Discussion:
This reveals a lot about the conspiracy mindset
(too old to reply)
bigdog
2018-05-12 03:03:56 UTC
Permalink
In another thread Marsh stated:

"The public knew within hours that it was a conspiracy."

No proof. No evidence. Suspicion alone was sufficient in the minds of
conspiracy hobbyists.

So I don't get accused of taking this quote out of context, this was
Marsh's entire post.
BOZ
2018-05-12 21:55:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by bigdog
"The public knew within hours that it was a conspiracy."
No proof. No evidence. Suspicion alone was sufficient in the minds of
conspiracy hobbyists.
So I don't get accused of taking this quote out of context, this was
Marsh's entire post.
THE PUBLIC MUST HAVE READ NOSTRADAMUS
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-14 00:09:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by bigdog
"The public knew within hours that it was a conspiracy."
No proof. No evidence. Suspicion alone was sufficient in the minds of
conspiracy hobbyists.
The American public were not conspiracy hobbyists within hours.
Post by bigdog
So I don't get accused of taking this quote out of context, this was
Marsh's entire post.
OHLeeRedux
2018-05-15 01:41:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
"The public knew within hours that it was a conspiracy."
No proof. No evidence. Suspicion alone was sufficient in the minds of
conspiracy hobbyists.
The American public were not conspiracy hobbyists within hours.
No. It took them a while longer than that to lose their minds.
mainframetech
2018-05-16 01:53:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by bigdog
"The public knew within hours that it was a conspiracy."
No proof. No evidence. Suspicion alone was sufficient in the minds of
conspiracy hobbyists.
So I don't get accused of taking this quote out of context, this was
Marsh's entire post.
Far be it from me to support anything Marsh says. But in the case of
the public knowing "it was a conspiracy", many did indeed think that, and
the government had a helluva time trying to convince them it was a 'lone
nut' killer. There is still a high amount of the public that continues to
think it.

It was expressed as an opinion, and therefore needs no "proof or
evidence". You should know about that, since opinion is one of your main
tools for argument.

Chris
bigdog
2018-05-17 02:51:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
"The public knew within hours that it was a conspiracy."
No proof. No evidence. Suspicion alone was sufficient in the minds of
conspiracy hobbyists.
So I don't get accused of taking this quote out of context, this was
Marsh's entire post.
Far be it from me to support anything Marsh says. But in the case of
the public knowing "it was a conspiracy", many did indeed think that, and
the government had a helluva time trying to convince them it was a 'lone
nut' killer. There is still a high amount of the public that continues to
think it.
There is a big difference between thinking it and knowing it. How could
anyone know whether or not it was a conspiracy before anyone knew what the
evidence was. It shows that many people assumed it was a conspiracy
without any evidence at all.
Post by mainframetech
It was expressed as an opinion, and therefore needs no "proof or
evidence". You should know about that, since opinion is one of your main
tools for argument.
That was the whole point of the thread. Conspiracy hobbyists don't need
evidence to support their beliefs.
mainframetech
2018-05-18 00:17:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
"The public knew within hours that it was a conspiracy."
No proof. No evidence. Suspicion alone was sufficient in the minds of
conspiracy hobbyists.
So I don't get accused of taking this quote out of context, this was
Marsh's entire post.
Far be it from me to support anything Marsh says. But in the case of
the public knowing "it was a conspiracy", many did indeed think that, and
the government had a helluva time trying to convince them it was a 'lone
nut' killer. There is still a high amount of the public that continues to
think it.
There is a big difference between thinking it and knowing it. How could
anyone know whether or not it was a conspiracy before anyone knew what the
evidence was. It shows that many people assumed it was a conspiracy
without any evidence at all.
Talk about misdirection! The message was that the public knew it was
not a 'lone nut' killer. Evidence is for court. Rumor is enough to get
people to believe things.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
It was expressed as an opinion, and therefore needs no "proof or
evidence". You should know about that, since opinion is one of your main
tools for argument.
That was the whole point of the thread. Conspiracy hobbyists don't need
evidence to support their beliefs.
WRONG! At least in my case. I need evidence before believing weird
theories from the WCR, and you have none around.

Chris

Loading...