That's why I said "targets of assassination" not "victims of" and "assassins and would be assassins". I was including all of them.

"Burden of proof is on the conspiracy theorists to prove their theory"

No. The burden of proof is on the investigative body to prove that what they say transpired is indeed what transpired.

If its full of holes, don't sit there and wonder why people start thinking for themselves.

"No. The burden of proof is on the investigative body to prove that what they say transpired is indeed what transpired."

You're using a false dilemma fallacy again. Even if an investigative body does an incredibly poor job that doesn't mean a conspiracy theory is true. Simply refuting X does not make Y true, it makes X false. Y may be equally false, and Z true.

@Darwyn - I'm afraid, on that issue, we have to agree to disagree. I believe that an independent tribunal that is truly independent will do their best to find the truth and anyone who thinks their findings are wrong have the same burden as the prosecutor in a case. They tribunal is "innocent until proven guilty" or in other words, their statements can't be accepted at face value until enough other evidence comes forth to prove they were wrong.

*can be accepted, I started to write "can't be assumed invalid"

"Even if an investigative body does an incredibly poor job that doesn't mean a conspiracy theory is true. Simply refuting X does not make Y true, it makes X false."

If X is false, it is certainly not an endorsement of Y or Z or A or B or C, etc. But X would still be false. The point is the truth has not yet been reached...either by accident or by design.

I can accept accidents in trivial investigations...but not in world changing, important ones.

Well Draugnar, to take the JFK assassination as an example (I'd rather not discuss the intricacies here, this is only an example), the Warren Commission concluded one thing and the House Select Committee concluded the opposite. So in fact, the original tribunal failed and the HSC brought forth evidence to prove them wrong...

Yet you hold onto the original tribunal's conclusions?

No, I don't. But I also believe the House Select Committee was hardly an independent unbiased investigative tribunal.

"I can accept accidents in trivial investigations...but not in world changing, important ones."

But just because X was not an accident, that doesn't mean that Theory Y is *correct*. Theory Y has to stand on it's own merits, and "X is wrong" isn't enough

"No, I don't."

So which do you believe if neither of them?

"But I also believe the House Select Committee was hardly an independent unbiased investigative tribunal. "

But the Warren Commission *was* independent and unbiased? Are you aware that John J. McCloy, former President of the World Bank and Chase was on this commission? One which we are told whose job it was to investigate and find the truth to a criminal act? I don't recall what his qualifications were in being an expert on this that gives him the authority to determine the facts...do you?

"But just because X was not an accident, that doesn't mean that Theory Y is *correct*. Theory Y has to stand on it's own merits, and "X is wrong" isn't enough "

I agree with you here actually...but X being false is sufficient enough for me to look elsewhere and form my own opinion...perhaps A, B or C?

And that's fine - I do not disagree with that at all. But there's a world of difference between "something is fishy", and "something is fishy OMG ALIENS!"

LOL...True. Those are the bat shit crazy people! ;) I can only assure you that I am not one of them.

I don't accept the Warren Commission report either. The truth lies somewhere, but the CTers have yet to provide eveidence that fully backs their views either. And honestly, I'm not an expert on Kennedy. I wasn't even born yet as it was the year my mom graduated High School. I wouldn't be born for almost three more years (mom married dad when she was 19 and he 21, I was born 2 years later).

"Those are the bat shit crazy people! ;) I can only assure you that I am not one of them. "

And I never said you were. But you asked in the other thread if I believe in conspiracies, and my response is basically "I believe there *can* be conspiracies, but I'm not going to believe there *is* a conspiracy just because someone says there is one"

Ok, Draug...if you believe neither verdicts, did Oswald do it or not? I'm just curious. Furthermore, what would you attribute the cause for two completely different conclusions? Surely you cannot say that both tribunals messed up an investigation of this magnitude? Is someone lying?

For the record, I do not believe the WC either.

Reread what I said. I'm not an expert, but I'm suyre the truth lies somewhere in the middle. and honestly, whiole those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it, those who continuosly harp on history and try to alter accepted conclussions, even if false, are doomed to be disappointed. Why or how or who killed Kennedy is irrelavent. The result would be the same. He's dead. Johnson took office and lied to us, and fucked us up in Vietnam.