The Culture of Conspiracy

[Charles Drago]

(By the way, I have also argued strongly on an assassination-oriented forum against those who suggest that anyone who doubts a conspiracy is "cognitively impaired". It is clear that reasonable and intelligent persons who have studied the evidence can and do reach opposite conclusions on the conspiracy question.)

Anyone with reasonable access to the JFK assassination evidence who does not conclude that the crime was conspiratorial in nature is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.

If one does not accept this truth as the basis for one's movement from investigation of "how" JFK was killed to investigations of "who" and "why," one by definition is an accessory after the fact of homicide.

Make that "regicide."

Charles Drago

[Tim Gratz]

Drago:

Anyone with reasonable access to the JFK assassination evidence who does not conclude that the crime was conspiratorial in nature is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.

Piereson:

For those who weigh the actual evidence, there can be little doubt that Oswald was the assassin.

Each statement is demonstrably ludicrous.

Piereson is obviously neither cognitively impaired nor complicit in the crime, which destroy's the Drago dogma. On the other hand, Drago has weighed the evidence and has more than a little doubt that Oswald was the assassin, which destroys Piereson's proposition.

[Cliff Varnell]

Drago:

Anyone with reasonable access to the JFK assassination evidence who does not conclude that the crime was conspiratorial in nature is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.

Piereson:

For those who weigh the actual evidence, there can be little doubt that Oswald was the assassin.

Each statement is demonstrably ludicrous.

Piereson is obviously neither cognitively impaired nor complicit in the crime, which destroy's the Drago dogma. On the other hand, Drago has weighed the evidence and has more than a little doubt that Oswald was the assassin, which destroys Piereson's proposition.

Piereson is intellectually dishonest.

The "actual evidence" must include the bullet holes in JFK's shirt and jacket.

Anyone who claims that those bullet holes match the requirements of the

lone gunman theory is intellectually dishonest.

Anyone who claims that JFK's jacket was elevated more than a fraction of

an inch on Elm St. is intellectually dishonest.

Here is "actual evidence":

JFK on Main St. with his jacket riding into his hairline, the shirt collar

occluded at the back of his neck (25/26 second marks):

JFK on Elm St., his shirt collar was highly visible at the back of his neck

(11 - 14 second marks):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G98OFY_1Fm0

Anyone who views this evidence and still insists JFK's shirt and jacket were

elevated 2" to 3" entirely above the base of his neck is intellectually

dishonest.

Intellectual dishonesty can indeed cause one to be cognitively impaired.

I second Charles Drago's construct.

Edited November 27, 2007 by Cliff Varnell

[Charles Drago]

I would sooner have a goldfish speak for me or characterize my "beliefs" than endure the attempts to do so by Gratz.

I know, beyond all doubt and to the degree of metaphysical certitude, that LHO did not assassinate JFK.

"Doubt" is irrevelant.

"Doubt" is the armor within which the conspirators find safety.

I include in the definition of "cognitive impairment" the negative results of the strictures imposed upon intellectual processes by the propagators of enslaving political and religious belief systems.

You know: patriots and priests.

As for Mr. Piereson: I cannot offer a meaningful assessment of his intellectual and ethical standings vis a vis this case insofar as I remain insufficiently informed regarding his access to JFK evidence.

But the reports are not encouraging.

Charles Drago

[Tim Gratz]

Is using words not in the dictionary a symptom of one who is cognitively impaired?

[Tim Gratz]

I think it will say something if the NY Times does not publish a letter commenting on the Op Ed piece by Holland & Rush and if the wall Street Journal does not publish a letter commenting on the Piereson piece.

So far I have not seen a reply in either paper.

Edited December 2, 2007 by Tim Gratz