Except my points were not limited to that particular scenario. Embrace the power of ‘or’.

If you want to make a case, you have to demonstrate those things. If you have some other object….

Alas, it’s all-too common, for those enthralled by DS shills, to cheery-pick the arguments, to then spin about.

Says the person complaining about ‘contempt’ above.

Whatever crap you ran into, from *one* brat years ago, has *nothing* to do with the totality of debates on this issue, about which at least hundreds of people have written.

Just a personal example of what an avid consumer of that literature fancies.

However, I must note, that the propensity to spew straw-man venom, and thus debase debates on such matters, has been all-but the hallmark of mainstream “intellectuals”, for decades, if not generations.

In your imagination only. The prominent advocates of the straightforward view (David Belin, Gerald Posner, John McAdams, and Vincent Bugliosi) haven’t been in the venom business.

I don’t *have to* demonstrate anything, as my doubts about the mainstream spin have zip to do with the number of gunmen.
Alas, it’s all-too common, for those enthralled by DS shills, to cheery-pick the arguments, to then spin about.

I wrote above, not about what could be, or may have to be, *demonstrated*, but on what was/ could be reasonably suspected, incl. how the DS warps journalistic etc. processes (be they about JFK, Tonkin Gulf, or grass).

Whatever crap you ran into, from *one* brat years ago, has *nothing* to do with the totality of debates on this issue, about which at least hundreds of people have written.
However, I must note, that the propensity to spew straw-man venom, and thus debase debates on such matters, has been all-but the hallmark of mainstream “intellectuals”, for decades, if not generations.
For but one glimpse, at how this debasement has been “progressing”, see Wm. Pfaff, at
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1994-01-20/news/1994020037_1_killer-spirit-argument-television-and-press .

Many of us then felt that if conservative authorities could lie so happily, ignorantly and blatantly…[about drugs]

n.n. in reply

The liberals of decades past were fully on board with the war on drugs. This wasn’t ideology. There was evidence.

Consider the Rockefeller Drug Laws in New York State, which Governor Rockefeller signed into law on May 8, 1973. Current consensus is that they were too harsh, too draconian. Consensus is also that Governor Rockefeller was a liberal. Ask any Goldwater supporter. Right here is evidence that at least some liberals supported the war on drugs. The Wiki article points out that William F. Buckley was against the Rockefeller Drug Laws. From the NYT, we find out the Rockefeller Drug Laws passed the NY Senate by a 46-7 vote, which leads one to the conclusion that liberals were on board with the war on drugs.
NYT: Senate Passes Assembly’s Version of Antidrug Bill.

By a 46-7 vote, the Senate adopted the most recent amendments to the Governor’s drug bills that were passed by the Assembly last Friday.
More than a week ago, the Senate approved a version of the Rockefeller narcotics legislation that was amended in the Assembly to obtain the Republican votes necessary for passage.
The controversial bills — regarded as Mr. Rockefeller’s major program item this session— are expected to be signed into law with ceremonial fanfare by the Governor tomorrow.

And Governor Rockefeller did sign them into law PDQ.

Having been a passenger in a fatal auto accident at age 6 that was the responsibility of a drunk, I have always approached drugs- alcoholic or not- with much caution. Yes, I have gotten drunk, and in decades past I did on occasion smoke marijuana. But having early experience of their power, I didn’t use them much.

You have to demonstrate the following:

1. That someone other than Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy; or

2. That there was a 2d gunman; or

3. That he was assisted by some other party;

—

4. Then you have to demonstrate who hired these persons, if anyone.

You’re all zero for four. One of the better conspiracist researchers is Josiah Thompson; he’s a straight shooter, not a fanatic, and begins with known data. He’s spent five decades trying to build a case that there was a second gunman. As more techniques for analyzing the extant evidence come online, his case gets weaker and weaker.

My reasonable claim, about widespread *doubts* about JFK/ Ruby, was greeted with a snide “90% of the people who talk this way cannot be bothered” with applying inductive reasoning, as if such reasoning could *only* lead, to contempt for those who expressed *doubts* about the mainstream stance.

What ‘reasonable doubts’ expressed?

I’m not interested in ‘expressing contempt’ for anyone. I am irked, bored, and impatient with people who have their investments in the work of their imagination, which is more real to them than anything which actually happened. I had a discussion several years ago with one of these creatures kept insisting to me that the musings of some random person in Atlanta whose hobby was writing letters-to-the-editor was evidence of ‘prior knowledge’ of the assassination. That same man kept insisting that the autopsy on the president was a fraud and all of his wounds were from the front. No clue whether he collared that bit of fiction from David Lifton or some other conspiracy writer. (He also kept referring to me as ‘ultrasubcretin’ in the discussion, if other people’s contempt bothers you). In a different discussion, he kept insisting that the Dallas police had made an announcement in the afternoon of 22 November 1963 of an event that had yet to occur (but which he insisted to me they pre-planned). Other people like this man just skip the details (actual and imaginary) and get on with the business of gassing about the CIA.

It’s a nice script, but I would never accept it as reality for one simple reason: Biden has had a dream of being president for just about his entire adult life. He has repeatedly run for president and done abysmally, but it didn’t stop him from trying. He finally caught the brass ring when Obama elevated him out of his steady-state senatorial role to become VP. He may be losing some of his marbles, but I believe that what drives him now most of all is his lifelong personal ambition.

Even if it’s not true, it makes a heckuva good movie pitch!