JFK Assassination Autopsy Details Revealed After 55 Years

Also, Lol.

I just found the source for safe surfer's claim.

So yea. 80% is one way to frame that.

Another way would be "4 people".

I count 3 people mentioned there. and you consider that a majority.

the other poster has 4 out of 5 who do think there was a conspiracy and you dismissed that because it is only 4.

I'm sure you can see what I mean about consistency.

I have no idea what the majority of historians support. that isn't relevant. what is relevant is what can shown with sources. Safe Surfers claim of 80% does have a source. while I agree that the sample is small it does support what they say. Johndoes claim of a consensus amongst historians is backed up with a sample of 4. You responded to Safe Surfer with a dismissive "Lol" yet you consider Johndoes source to be rock solid. Like I said it smacks of hypocrisy.

But again, that's not what Dohnjoe's argument is supported by. Never said that it was.

Also I never said "rock solid" either. I said the words "adequate" and "better indicator".

And I wasn't laughing at how small the sample was, I was laughing at the dishonest way it was presented compared to what the actual figure was.

So yea, if you take things the wrong way and misrepresent what I've actually been saying, I'm sure it might smack of hypocrisy.

And no, I don't think that pointing to 4 examples supports Safesurfer's claim that there's a sizable proportion of historians who support the conspiracy theories.

(We'll just ignore that he didn't actually point to those examples, he just made the claim that "80% of tenured historians etc etc." and then refused to actually give the source himself. I found the source by accident.)

For one, if there were a large percentage of historians who supported the conspiracy theory, I think you'd be able to find more than 4 examples from the last 20 years. You wouldn't need to narrow down the field to specifically tenured professors. You wouldn't need to whittle it down to just ones who published books about the assassination. All of these are just special pleading to try and make the number sound more impressive than it is.

A better way would be to point to the number of people who have history degrees/work in the field/publish history books who directly support the idea of a conspiracy theory.

I also think those 4 examples would not all have completely different ideas of what the conspiracy is. One of those four doesn't even actually propose an alternative.

THIS is what supports Dohnjoe's argument.

it is very simple. there were two sources presented to support two sides of an argument (irrespective of who found the actual source). One link said 4 out of 5 historians supported that there was a conspiracy. Safe Surfer claimed that as 80%. You describe that claim as dishonest and dismiss. you then say that the link posted by Johndoe is sufficient to support their claim that a majority of historians think there was no conspiracy. Both numbers have low sample sizes but you think one is a stronger claim than the other. there is nothing in those two links that supports the distinction you have made. both are poor sources. One is not superior to the other. You have let your own biases lead you to the conclusion that one is better than the other.

you may have noticed that I ignored most of your post. that is deliberate. we were discussing two sources and those two sources alone. I have no interest in a general discussion on the topic or who is right and who is wrong. I am simply pointing out the hypocrisy.

Indeed. I provided my reasoning. It's not really something that can be "proved".

We had dozens of pages of a thread here before referring to the consensus of historians on the Holocaust, nope, same issue. If someone wants to be granular enough, these things can't be "proved". Give the reasoning and move on.

To avoid all this it's more straightforward to refer to it as the "key theory". Anyone, even someone who believes there was a conspiracy, can recognise that it is widely considered the key theory of the JFK assassination.

The next big step is actually to hear out one of these conspiracies, but so far nothing credible has been presented here.

neither is presenting a source with a sample of 4 and claiming it is proof of a majority. yet somehow you don't have an issue with that.

yes. you did. you presented Donhjoes link as a source for his claim of a majority. I'm done talking with you about this. i know how you behave and I'm having none of it.

I said I'm done. No intention of being harangued by you.

if you have an issue with my posts then report them. you're fooling nobody.

you really do have to get in the last word. on the ignore list you go.

I don't buy the KBG theory. Way too obvious. They would have to assume Oswald was under surveillance when he went back to America. And history has shown us that the Russians play the long game when it comes to spies.

Like this

The only theory with anything approaching credibility is Oswald was recruited by the mob in New Orleans when he was antagonising the anti Castro Cubans and it went on from there. They only problem with the theory is there is no evidence whatsoever to support it. the only reason it has any credibility (it doesnt really) is because there are a few days that summer when no one knows where Oswald was. He was most likely at home alone, reading.

For the most part, Oswalds entire few years pre assassination is accounted for, nearly every day of it.

Its the most investigated crime in human history. By far. Its been investigated in granular detail for nearly 60 years now.

This is a good read. Very difficult to see past Oswald.

LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S SOLE GUILT....POINT-BY-POINT:

We are all skeptics. I didn't come up with any 80% figure. I've already shared my thoughts on the JFK assassination, that LHO was the lone shooter.

I pointed out that the approach by posters here was to get others to "prove" the key theory to them and not to present any conspiracy theories, okay, but that's the same technique used in every 9/11, moon landing hoax, princess Diana, etc thread. A thing whereby posters with a little knowledge get to endlessly "pick" at the main theory subjectively without ever making the slightest effort to support or show interest in any alternative theory. This didn't happen a few months ago, it's decades old, been scrutinised to death, the Alex Jones "can't explain that" approach just doesn't wash.

If there is a strong conspiracy with supporting evidence, then what is it? If some people are so convinced "something" happened, then surely they must have some interest in what that "something" is? Otherwise it just seems to be one poster refuting the same misconceptions every few pages.