Premier Rock Forum

Posted: **Wed Jun 18, 2008 7:13 pm**

After spending the last part of the eleventh grade studying this, I am still not sure what I believe about this, but I never miss an opportunity to show off my JFK Cake.

Posted: **Wed Jun 18, 2008 7:15 pm**

Consider me a supporter of the delicious gun man theory.

Posted: **Wed Jun 18, 2008 7:17 pm**

big_dave wrote:Haha.

Posted: **Wed Jun 18, 2008 8:17 pm**

Rick Reuben wrote:I wrote this play after reading that horseshit:

Big Dave: "It would take a New World Order to perpetrate 9/11."

Clocker Bob: "So you are saying there is a New World Order?"

BD: "Of course not. But it would take one to perpetrate 9/11."

CB: "So you're saying that there isn't a New World Order?"

BD: "Right."

CB: "So if there isn't a New World Order, then there is a motive for one of the unaligned concentrations of power on Earth to gain more power through synthetic terror."

BD: "No. Only an existing New World Order could carry out a job like 9/11."

CB: "But you just said there isn't a New World Order."

BD: "There isn't."

CB: "Then how can you use an organization that does not exist ( according to you ) to debunk 9/11 conspiracy theories? Wouldn't a logical person use only organizations that they think actually exist as evidence against 9/11 conspiracy theories?"

BD: "Urrr... Only a NWO could commit 9/11!"

CB: "I heard you the first time. And I also heard you say there was no New World Order."

BD: "Urrr..."

Tom's script was better.

Posted: **Thu Jun 19, 2008 12:40 pm**

big_dave wrote:I don't really have an opinion on the JFK assasination past the fact that the single bullet theory is plausible and the front bullet theory is unprovable without specific evidence.

I prefer to think that - in isolation - the single bullet theory could be plausible and the front bullet theory is also plausible.
i fail to see how either are provable at this point.

Who's confirmation bias were you talking about?

I didn't read any wiki article cause I didn't need to. But I've looked as you mentioned it again (for reasons I am perplexed about) and found it amusing that I have this quote on my office wall.

"I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life"

.

big_dave wrote:I don't care if the conspiracy theories are likely or not, I think what is more interesting is that the shooting of an unproven president impacted the popular psyche enough to generate them in a wide spectrum from the plausible to the neurotic.

Cool for you.
I am interested in the latter and the former.

As with many things what is the simplest theory depends on your interpretation.
I - personally - do not see a single individual aided by mind boggling security and intelligence incompetence and incredible coincidence as the simplest theory.
Kennedy being whacked by professional assassins by powerful enemies with an enormous amount to lose seems like a simpler explanation to me.

But there you go.

big_dave wrote:There is no "official story".

Posted: **Thu Jun 19, 2008 1:39 pm**

Earwicker wrote:Who's confirmation bias were you talking about?

The confirmation bias that is required by any JFK conspiracy, in the light of there being no specific evidence to support the front bullet theory or the presence of a "badge man". Of course, neither is conclusive, but the single bullet (as opposed to the "magic bullet" that explains everything) has not be successfully debunked whereas a GCSE student with a lot of time on his hands could debunk most of the front bullet theories.

An equal amount of circumstancial information could be gathered to support any theory about the JFK shooting as is there to support non-LHO theories. Confirmation bias is looking for information that confirms the pattern. If you are looking for a conspiracy, likely you will find it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia

big_dave wrote:There is no "official story".

Well, there isn't. It isn't illegal for an American to say that LHO didn't shoot JFK, and if evidence counter to the WC report is found, someone else could still be prosecuted (I assume).

Posted: **Thu Jun 19, 2008 2:10 pm**

Since when does 'official story' imply illegality, and lack of prosecution in light of new evidence? Of course there's an official story about JFK, and any other assassination/conspiratorial topic.

Posted: **Thu Jun 19, 2008 2:13 pm**

OK, so you admit that the term "official story" is airy and means nothing, and shouldn't be used outside of vaguery and rhetoric?

Posted: **Thu Jun 19, 2008 2:16 pm**

big_dave wrote:OK, so you admit that the term "official story" is airy and means nothing, and shouldn't be used outside of vaguery and rhetoric?

No, it definitely means something. Obviously, it's the consensus version of events.

Posted: **Thu Jun 19, 2008 2:17 pm**

That doesn't make any sense. Whose consensus?

Premier Rock Forum

Lone nut or orchestrated plot?

Lone nut or orchestrated plot?

Lone nut or orchestrated plot?

Lone nut or orchestrated plot?

Lone nut or orchestrated plot?

Lone nut or orchestrated plot?

Lone nut or orchestrated plot?

Lone nut or orchestrated plot?

Lone nut or orchestrated plot?

Lone nut or orchestrated plot?

Lone nut or orchestrated plot?