When I discuss the assassination of Robert Kennedy, I frequently mention facts such as an audiotape of the event that indicates that thirteen shots were fired, five more than the number of bullets in convicted assassin Sirhan Sirhan's gun. I also point out that Sirhan was never seen within two feet of Kennedy, whereas the coroner said the fatal shot was fired at point-blank range. Eyes start to roll and I am called a "conspiracy nut."
The typical response I get in giving factual support for conspiracy theory is for people to give the benefit of every possible doubt to the official (non-conspiracy) theory. "Sure, I hear what you say, but the audiotape and eyewitnesses could have been wrong."
There is nothing wrong with speculation and exploring alternate hypothesis. This is frequently how theories get started. But those who use speculation (such as thirteen mistaken eyewitnesses) to prove a theory only succeed in keeping their view viable in their own minds. If people could be convicted of crimes based on this way of thinking, we'd all be in jail!
Does anyone believe our government never does anything wrong? I doubt it. The blind eye that many turn as to the facts of events like 9/11 likely stems from the refusal to confront the horror of something that has power over us.
As one who supports certain conspiracy theories, I never recommend forming any conclusion until one has accounted for all relevant facts. And therein lies the problem: critics of anything that smacks of conspiracy decline to consider or counter the message. They shoot the messenger (and any chance of a reasonable discussion) instead.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
6
6
5
