Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abrp)
    i asked you a question first that you didn't answer :p:
    as for your own question...i am not taking sides in this debate (because frankly it is a subject which doesn't interest me) so i wouldn't be able to answer you that (for example i don't even know what data the "opposition" is using to criticize the official view etc).

    and i clearly pointed out in my opening question that my questioning of your "every thing that isn't as it seems is a lunatic conspiracy that people make up to make their life worth living" has nothing to do with the theme being discussed in this thread (although you do display the same attitude here again).
    Because I actually live in the US, and I see that there are leaks about what everyone has for lunch each day. To think that a conspiracy of this magnitude wouldn't be leaked by anyone in over four decades is just unfathomable.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Please tell me this. If a president of the United States was murdered at the height of the Cold War by his own intelligence service, do you think the KGB would do anything in their power to present evidence to this effect? If such evidence existed, why didn't the KGB get a hold of it and discredit the US by presenting it at the UN or some other public arena?
    So you're saying the evidence isn't there because the KGB didn't go public on anything they found 40 years ago ? Great logic there.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Because I actually live in the US, and I see that there are leaks about what everyone has for lunch each day. To think that a conspiracy of this magnitude wouldn't be leaked by anyone in over four decades is just unfathomable.
    (Original post by RollingStone)
    E. Howard scribbled the initials "LBJ," standing for Kennedy's ambitious vice president, Lyndon Johnson. Under "LBJ," connected by a line, he wrote the name Cord Meyer. Meyer was a CIA agent whose wife had an affair with JFK; later she was murdered, a case that's never been solved. Next his father connected to Meyer's name the name Bill Harvey, another CIA agent; also connected to Meyer's name was the name David Morales, yet another CIA man and a well-known, particularly vicious black-op specialist. And then his father connected to Morales' name, with a line, the framed words "French Gunman Grassy Knoll."
    Link

    AKA Lucien Sarti. So the CIA's most infamous spy (for those who don't know, he was one of the CIA agents who broke into Watergate) who was approached to be part of the hit admits on his deathbed whodunnit. You can thank me later.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    For anyone who doesn't like sand in their ears, read:

    http://www.rense.com/general76/hunt.htm
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Invocation)
    So you're saying the evidence isn't there because the KGB didn't go public on anything they found 40 years ago ? Great logic there.
    Are you saying that if such evidence did exist, the KGB wouldn't pounce on it? Are you and your fellow wackos more intelligent than the KGB?

    And yes, we all know that dying people make perfect sense.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Are you saying that if such evidence did exist, the KGB wouldn't pounce on it? Are you and your fellow wackos more intelligent than the KGB?
    So you're saying that any there is no conspiracy because the KGB haven't gone public on it (as security services usually do, you know make things public, and they're never shrouded in secrecy). Again great logic, and stop wasting my time.

    And yes, we all know that dying people make perfect sense.
    He did actually. The article said so. Anything else?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Invocation)
    So you're saying that any there is no conspiracy because the KGB haven't gone public on it (as security services usually do, you know make things public, and they're never shrouded in secrecy). Again great logic, and stop wasting my time.
    His argument is like this:

    If there was a conspiracy to kill JFK and there was evidence available then the KGB would have released that evidence and publicised it in order to damage America and thus strengthen the USSR. Since the KGB did not do that, the implication is that no evidence existed for the USSR to publicise.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    His argument is like this:

    If there was a conspiracy to kill JFK and there was evidence available then the KGB would have released that evidence and publicised it in order to damage America and thus strengthen the USSR. Since the KGB did not do that, the implication is that no evidence existed for the USSR to publicise.
    I know, but it's illogical to claim no conspiracy exists because of what the KGB did or didn't do. As long as we're talking fact that is, which Bismarck seems to have some phobia of.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Invocation)
    I know, but it's illogical to claim no conspiracy exists because of what the KGB did or didn't do. As long as we're talking fact that is, which Bismarck seems to have some phobia of.
    It is not an illogical claim - it is proof by contradiction. Here is an example:

    If A happened then B happened;
    B definitely did not happen;
    Therefore A did not happen.

    The premise here is that if there was a conspiracy then the KGB would have evidence to publicise and would have done so. You can argue that this premise is wrong, but the argument itself is logically sound.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    It is not an illogical claim - it is proof by contradiction. Here is an example:

    If A happened then B may have happened;
    B definitely did not happen;
    Therefore A may not happen.

    The premise here is that if there was a conspiracy then the KGB would have evidence to publicise and would have done so. You can argue that this premise is wrong, but the argument itself is logically sound.
    That's better. Who's to say here what the KGB would or wouldn't do? We just don't know.

    I'm dealing with the just the facts- witness testimony, photos showing the gunman, and the scientific proof found with the acoustics during the second official investigation. Something Bismarck cannot answer in the face of overwhelming evidence.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Invocation)
    That's better. Who's to say here what the KGB would or wouldn't do? We just don't know.

    I'm dealing with the just the facts- witness testimony, photos showing the gunman, and the scientific proof found with the acoustics during the second official investigation. Something Bismarck cannot answer in the face of overwhelming evidence.
    I'm not sure why you changed my example which was demonstrating, accurately, the proof Bismark was employing.

    As to the facts. I haven't studied the facts and cannot speak on Bismark's behalf, but I'm sure there are facts that point to the official explanation as well. I think Bismark is casting doubt on the veracity of these facts using a logical argument, which is perfectly acceptable. No different to a lawyer exposing a witness as a liar to cast doubt on the veracity of their testimony. The lawyer also ignores the content of the testimony and shows that regardless of the content the source is unreliable. Bismark is following a similar tactic to show that regardless of the source and content the conclusion is unreliable.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    I'm not sure why you changed my example which was demonstrating, accurately, the proof Bismark was employing.

    As to the facts. I haven't studied the facts and cannot speak on Bismark's behalf, but I'm sure there are facts that point to the official explanation as well. I think Bismark is casting doubt on the veracity of these facts using a logical argument, which is perfectly acceptable. No different to a lawyer exposing a witness as a liar to cast doubt on the veracity of their testimony. The lawyer also ignores the content of the testimony and shows that regardless of the content the source is unreliable. Bismark is following a similar tactic to show that regardless of the source and content the conclusion is unreliable.
    It's not proof at all. It goes on the premise that we know for sure how the KGB would have reacted, which of course we don't. We don't know how any security service works, let alone the KGB 40 years ago.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Invocation)
    It's not proof at all. It goes on the premise that we know for sure how the KGB would have reacted, which of course we don't. We don't know how any security service works, let alone the KGB 40 years ago.
    I agree, it is a judgement. And I am not commenting on whether it is right or not, only that it is a premise in a sound logical argument and that it is a fair tactic to ignore the specifics of the facts and approach the conclusion from another angle.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Invocation)
    I know, but it's illogical to claim no conspiracy exists because of what the KGB did or didn't do. As long as we're talking fact that is, which Bismarck seems to have some phobia of.
    It's not the slightest bit illogical. The KGB was the second largest intelligence agency in the world. Furthermore, it had strong links with dozens of sympathetic intelligence agencies in socialist/leftist countries. The goal of the KGB was to protect the USSR and to undermine the US. To suggest that uncovering a US plot to kill its own president wouldn't serve that purpose is ludicrous.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    It's not the slightest bit illogical. The KGB was the second largest intelligence agency in the world. Furthermore, it had strong links with dozens of sympathetic intelligence agencies in socialist/leftist countries. The goal of the KGB was to protect the USSR and to undermine the US. To suggest that uncovering a US plot to kill its own president wouldn't serve that purpose is ludicrous.
    By that logic they would have gone public on every single piece of dirt they got hold of regarding every Western government, and would have continued to do so until this day; including allegations of the head of the FBI, Hoover, being a cross-dressing closet homosexual etc etc- which would "damage the US". So stop pretending you know how the KGB works.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Invocation)
    By that logic they would have gone public on every single piece of dirt they got hold of regarding every Western government, and would have continued to do so until this day; including allegations of the head of the FBI, Hoover, being a cross-dressing closet homosexual etc etc- which would "damage the US". So stop pretending you know how the KGB works.
    Er, exposing dirt exposes sources. It's not worth it to expose your source unless it will really harm your enemy. Stop pretending you know anything at all. I think I know significantly more about the KGB than you, thank you.
 
 
 
Poll
Are you chained to your phone?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.