WolfofWords wrote: ↑Wed Nov 23, 2022 4:49 pm
Much like jokes, if you have to explain your protest, you probably did it wrong. Assuming that his absurd story is true, of course.
Errol Morris did a mini-documentary on this, concluding that the story was "so ridiculous that it had to be true", which is a really interesting way of doing investigative journalism.
Incidentally: I looked up the company that Louie Witt was supposed to have been employed by (some reports said that he was reluctant to say who his employers were). The Rio Grande National Life Insurance Company did indeed exist in Dallas in 1963; records indicate that it went out of business in 1974. The listing also gave the longitude and latitude of the headquarters (kind of an odd way of listing an address, but okay...) Feeding that into Google Earth zoomed right in on...Dallas City Hall. Hm.
WolfofWords wrote: ↑Wed Nov 23, 2022 4:49 pm
Much like jokes, if you have to explain your protest, you probably did it wrong. Assuming that his absurd story is true, of course.
Errol Morris did a mini-documentary on this, concluding that the story was "so ridiculous that it had to be true", which is a really interesting way of doing investigative journalism.
From the same school that came up with "That's just crazy enough to work" in the planning department.
WolfofWords wrote: ↑Wed Nov 23, 2022 4:49 pm
Much like jokes, if you have to explain your protest, you probably did it wrong. Assuming that his absurd story is true, of course.
Errol Morris did a mini-documentary on this, concluding that the story was "so ridiculous that it had to be true", which is a really interesting way of doing investigative journalism.
From the same school that came up with "That's just crazy enough to work" in the planning department.
Saw some more material on the assassination on Wednesday...
It seems to me that there is a matter related to the "truth" in big, newsworthy situations: that it exists in some knowable form. The biggest sin of the "lone gunman" crowd probably isn't that the came to the wrong conclusion; indeed, much - but not all - of the existing evidence supports that conclusion. Their problem is that they assume the evidence is true at the outset, or further, that there is enough evidence to reach a conclusion. There really isn't. One can't say from what is given exactly what happened with any authority, either that Oswald acted alone or that there was a conspiracy.
Again, any number of things can be described this way: JFK, MLK, Watergate, Iran-Contra, Clinton-Lewinsky, Bush/Gore, 9/11, Jeffrey Epstein, Jimmy Savile, any of Trump's current pecadilloes. It's very easy for the establishment to claim "conspiracy theory" and brush past the entire thing - mostly because it's "the establishment" (or perhaps "established") that hold the reins of the fact-finding and fact-determining apparatus. No one is going to voluntarily give you the rope needed to hang them with. Under this judgment, the "conspiracy theory" is the rational explanation. The default assumption should be skepticism of any evidence, not uncritical acceptance. We can assume, for example, that the CIA is lying because they've lied before, they lied about things closely related to this, they had the system and personnel in place to perpetuate lies, and they had reason to do so.
Conspiracy theory isn't really that silly or unhinged in comparison to "coincidence theory" - the theory that all events with a tremendous impact are all governed by unpredictable, impersonal, and random forces. The elites who could start or greatly influence those events, and who have the means, motive, and opportunity to do so...never, ever do so.
