Question to Lone Nutters

[Ty Carpenter]

This post comes from genuine curiosity and is not meant to devolve into any sort of argument. My question is:

Why do LN'ers stay up on the case and participate in discussion of "conspiracy" theories on the case? From your point of view, if you believe LHO committed the crime on his own and believe the WC as gospel, what more is there for you to learn by staying up on current case events? Isn't the science settled in your view? As another example, I am a firm believer that the earth is round. There are those who think it is flat and argue that point. I don't feel the need to go to flat earth message boards and tell them how they are wrong or refute the latest flat earth theory. The science on that is settled in my opinion.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

17 minutes ago, Ty Carpenter said:

This post comes from genuine curiosity and is not meant to devolve into any sort of argument. My question is:

Why do LN'ers stay up on the case and participate in discussion of "conspiracy" theories on the case? From your point of view, if you believe LHO committed the crime on his own and believe the WC as gospel, what more is there for you to learn by staying up on current case events? Isn't the science settled in your view? As another example, I am a firm believer that the earth is round. There are those who think it is flat and argue that point. I don't feel the need to go to flat earth message boards and tell them how they are wrong or refute the latest flat earth theory. The science on that is settled in my opinion.

I hope to change people's minds about a conspiracy but admittedly that doesn't happen that often, although my work on John Armstrong was the final straw that brought noted researcher Dave Reitzes over to the LN side.

Long Division: One Researcher, Ten Months and Two Oswalds (jfkassassination.net)

In addition to the John Armstrong theory, I have been able to influence some regarding the exhumation of Oswald, and more recently the Maurice Bishop matter. If there was a conspiracy, it could be uncovered more quickly by having researchers focus on issues other than the ones I have mentioned and things like the three tramps and so on. Some conspiracy researchers recognize this and have thanked me publicly or privately.

[Mark Tyler]

3 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

I hope to change people's minds about a conspiracy but admittedly that doesn't happen that often, although my work on John Armstrong was the final straw that brought noted researcher Dave Reitzes over to the LN side.

Indeed, changing minds with facts and evidence is what this debate should be about!  Not everyone is a hardcore partisan who thinks they have cracked the case, so an open and polite discussion always has value.  Most people reading this forum do not post in the threads, and some readers may not even be members (the forum is publicly visible to non-members).  It's always possible to reach the "silent majority" who are probably fence sitters, which is a great public service.

3 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

If there was a conspiracy, it could be uncovered more quickly by having researchers focus on issues other than the ones I have mentioned and things like the three tramps and so on. Some conspiracy researchers recognize this and have thanked me publicly or privately.

I agree, debunking false theories is extremely important as it enables everyone to focus on the genuine areas of uncertainty that researchers may yet be able to resolve.  Although I don't think we can ever be 100% certain about what happened in 1963, the truth is woven into the fabric of the evidence so once the red herrings are removed the truth will become much more accessible.

[James DiEugenio]

"noted researcher Dave Reitzes" 😀

[Vince Palamara]

7 hours ago, Ty Carpenter said:

This post comes from genuine curiosity and is not meant to devolve into any sort of argument. My question is:

Why do LN'ers stay up on the case and participate in discussion of "conspiracy" theories on the case? From your point of view, if you believe LHO committed the crime on his own and believe the WC as gospel, what more is there for you to learn by staying up on current case events? Isn't the science settled in your view? As another example, I am a firm believer that the earth is round. There are those who think it is flat and argue that point. I don't feel the need to go to flat earth message boards and tell them how they are wrong or refute the latest flat earth theory. The science on that is settled in my opinion.

This is exactly the point I make in a section of my new book.

[Joe Bauer]

10 hours ago, Vince Palamara said:

This is exactly the point I make in a section of my new book.

Agree.

And if there are "fence sitters," by definition of that term alone, they must logically have at least "some" open mindedness about a conspiracy to be in that category. 

Same with those in the "silent majority." 

It would be irrational for any repeat silent majority visitors to this forum to be "locked in" lone nut true believers.

Locked in LN types feel any looking at, study or debate of the issue is a waste of their time and energy. A rational mind set on their part.

Of course there is a sky full of alternate conspiracy theory chaff in the JFK truth research news coverage world.  Has been for over 50 years.

As forum member WN recently posted, this is by design. 

That is a classic PSYOP confusing, diluting, dissipating, distracting and dividing MO.

This largely consists of social exclusion fear inducing with the constant referencing of JFK conspiracy believers (  even those considering the possibility of a conspiracy ) with social reject boogie man labels such as emotionally unstable loons, nut cases, buffs, crazies, etc. 

Barely one step removed from wild eyed manic homeless street corner yellers and exaggerated flailing arm and leg kicking martial art performers.

With constant access inclusion into the largest media stage coverage realm, this stuff works!

It's used ( successfully ) to do the same diluting, demeaning and confusing of other areas of conspiracy belief such as UFO's, 9-11, Bigfoot, etc.

Remember how Arizona's Governor Fife Symington immediately used his overriding access to main stream media to turn the March 13th, 1997 Phoenix lights UFO event into a full coverage, believer demeaning TV news conference laugh fest, complete with a monster get up wearing person walking onto the news conference stage area while he was speaking? 

Symington later recanted the whole affair was a social exclusion and demeaning label fear planting set up. Making fun of those who witnessed the event and didn't believe the government line that the object seen was of some innocuous origin such as flares.

With the JFK event, ridiculous explanation distraction stories that make it to national news wire and coverage release ( and shouldn't ) are just as suspect.

Someone in the follow up car accidently did JFK. Driver Greer did JFK. A storm gutter shot did JFK. The Mafia and/or Charles Harrelson or James Files did JFK. Jim Garrison was an attention seeking loon and pinball machine payoff accepting crook to boot. 

These crazy JFK conspiracy chaff stories ( and so many more like them) got NATIONAL COVERAGE!

And not just "National Enquirer" headlines coverage, but NBC specials and CBS's "60 Minutes" to boot!

To make that happen takes influence well beyond the average American's and JFK conspiracy believer's wallet and home office rolodex.

 

Edited April 23, 2021 by Joe Bauer

[John Kowalski]

On 4/22/2021 at 2:21 PM, W. Tracy Parnell said:

I hope to change people's minds about a conspiracy but admittedly that doesn't happen that often, although my work on John Armstrong was the final straw that brought noted researcher Dave Reitzes over to the LN side.

Why do you want to change our minds?

[W. Tracy Parnell]

1 hour ago, John Kowalski said:

Why do you want to change our minds?

Obviously, because I believe there was no conspiracy. Of course, you are free to ignore me and believe what you want.

[Eddy Bainbridge]

We only have theories. I can understand from a Political perspective why the lone nut theory would be supported, but not from a factual one. The debate would be equally contentious if a conspiracy was accepted but not the conspirators. 

[Joe Bauer]

W. Parnell ... you want to change our minds regards our believing there was a conspiracy in the JFK assassination?

You'd have to convincingly counter point by point hundreds and hundreds of conspiracy suggesting facts, testimonies, documents and events that seem stronger in substance, logic and even common sense than the LN position.

Good luck.

The second I witnessed Jack Ruby pop out of the press line in the basement of the Dallas PD building to shoot and kill Lee Harvey Oswald live on national TV the morning of 11,24,1963 ( while Oswald was handcuffed to 2 policemen and with 70 other armed security personnel in the building) every part of me sensed there was a conspiracy involved in the entire affair.

To this day, Ruby's extraordinarily improbable access to and assassination actions against Oswald that morning is still the single most convincing event that suggest a conspiracy in my mind.

No book, article, interview or blog presenting a different scenario has ever been strong enough in logic, facts or even common sense to counter my original and still held belief that it was a conspiracy, especially the killing of Oswald ( the most threatened criminal suspect in American history ) right inside the Dallas PD building amongst 70 armed and highest security alert minded personnel.

With the Sylvia and Annie Odio episode being right up there as well.

 

Edited April 27, 2021 by Joe Bauer

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Joe,

Certainly, if you consider that there are likely millions of pieces of evidence in this case and researchers have spent 50 plus years studying it, you are correct that some will never be satisfied. But I think all of the LN advocates combined have done a reasonable job of countering conspiracy claims. After all, they have convinced those that matter-academia, the media etc.

[Ray Mitcham]

Sorry Mr Parnell but academia and the media just fell in line with the official version and both sides knew on which side their respective bread was buttered.

[John Kowalski]

6 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Obviously, because I believe there was no conspiracy. Of course, you are free to ignore me and believe what you want.

This is not what I meant when I asked you this question. Of course you believe that there was no conspiracy and I believe that there was a conspiracy. But why do are you so   concerned about what we believe? Why are you so determined to convince us that our beliefs are wrong? There are many controversial issues that are been discussed in forums all over the internet, what is it about conspiracy theorists beliefs that makes you want to post on a forum where no one really cares about what you believe?

 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

21 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Sorry Mr Parnell but academia and the media just fell in line with the official version and both sides knew on which side their respective bread was buttered.

For the sake of argument, let's say you are right. That was 1964. What is stopping anyone from taking the evidence that you guys think proves your case to the media today? In this day and age, there should be one important person you can convince.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

17 hours ago, John Kowalski said:

what is it about conspiracy theorists beliefs that makes you want to post on a forum where no one really cares about what you believe?

Just stubborn I guess.