General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Mass Media ignoring 'RFK Believed in Conspiracy' shows corrupt nature of America's Press [View all]William Seger
(10,778 posts)> Your entire comment is based on a personal opinion that anyone who dares to ask questions as citizens are supposed to do, as Bush Sr. said, must be 'a conspiracist'.
No, it certainly is not. You seem to be deliberately avoiding what I've actually said several times, so let's try it one last time: I don't have any problem whatsoever with "anyone who dares to ask questions," and I defy you to find any example from me (or anyone else on this board, that I know of) who "attacked" someone for "asking questions." But conspiricists only "ask questions" as a rhetorical device, as if to say there can't be any other answer than the one they've already decided on. Don't call it "asking questions" if you're going to ignore any answers that don't fit what you've already decided; you're not being intellectually honest. My problem is with people who ignore what the evidence says is the best answer in order to assert implausible answers that they can't substantiate and which are based on paranoid intuition rather than credible evidence. I happen to think it really does matter whether or not there was a conspiracy to kill JFK and whether or not "9/11 was an inside job," so I want the best possible answer, not bullshit based on starting with a conclusion and digging backwards through the evidence looking for nothing but validation and either ignoring everything that doesn't fit or dismissing it out-of-hand as being faked. Contrary to your assertion, my entire comment is based on a personal opinion that that's not what "citizens are supposed to do." The issues are too important for sloppy thinking.
> As for your assertion that I accept Stone's or anyone else's opinion of what happened that day, that is an assumption on your part.
You've made it quite clear that you are absolutely certain there was a conspiracy, and you assert that anyone who disputes that claim must be a "right winger." The fact that you can't say what "really" happened that day should be a clue that perhaps you're wrong, but you completely dismiss that possibility and then put on a pretense of being more open-minded than people who have paid careful attention to what conspiracists claim and simply found it sadly lacking in credibility. If you're uncritically open to virtually anything except the "official story," that's really pretty much the opposite of open minded.
> His (Stone's) version is as good or bad as the WCR with aspects of it that are not believable, and some that are.
Say WHAT?! Stone's film is a fantasy presented as if it were historical fact, while the Warren Commission's conclusions are still the only ones that actually fit the credible evidence. And to you, they're equivalent? If your definition of "believable" is that broken, I guess I shouldn't be surprised at what you find believable.
> Btw, why do you think he (Bush) refused to answer the question nearly everyone in the world who was alive at the time, answered and certainly remembered 'where were when JFK was assassinated'? We know now, no thanks to him, where he was. Why was he afraid to answer that question?
"Refused to answer" is your characterization, since his answer was that he didn't remember, but more importantly your implicit logic is clearly not valid. Even if you are correct that he hadn't really forgotten, who knows; maybe he was visiting his mistress or any number of other possible personal reasons why he didn't want to answer. For all you know (which is basically nothing), he really was there involved in criminal activities, just not a murder conspiracy. But to conspiracists, everything that did or didn't happen is taken as "evidence" of a conspiracy, logic be damned.
You're not refuting what I'm saying about conpiracists; you're illustrating it.