Too many conspiracy theories - isn't this the problem?

[Tom Mahon]

MY 942 postings krapp on your 273 i bet.

Tak, just quantitatively, not qualitatively.

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

Tak, just quantitatively, not qualitatively.

I nailed what Oswald did, & what Hickey did.
Plus good stuff re Hoffman & many others.

[Tom Mahon]

I nailed what Oswald did, & what Hickey did.
Plus good stuff re Hoffman & many others.

LOL!

Good one!

[John Iacoletti]

I would urge my fellow CTers to get their act together and focus on establishing a single, plausible, evidence-based theory.

Why, when "history" has never established one either?

[Zeon Mason]

The WC  wrote 26 volumes trying to explain
their simple to understand /no conspiracy/ lone Kook theory.

So it’s no wonder that there is an even greater number of volumes written by CTs criticizing the “establishment” narrative.

The 1st sign of something not quite right was the very same day when the interrogation of Oswald began without an attorney present nor any recording device and or camera recording of Oswald’s statements.

It was then apparent that something was seriously amiss when Oswald was shot by Ruby in front of the camera.

It just kept going downhill from that point and the public just became ever more suspicious especially when Ruby made his famous camera speech and then Ruby died in the prison after getting an injection.

It was soon an avalanche of inquiry exposing all the flaws in the WC volumes over the next 60 years. That is why the majority opinion of the public remains that the WC lone kook theory is not the whole story.

Maybe the release of all remaining documents by the Trump admin will shed some new light that may resolve the issue once and for all.

But if history is any indication, most likely there will just be more anomalous stuff that complicates it even more.

[Richard Smith]

The CTer "mind" can rarely entertain the concept of a single narrative.  Those that do are easily exposed as the most deranged (body alterations, faked JFK death, SS agent accidental shooting).  As a result, there often is no specific theory much less any agreed upon theory.  There is simply a morass of information selectively nitpicked that lends itself to countless possibilities.  Many cannot even concede that they are CTers because they refuse to acknowledge the consequences of their own doubts about Oswald's guilt having any validity.  If not Oswald, then who or what?  They don't care.  They go into hysterics if asked to explain what they think happened if, for example, Oswald didn't own and possess the rifle found on the 6th floor.  How did it get there, who possessed it etc.?  What evidence exists to support these counter possibilities?  There's no interest in addressing those issues that arise by direct implication if their concerns with "chain of evidence" or other nonsense have any validity.   The most defensible CTer position is not to take one due the lack of supporting evidence and absurdity of any specific theory in the context of the known facts and evidence.  Instead, it's just an endless defense attorney game to suggest false doubt.  Repeated endlessly.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

The CTer "mind" can rarely entertain the concept of a single narrative.  Those that do are easily exposed as the most deranged (body alterations, faked JFK death, SS agent accidental shooting).  As a result, there often is no specific theory much less any agreed upon theory.  There is simply a morass of information selectively nitpicked that lends itself to countless possibilities.  Many cannot even concede that they are CTers because they refuse to acknowledge the consequences of their own doubts about Oswald's guilt having any validity.  If not Oswald, then who or what?  They don't care.  They go into hysterics if asked to explain what they think happened if, for example, Oswald didn't own and possess the rifle found on the 6th floor.  How did it get there, who possessed it etc.?  What evidence exists to support these counter possibilities?  There's no interest in addressing those issues that arise by direct implication if their concerns with "chain of evidence" or other nonsense have any validity.   The most defensible CTer position is not to take one due the lack of supporting evidence and absurdity of any specific theory in the context of the known facts and evidence.  Instead, it's just an endless defense attorney game to suggest false doubt.  Repeated endlessly.

One would think that after 60+ years of this that the conspiracy explanation would narrow, be more streamlined, coalesce or converge around a single explanation. It only happened one way and after all of their work that one explanation, or something approximating it, should have been discovered and agreed to. "We agree of this and this but throw out that" sort of process.

That hasn't happened. Instead the reverse has taken place: we've seen their Rube Goldberg explanation become more complex and convoluted with more bells and whistles and more elements added over time. Nothing is thrown away; everything is added somewhere. It's no longer a single machine with a few elements but multiple ones with a dizzying array of parts and elements. It all collapses on its own inconsistencies. As in: the media has covered up what happened, i.e., Operation Mockingbird. But the same media exposed the abuses of the CIA and FBI. The "Family Jewels". So the media has both exposed the conspiracies and covered them up. Seymour Hersh said that when he told Oliver Stone that his theory was preposterous that Stone replied, "I always knew you were CIA." So Hersh is both the person who exposed the abuses of the CIA but is also covering them up. Whew.

The problem is that people simply can't believe that Oswald could change history so much. There has to be more. So the conspiracy arguments - as illogical and inconsistent as they are -  satisfy that need, that desire for a greater explanation of events. All we have is some crank with a rifle. Which is more appealing?

[Richard Smith]

One would think that after 60+ years of this that the conspiracy explanation would narrow, be more streamlined, coalesce or converge around a single explanation. It only happened one way and after all of their work that one explanation, or something approximating it, should have been discovered and agreed to. "We agree of this and this but throw out that" sort of process.

That hasn't happened. Instead the reverse has taken place: we've seen their Rube Goldberg explanation become more complex and convoluted with more bells and whistles and more elements added over time. Nothing is thrown away; everything is added somewhere. It's no longer a single machine with a few elements but multiple ones with a dizzying array of parts and elements. It all collapses on its own inconsistencies. As in: the media has covered up what happened, i.e., Operation Mockingbird. But the same media exposed the abuses of the CIA and FBI. The "Family Jewels". So the media has both exposed the conspiracies and covered them up. Seymour Hersh said that when he told Oliver Stone that his theory was preposterous that Stone replied, "I always knew you were CIA." So Hersh is both the person who exposed the abuses of the CIA but is also covering them up. Whew.

The problem is that people simply can't believe that Oswald could change history so much. There has to be more. So the conspiracy arguments - as illogical and inconsistent as they are -  satisfy that need, that desire for a greater explanation of events. All we have is some crank with a rifle. Which is more appealing?

The CTer "mind" does not operate in a linear manner.  They play an endless Kevin Bacon game with information.   This arises out of necessity because the facts and circumstances don't lend themselves to their desired outcome.  They have some subconscious understanding of this.  The conspiracy itself is conjured up to explain away why they can't prove that someone other than Oswald was involved.  A Catch-22 of insanity.  The conspiracy precludes proof of a conspiracy.