JFK files expose family secrets: Their relatives were CIA assets

Re:JFK files expose family secrets: Their relatives were CIA... by etchalon on Monday June 02, 2025 @06:57PM (#44164178)

The nature of a conspiracy theory is that it is a belief not-backed by facts in evidence, but one requiring the theorist to assume alternative information based on their own intuition and a distrust of official data.

Saying their beliefs are unfalsifiable is not a "accusation". It is a statement of fact.

If you arrive at your conclusion despite the evidence, then you are already relying on a process by which new evidence can be discounted.

The goal post can always be (and generally will always be) moved.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:JFK files expose family secrets: Their relatives were CIA... by kelipso on Monday June 02, 2025 @09:43PM (#44165403)

I would describe it as filling in the blanks when there is a lack of evidence. Some people do it badly, others do it well. Some people move goalposts, others don’t. You’re clearly just randomly accusing without thinking it through. I hope you see the fallacy in your thought process here.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:JFK files expose family secrets: Their relatives were CIA... by etchalon on Monday June 02, 2025 @11:35PM (#44166018)

What would you consider sufficient evidence to prove that Oswald acted alone?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:JFK files expose family secrets: Their relatives were CIA... by kelipso on Tuesday June 03, 2025 @10:39AM (#44170636)

I don’t care about the particulars here. I am just pointing out the general flaws in your thinking.

[ Parent | on HN ]