(PART 436)


But I wonder if you understand the fallacy of thinking that your position was confirmed by an investigation that you have never challenged.


I've never "challenged" the supposedly true fact that our planet revolves around the sun either. Does that mean I should stop believing it?

And by "challenged", Robert Harris means this:

Looking under every rock and micro-analyzing every word in the Warren Commission's 26 volumes and the HSCA's 12 volumes, in order to find something that a CTer can use to prop up some kind of "conspiracy" in the JFK case.

And additionally in Robert's case, "challenged" means this as well: To micro-analyze the Zapruder Film to absurd lengths of micro-management, until he finds something (anything!) that he THINKS he can use to endorse a subjective and unique conspiracy theory all his own.

Via that kind of "challenging", who COULDN'T "find" something that he/she thinks supports a conspiracy of some kind?

Like VB said:

"Refusing to accept the plain truth, and dedicating their existence for over forty years to convincing the American public of the truth of their own charges, the critics have journeyed to the outer margins of their imaginations. Along the way, they have split hairs and then proceeded to split the split hairs, drawn far-fetched and wholly unreasonable inferences from known facts, and literally invented bogus facts from the grist of rumor and speculation. With over 18,000 pages of small print in the 27 Warren Commission volumes alone, and many millions of pages of FBI and CIA documents, any researcher worth his salt can find a sentence here or there to support any ludicrous conspiracy theory he might have. And that, of course, is precisely what the conspiracy community has done." -- VINCENT T. BUGLIOSI; Via "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)

David Von Pein
February 2, 2009