewpoint, come to believe in the existence of any Large-Secret-Enduring conspiracy theory, including the JFK conspiracy theory, is going to be difficult.

So Joe Elliot...I don't know who you are but I propose that you know nothing about power..or fear..and most of all.. fear of power.

Yes, yes. The same claim that any CTer can use to support their favorite conspiracy theory. The Apollo Moon Landing hoax. The Elders of Zion conspiracy theory. The 2020 Presidential Election was stolen conspiracy theory. All these false conspiracy theories could use the same defense.

You don’t know who I really am? Well, I’m not Joe Elliot. I’m Joe Elliott. You don’t know who I really am? You seem to imply that I might be part of the coverup, possibly a late addition to this conspiracy, in the coverup phase. So, if you want to add my name to your long list of likely conspirators, feel to do so.

Question:

Is your image of this conspiracy so large that you suspect LNers like myself who post on this forum are also part of this conspiracy?

I also suggest that you don't read posts that you don't agree with anyway.

I have limited time so I don’t read all the posts on this board. I go away from the board for days at a time and then come back for an hour, or maybe a few minutes. So, I don’t have time to read all the posts that have come in since I last visited. But I try to guess which ones are pertinent, based on the thread, and read them, regardless of whether I agree with the poster or not. I read and respond to posters I disagree with more than I do with posters I agree with (about the JFK assassination) like Richard Smith or Bill Chapman or any other LNer.

[Joe Elliott]

You have provided no credible evidence to support the baseless claim that Dougherty, Truly, Shelley and Fritz had any "foreknowledge" of the JFK assassination.   Just asking why these folks "lied" over and over again is not evidence of complicity in the JFK assassination.   In classic CTer tradition, you have substituted your own desired subjective narrative to fill gaps and account for minor, pedantic differences in the testimony.  Witnesses had imperfect knowledge of events.  They often used imprecise language to describe events.  But don't take my word for it.  Since you appear to be convinced of your theory and are dismissive of any other explanations take your "evidence" to the NY Times, Wash Post or some other media outlet and make your case to them.  Surely it is Pulitzer Prize material to solve the JFK assassination by proving the involvement of folks like Truly, Fritz, Shelley, and Dougherty.   If you did so, it would be dismissed as the stuff of Bigfoot and UFOs.  Even the most of the more outlandish JFK CTers have not gone so far as to implicate these ordinary folks in a conspiracy to assassinate the president.  You can dress it up all you want, but it is still tin foil hat nonsense.

I don’t know much about Dougherty, Truly, Shelly and Fritz but I suspect Richard is right. But, the one thing Dan O’meara has going for him is that he is proposing a Small-Secret-Enduring conspiracy, which is not nearly as implausible as a Large-Secret-Enduring conspiracy. But the story of some TSBD workers and a single Dallas police detective is not nearly as compelling as a Large-Secret-Enduring conspiracy, involving the CIA, the FBI, the Dallas police department and host of others (politicians, doctors, photograph and film experts, ballistic experts) so Dan’s story is rejected by the vast majority of CTers in favor of some other much more sensational, but wildly improbable story.