Sandy Larsen

Nope, doesn't work. I'll bet that if you clear your browser's cache, it won't work for you either. (Because the photos might be loading from your cache. I've seen that happen before, many times, back when I used to write HTML.)

OMG, it's really hard to take you seriously when you say things like that.

If you include in your (hypothetical) poll only people who know a lot of the details, I'll bet that over 90% believe there was a conspiracy.

No, it's not, is it. That statement is now an established fact.

I think you should start a new thread. I certainly would like to see people's knowledge and ideas on the topic.

I wonder if Google can translate from Bombast to English? You know, for us regular folk.

I've stated my opinion. I will just observe you and Bill et al. discussing the alleged mole hunt, to see if there could be anything to it IMO.

I already cited examples, after which you doubled down. That's what led me to conclude that you cannot be reasoned with.

According to you, if 65% of people believe Oswald didn’t act alone, the most popular theory is that Oswald acted alone. Let that sink in for a minute.

Netanyahu https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/biden-calls-netanyahus-approach-to-war-in-gaza-a-mistake-deepening-rift-between-the-two-allies

Yes, because False ("Oswald acted alone") = ("Oswald acted with others") = ("Oswald acted in a conspiracy") where False is the inverse logical operator (same as Not).

Clever response! And true.

Matt, I don't have a problem with the fact that your opinion varies from mine. What I do have a problem with is a double-standard you display in your disagreements with me. Specifically this: If I speculate something in order to form a hypothesis, you call me out on it as if there is something wrong with speculating. But when you do the very same thing -- speculate in order to form a hypothesis -- you act as if everything is okay. Speculation is a necessary part of hypothesizing. So it is unreasonable for you to expect me not to speculate, especially in light of the fact that you do the very same thing yourself. And it is unreasonable for you double down on your accusation against me rather than accepting the obvious fact that you're employing a double-standard.

Matt, I don't have a problem with the fact that your opinion varies from mine. What I do have a problem with is a double-standard you display in your disagreements with me. Specifically this: If I speculate something in order to form a hypothesis, you call me out on it as if there is something wrong with speculating. But when you do the very same thing -- speculate in order to form a hypothesis -- you act as if everything is okay. Speculation is a necessary part of hypothesizing. So it is unreasonable for you to expect me not to speculate, especially in light of the fact that you do the very same thing yourself. And it is unreasonable for you double down on your accusation against me rather than accepting the obvious fact that you're employing a double-standard.

Ben's obvious purpose for posting this is to attack his new enemy, NPR. I'm moving this to the Water Cooler.