|
Why is every remaining hard core climate denialist I've ever met invariably a hard core capitalist libertarian with zero science education? It's always the same type of dude. The sort of sleazy wanna-be tycoon with maybe a small business or some get-rich scheme. He hates the government for over-regulating him and will rant and rave about how global warming is all bunk because (insane anecdotal reasons) and (10 years worth of discredited denialist theories) or "Well actually climate change will be really good for north america" (which I believe is also bunk). None of them are in the coal or auto industries, none are captains of industry, none have any actual vested interest in climate change being "real" or not. Yet every single drat one of them has been nearly a clone of each other right down to being sexist pieces of poo poo. It's the same poo poo -There's a lot of science both ways, I'm not convinced and I think if the evidence was convincing the market would be responding to it. -We've had cold winters and warm winters all my life, it's just a phase, something something sunspots elninio we really don't understand climates it could be anything. -I don't think it's fair for us to have to cripple our economy just to make some special interest group happy. -We've already lost enough jobs to china, why don't we make china clean up before we do here?? -The earth is very resilient. How can someone like you who believes so strongly in evolution think the earth won't adapt? -For every acre of farmland lost in a foreign country will be gaining even more in Canada and we have much better farming methods so this will be good for the food supply, a great opportunity for Canada! -Listen, this is just an attack on capitalism. The loony left failed with communism and now they're trying again with this green poo poo, it's all the same leftist extremism. It's all trying to have government tell us what we can do. They just want to control you in the name of some false crisis. -I guess something is clearly happening but I don't think it's what the loony left scientists say it is and I don't think our economy has anything to do with it. Often said by the SAME PERSON. They'll say it isn't happening, then say it will be great for canada, then say it's all a leftist conspiracy, then say its happening but we can't stop it, but also it's not happening. But TLDR of all their rants is always "Don't worry about climate change, just lower taxes and regulations and capitalism will solve it all even though it's not happening" What I find really scary is the "leftist conspiracy" thing. I hear that a lot. In fact the Czech republic's last president was an outspoken proponent of that theory. Ranted about how communism was never defeated it just re-marketed it self as environmentalism but it's the same movement, a moment bent on telling free people what they can and can't do. Pollution regulations are basically Holodomor 2. Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 18:23 on Jan 20, 2014 |
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 18:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 08:12 |
|
|
RandomPauI posted:There's a podcast called "Blame It on Outer Space" which is supposed to be a comedy show about conspiracy theories and theorists. Is it any good? Yeah, it's pretty dang funny. First one or two episodes are a bit slow, but it gets much better after that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:None of them are in the coal or auto industries, none are captains of industry, none have any actual vested interest in climate change being "real" or not. Yet every single drat one of them has been nearly a clone of each other right down to being sexist pieces of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
Forgall posted:Maybe they are stamped out at some clone factory. How's that for conspiracy theory. Every single drat one has been a hard core MRA as well. Not a few, not most, every single one. Global warming is clearly a feminist conspiracy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
I live in Austin, and have to constantly hear the Alex Jones Infowars bullshit. It's actually very common and popular here. I don't subscribe to much in the way of conspiracy theories, but to actually view the Warren Commission as a credible investigation is absurd. There are quite a few strange things that occurred with regards to the JFK assassination, with many strange connections as well. Oswald as a lone, disenfranchised gunman just doesn't hold up. The Man Who Killed Kennedy by Roger Stone (former White House chief of staff) is an excellent write up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Why is every remaining hard core climate denialist I've ever met invariably a hard core capitalist libertarian with zero science education? A legitimate conspiracy theory. The right-wing establishment has made climate-denialism (yes I know it's not a real word) a defining issue for them for the sake of the supportive industries that would be adversely affected by efforts to curb climate change. This doesn't just include the oil and automotive industry, but literally any corporation or business that deals with energy, transportation, and even food in a substantial measure. From there, it just came down to making up the talking points you listed in your post and implementing what you learned in media manipulation 101. One argument I have heard from the same people that breaks the mold is that it's too late to do anything to change climate change, so the only thing we should do is respond to it as the effects become apparent. I mean, at least he's admitting climate change is real, right?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
Yeah I hear that a lot from not outright denialists, but people who were skeptic. Their whole thing is that it's going to be very expensive dealing with climate change so lets make sure we have a strong rich economy. Which invariably means horrible right wing economic policies with proven track records of making a few people insanely rich and the country far worse off.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
white privilege posted:I live in Austin, and have to constantly hear the Alex Jones Infowars bullshit. It's actually very common and popular here. I don't subscribe to much in the way of conspiracy theories, but to actually view the Warren Commission as a credible investigation is absurd. There are quite a few strange things that occurred with regards to the JFK assassination, with many strange connections as well. Do you have any coherent ideas as to what actually happened or are you "just asking questions?" Jesus it's like clockwork.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
I'm no conspiracy theorist, and I think Oswald shot Kennedy, but the idea that in a year like 1964 something like the Warren Commission could have been a no-holds-barred exploration of everything about the Kennedy assassination is not very realistic. [edit] full disclosure - I live in Austin too but I'm not an Alex Jones fan in any way whatsoever except that the youtube where he goes Super Saiyan is p. funny. You can find stacks of Infowars all over the place; car repair shops, hipster hair salons, restaurant waiting areas, etc. There are little spray-painted Infowars bugs all over the place too. It's like a community mental disease. emfive fucked around with this message at 20:57 on Jan 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 20:55
|
|
|
I don't think anyone is denying the warren commision was rather hastily thrown together (and if it hadn't been we wouldn't still be arguing about it) it's just that the final point remains the same despite that: Oswald shot Kennedy alone.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
white privilege posted:but to actually view the Warren Commission as a credible investigation is absurd. There are quite a few strange things that occurred with regards to the JFK assassination, with many strange connections as well. Oswald as a lone, disenfranchised gunman just doesn't hold up. The Man Who Killed Kennedy by Roger Stone (former White House chief of staff) is an excellent write up. The thing about all those "connections" is how often they fall apart with any scrutiny. They end up having innocent explanations, are coincidences, or didn't happen at all. See Jim Garrison prosecuting an innocent man almost entirely on the word of one witness who a ten year old (and more importantly, a jury and just about everyone who worked for Garrison) could tell was completely full of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
Carlos Marcello had Kennedy killed, Oswald was the patsy. Who do you think is more likely to be able to kill an American president, a "lone nut" like Oswald or a man that ran the Mafia operations in Louisiana and Texas?"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Marcello posted:In its investigation of the assassination of John F. Kennedy, the House Select Committee on Assassinations said that it recognized Jack Ruby's murder of Lee Harvey Oswald as a primary reason to suspect organized crime as possibly having involvement in the assassination.[6] In its investigation, the HSCA noted the presence of "credible associations relating both Lee Harvey Oswald and Jack Ruby to figures having a relationship, albeit tenuous, with Marcello's crime family or organization."[6] Their report stated: "The committee found that Marcello had the motive, means and opportunity to have President John F. Kennedy assassinated, though it was unable to establish direct evidence of Marcello's complicity."[6] JFK assigned RFK to investigate union corruption and racketeering. RFK vigorously prosecuted mobsters, particularly Carlos Marcello, eventually dumping him off in the jungles of South America and forcing him to walk 15 miles with a broken rib before getting some help. Marcello was at risk of losing everything - his empire, his prestige, and even his freedom, if prosecutions went through as they were expected to. With his back up against the wall, I think it far more likely that Marcello was indeed behind the assassination of John F. Kennedy. There really is a mountain of evidence indicating that it wasn't one "lone nut" and the Warren report is complete trash.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
King of Hamas posted:Carlos Marcello had Kennedy killed, Oswald was the patsy. Who do you think is more likely to be able to kill an American president, a "lone nut" like Oswald or a man that ran the Mafia operations in Louisiana and Texas? Why not the CIA? What are you hiding? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
The House Select Committee on Assassinations was all but done with its work and was ready to release their report. It would have said that although the Warren Commission wasn't perfect (surprise, surprise), it nonetheless got the broad strokes correct: Oswald was the only shooter and was not aided by any entity. Then came the acoustic "evidence". A dictabelt recording supposedly capturing the gunshots in Dealey by a motorcycle cop turned up. Scientists that analyzed it said that with a nearly 100% level of certainty, the recording captured four shots. Four shots means one more round than can be accounted for by Oswald, therefore, conspiracy. The HSC had a problem. Since they fell for *cough* excuse me, accepted the scientists report, they now had to backtrack and apply a conspiracy despite not thinking there was one prior to the acoustic evidence. So they went with what they thought was the "best" of the theories, that it was mob run. So what's the problem? The acoustic evidence was horseshit. Completely wrong, no ambiguity, totally false. The HSC's Chief Counsel and Staff Director, G. Robert Blakey, said point blank that if the acoustic evidence was found to be false, then it would more or less destroy the conspiracy theory that the committee, in no small part based on his beliefs as he was involved in organized crime prosecution, had come to. The acoustic evidence has been proven false, yet to my knowledge, Blakey has not backed down on his conspiracy theory, which admittedly would be inconvenient given that he published his own book on the assassination. TL,DR: The House Select Committee came to its final conclusion based on garbage evidence.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 23:20
|
|
|
People seriously believe a 2-bit bayou gangster would have the clout to off a sitting POTUS? You'd think that'd happen a lot more if that were possible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 23:45
|
|
|
I knew the mob angle was just a cover for the aliens from the moon shooting JFK with their space hologram beams. That's why the moon landings were faked, by the way. Like hell the aliens would ever let a spacecraft get near the moon, nor was Nixon interested in getting assassinated either, but he couldn't let the US appear to fail at its pledge.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 23:49
|
|
|
It's the same with a ton of conspiracy theories, from 9/11 to Vaccinations causing autism. Some dubious "evidence" is presented and a conspiracy theory evolves to explain it. The evidence is proven false without a shadow of a doubt but the conspiracy remains because humans are loving emotional babies that have to hold onto their first opinion on everything and it's incredibly hard to dislodge it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2014 23:51
|
|
|
Big Beef City posted:People seriously believe a 2-bit bayou gangster would have the clout to off a sitting POTUS? Dismissing the lone gunman also ignores a few other things. 1) Security was much more lax then than now. More than 15 years later, with tighter security, a lone nut got to President Reagan. But for his poor choice of firearm and bad aim, he might have killed him. As it was he still almost succeeded. 2) Not only is it possible for a lone nut to pull it off, in many ways the lone nut is the ideal assassin. Conspiracies get broken up or discovered because more than one person knows about them and they shoot off their mouth to someone they shouldn't have. Or they turn on the others to protect themselves. If one person is involved, there's no one that can foul it up but them. There's no "chatter" for law enforcement to pick up on prior to the event. 3) The, "sorry old Oswald couldn't do it alone" idea assumes that what he did was extraordinarily hard. It wasn't. Anyone in personal security will tell you that if a person truly wants to get to someone, they usually can. And if they don't care about getting caught or killed, it's almost luck and luck alone that stops them. Though Oswald ran, he obviously had no detailed escape plan. In fact, almost everything he did after the shooting contributed to his getting caught. The marksmanship has already been discussed, the shots were nothing special at all. What it comes down to is a disturbing notion. Murder is about the desire to do it. That's basically all that stops us from killing each other in far greater numbers, we don't want to. It reminds me of 9/11, my then fiance' was in Virginia and I was in California visiting family. We were on the phone talking about it that evening, and she said, "How did they pull this off?" And I explained that the act itself was easy. They didn't need to be ninjas to get control of the planes in the first place, and once in control, they only had to be able to steer the planes, not fly them in any complex manner. They pulled it off because they were driven, willing to kill, and willing to die.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
Mr. Funny Pants posted:Anyone in personal security will tell you that if a person truly wants to get to someone, they usually can. This movie scene sums up that point pretty well (for some reason it's not starting at 1:17, but whatever).
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 00:52
|
|
|
ThirdPartyView posted:This movie scene sums up that point pretty well (for some reason it's not starting at 1:17, but whatever). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7fsxnzZF9w&t=15s
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 01:06
|
|
|
Not to mention, the mob (despite their portrayal in movies) is full of stupid goons with no loyalty. Someone would have talked.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 01:08
|
|
|
ThirdPartyView posted:This movie scene sums up that point pretty well (for some reason it's not starting at 1:17, but whatever). I was hoping this was gonna be Mitchum in Cape Fear.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 01:15
|
|
|
Big Beef City posted:People seriously believe a 2-bit bayou gangster would have the clout to off a sitting POTUS? haha yes, the de facto ruler of Louisiana didn't have the clout or the connections but a two-bit marine dropout with a record of lousy marksmanship shot JFK, that's obviously what happened.  This picture needs a laugh track to go with it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 03:35
|
|
|
King of Hamas posted:haha yes, the de facto ruler of Louisiana didn't have the clout or the connections but a two-bit marine dropout with a record of lousy marksmanship shot JFK, that's obviously what happened. Read the goddamned thread. That drawing is no better a depiction of reality than dogs playing poker. His marksmanship record was mostly excellent with a drop off right before he defected. Aside from that, the shots weren't hard, they were gimmes for anyone with a bit of experience.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 03:42
|
|
|
Mr. Funny Pants posted:Read the goddamned thread. That drawing is no better a depiction of reality than dogs playing poker. His marksmanship record was mostly excellent with a drop off right before he defected. Aside from that, the shots weren't hard, they were gimmes for anyone with a bit of experience. Not to mention the image assumes that Kennedy and Connally were sitting at the same height, when in reality Kennedy was sitting much higher than Connally. But don't let that stop the conspiracy train, because any evidence against is still evidence for.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 05:39
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:Not to mention the image assumes that Kennedy and Connally were sitting at the same height, when in reality Kennedy was sitting much higher than Connally. But don't let that stop the conspiracy train, because any evidence against is still evidence for. Kennedy was not only higher, Connally was also several inches in-board. And maybe most important of all, he was turned to his right such that his torso was almost perpendicular to Kennedy's.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 05:59
|
|
|
You do realize that Oswald and LKT invented a soldier and had twenty elected officials just chomping at the bit to meet the guy, right? He was more than competent. Lee Harvey Oswald made a fake person drive real trucks. e:Wrong post. Big Hubris fucked around with this message at 06:16 on Jan 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 06:05
|
|
|
I subscribe to the belief that Spock killed JFK.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 06:40
|
|
|
King of Hamas posted:haha yes, the de facto ruler of Louisiana didn't have the clout or the connections but a two-bit marine dropout with a record of lousy marksmanship shot JFK, that's obviously what happened. So, uh, what's your pet theory that explains all of the holes in their bodies and involves more than one bullet?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 06:43
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:I subscribe to the belief that Spock killed JFK. Spock on a grassy knoll shooting JFK and then making some sort of swartznegger style one liner ("Why I'd like to give you a pice of my mind Spock!.", "The president has already done that, Bones.") in the head would have been one of the most badass moments in cinematic history. duck monster fucked around with this message at 06:58 on Jan 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 06:51
|
|
|
ohgodwhat posted:So, uh, what's your pet theory that explains all of the holes in their bodies and involves more than one bullet? Magic Illuminati Zionist powers
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 06:54
|
|
|
I've never been nor do I consider myself a conspiracy theorist, it is entirely plausible that Oswald acted alone and killed JFK. It is entirely plausible we don't know everything there is to know about it. If you start following the Jack Ruby string it really does make you scratch your head because the simplest explanation that he "felt bad for Jacky" almost seems too convenient Now here's the thing about 9/11 Truther poo poo that drives me up the wall. If it was in fact an inside job, why on God's green loving earth would Bush choose to use Saudi hijackers? If the point was to have an excuse to go to war with Iraq, surely we would have paid or invented Iraqis to do the job and even bumped them up to Iraqi intelligence status. Choosing Saudis when our connection to Saudi Arabia was already questionable would be like trying to go to war with North Korea by orchestrating a Chinese false flag terrorist plot (okay this analogy sucks since our relationship with China is nowhere near as friendly but still) . If it's an inside job by the Bush admin it's an incredibly incompetent one. Thing about conspiracy theories in general, whether it's 9/11 truth or Holocaust denial, is the basis of it is "prove to me this happened" and every presentable evidence becomes doctored because "prove to me it's not doctored" If we're relying on our own empirical knowledge than that kinda limits our worldview since "The Holocaust never happened" could easily become "World War II never happened" since I personally was born after it ended and have never experienced it personally. Everyone who says they did clearly are making it up I'm in LA and during the Dorner manhunt a lot of conspiracy theories came out of that too. Everything from "Dorner is being framed" to "Dorner was already dead in Iraq and they are using him as a puppet to take away all the guns" the latter of which I personally got to overhear at a restaurant in Hollywood by two clearly intelligent individuals who probably work as crew in movies and TV. I've always found it funny when production people believe conspiracy theories. On the one hand when you work in show business it's easy to believe in the tenuous nature veneer of reality and how easy it is to fool people with a little sleight of hand, but on the other hand it's kinda hard to hire non-union background extras to fake a bombing in Boston and trust them to not leak that kinda poo poo on social media
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 08:24
|
|
|
One of my favorite bits of sketch comedy involves a game show based around the Kennedy assassination. At one point Bill Nye and two other contestants are given 10 seconds to share their own personal conspiracy theory and Nye absolutely nails it! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXRslcMsGlQ#t=3m11s RandomPauI fucked around with this message at 17:20 on Jan 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 10:27
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Why is every remaining hard core climate denialist I've ever met invariably a hard core capitalist libertarian with zero science education? It's always the same type of dude. The sort of sleazy wanna-be tycoon with maybe a small business or some get-rich scheme. He hates the government for over-regulating him and will rant and rave about how global warming is all bunk because (insane anecdotal reasons) and (10 years worth of discredited denialist theories) or "Well actually climate change will be really good for north america" (which I believe is also bunk). There's a certain mindset common to libertarians where they tend to think because obviously they're the smartest guy in the room they've found various secret shortcuts or hidden advantages against the establishment that nobody else knows about, which generally take the form of a get-rich quick scheme like you mentioned or more often than not starting a business but ignoring every regulation possible to save money. It's a large part of the basis for their dislike of government/the state/whatever because they internalized the Marxist concept of the superstructure writing laws to benefit itself. But in their thinking they've reduced it to meaning fire and health codes are there to screw the small business owner because they can't afford extra windows, or not to store flammable materials in the mop sink next to an open flame because it'll eat into their profits. RandomPauI posted:One of my favorite bits of sketch comedy involves a game show based around the Kennedy assassination. At one point Bill Nye and two other contestants are given 10 seconds to share their own personal conspiracy theory and Nye absolutely nails it! Haha oh man I knew as soon as you said Bill Nye it was that Almost Live sketch. I've been telling people a tiger got JFK for years because of that show. Alec Bald Snatch fucked around with this message at 10:42 on Jan 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 10:35
|
|
|
Alan Smithee posted:I've never been nor do I consider myself a conspiracy theorist, it is entirely plausible that Oswald acted alone and killed JFK. It is entirely plausible we don't know everything there is to know about it. If you start following the Jack Ruby string it really does make you scratch your head because the simplest explanation that he "felt bad for Jacky" almost seems too convenient The "string" unravels when you examine it closely. And the same argument that people make against Oswald being the shooter (he was incompetent, the mob or CIA wouldn't have given him such a big job) is actually accurate regarding Ruby. Ruby was, putting it charitably, a hothead. Putting it less charitably, he was a loving nut known for extreme mood swings. And I go back to the problem with saying that Ruby shooting Oswald was a setup. Only minutes before the shooting, Ruby was at a Western Union calmly waiting in line and then, also calmly, wiring one of his strippers some money. He gets to the police station with drat near no time to spare. And, Oswald was late for the transfer. The time stamp for Ruby's wire transfer was 11:17. He shot Oswald at 11:21. If Oswald doesn't ask for his sweater or whatever it was (I'm having an old man moment and forgetting the exact reason for the delay, I know it had something to do with retrieving some sort of clothing), he might have been in the car and safely away by the time Ruby got there. Would a mobster given the task of killing the accused assassin of the president cut things that freaking close? One other thing, and it's hardly proof of anything but it's one of those little things to consider. Ruby had a dog that he treated like his child, he was insanely doting on it. He had the dog with him on the trip to the Western Union office and left it in the car when he went to make the wire transfer. Why would a guy who was obsessed with his dog leave it in his car if he knew he was about to either be shot or arrested? Maybe because he thought he was only going to be there a short time and the dog would be fine.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 14:50
|
|
|
Mr. Funny Pants posted:Read the goddamned thread. That drawing is no better a depiction of reality than dogs playing poker. His marksmanship record was mostly excellent with a drop off right before he defected. Aside from that, the shots weren't hard, they were gimmes for anyone with a bit of experience. How many bullets does it take to get to the Tootsie Center of a sitting President? The world may never know.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 17:16
|
|
|
You can't read a particular book or watch a documentary on a subject and believe that it presents the only reasonable explanation. Single books or documentaries pushing a 'controversial' explanation are going to selectively present the evidence to support their viewpoints. There are many Jack the Ripper books out there, and they generally present what seems to be a perfectly reasonable explanation as to why a particular person was Jack the Ripper, and if you read them you'll probably be left with the impression that yes, that person certainly was Jack the Ripper, mystery solved. Except a lot of them present different people as the suspect.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
Red Warrior posted:You can't read a particular book or watch a documentary on a subject and believe that it presents the only reasonable explanation. Single books or documentaries pushing a 'controversial' explanation are going to selectively present the evidence to support their viewpoints. This is a great point. Another example is the Zodiac killer. If you've seen David Fincher's movie, you'll likely think his top suspect is the killer. And if you look at the list of reasons that he was a suspect, you'd think, "Holy poo poo, this has to be the guy." And yet the detectives who worked the case said they had a long list of people who had as many things that tied them to the crimes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
Mr. Funny Pants posted:The "string" unravels when you examine it closely. And the same argument that people make against Oswald being the shooter (he was incompetent, the mob or CIA wouldn't have given him such a big job) is actually accurate regarding Ruby. Ruby was, putting it charitably, a hothead. Putting it less charitably, he was a loving nut known for extreme mood swings. That doesn't really explain much. Yeah, hypothetically you wouldn't send some an unhinged hothead to kill someone who killed the president, but the mafia is a very hotheaded organization (if memory serves, so was the CIA of that time, but I'm not going anywhere near that). It doesn't take much intellegence (or wisdom, really) to be a successful crime boss, let alone enough to kill a world leader (or their killer). As for the time, yes you would think someone given the task of killing the president's assassins would be more attentive towards something like that, but if what people say about Jack Ruby is true, he's the type who'd believe he could get away with overlooking that detail (and was right only by pure luck). Unless the more specific details go against it, it still could fit with Ruby being tasked with killing Oswald. For why he brought his dog, he could have figured it would have been easier to find (and be taken care) if it was in his car. Yeah, this is a pretty piss poor excuse, but the official explanation is so terrible practically anything is at least more believable than it, if not outright calls into question the validity of the explanation. This doesn't mean people have free reign to act like they figured out the truth of the situation, but it does mean that a more thorough examination (and explanation) is needed before certain possibilities can be disregarded. Edit: To balance that out: Red Warrior posted:You can't read a particular book or watch a documentary on a subject and believe that it presents the only reasonable explanation. Single books or documentaries pushing a 'controversial' explanation are going to selectively present the evidence to support their viewpoints. MizPiz fucked around with this message at 20:04 on Jan 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 08:12 |
|
|
MizPiz posted:the official explanation is so terrible practically anything is at least more believable than it How so? There's a long history of lone nuts with guns assassinating political leaders. It happens pretty frequently. What's unbelievable about it? Heck, 1 out of 11 Presidents were shot to death and there are at least 6 incidents where Presidents were shot at that I can recall. That doesn't even count poisonings, bombings, and other attempts against the President. The Oswald lone shooter hypothesis makes the most sense. boner confessor fucked around with this message at 20:07 on Jan 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2014 20:04
|
|