24-12-2010, 03:41 PM
I have read some of the "skeptic" responses to assassination theories. What is obvious is that many of them have not even considered the possibility that the official version is a big lie, and it is doubtful that any of them have read anything that contradicts their viewpoint.
What separates them from other WC supporters is their claim that they employ science and logic to dispel that myriad of myths held by people. They like take on religious groups and many of their websites walk in lock-step when denouncing conspiracy theories. Yet a visit to their websites will reveal that instead of offering solid proof to support their beliefs, they respond with conclusions that defy the rules of arguments that they claim to uphold.
They are not true skeptics in any sense of the word, instead they are selectively skeptical, picking and choosing arguments that support preconceived notions about conspiracy theories.
John
What separates them from other WC supporters is their claim that they employ science and logic to dispel that myriad of myths held by people. They like take on religious groups and many of their websites walk in lock-step when denouncing conspiracy theories. Yet a visit to their websites will reveal that instead of offering solid proof to support their beliefs, they respond with conclusions that defy the rules of arguments that they claim to uphold.
They are not true skeptics in any sense of the word, instead they are selectively skeptical, picking and choosing arguments that support preconceived notions about conspiracy theories.
John