Who killed RFK? His son RFK Jr. doesn’t believe it was Sirhan Sirhan.

He really is a little puke...

 

The forum has about 20,000 members. Probably around the same amount who are just perusing. A few people might be swayed by it. But it's not even about persuading people. I would like the opportunity to actually discuss this issue. But almost no discussion happens down here, so the opportunity for discussion is basically nonexistent now.

 

Much like 9/11. Why is every 9/11 discussion relegated to the "Conspiracy Theory" section of this forum when it was one of the most staggering crimes of our generation?

 

I wish I knew the answer. This forum doesn't even have an actual definition of a "conspiracy theory". Apparently, if someone wants to silence you, all they need to do is call your thread a "conspiracy theory" and hope for a sympathetic MOD to read the report. Then your thread is sent to the netherworld where it won't be read or discussed anymore. This subforum exists purely for purposes of censorship.

 

Evidence?

 

There is no such thing as a "conspiracy theory". It's a completely made-up term that people use to shut down debates.

 

No they were not.

they were lucky murders by one guy and you have not done any research on this.

People who have done research can cite evidence I can you cannot

 

Wrong it is a real thing.

A conspiracy theory is a narrative which ignores evidence and makes sensationalist claims and then goes on to demonize those who ask for evidence by calling them naive or dupes or shills or whatever,

It is based on speculation and supposition and zero evidence but the believers demand that they be taken seriously

 

No, it's made up bullsh*t spewed by quislings who want to silence dissent.

 

Wrong it is a legitimate term which describes an ignorant and sensationalist mindset.

The fact that conspiracy fools are loud and vocal and never silenced proves you wrong

 

Evidence, EVIDENCE! Don't need to stinkin evidence to start a good conspiracy

 

No, it is a made-up term with no objective criteria or consistent definition. It's just something that intellectually lazy cowards use to try and silence any thought that doesn't conform with official narratives.

 

Very true and it is also the one thing missing from all conspiracy theories.

 

Yes it has objective criteria which I named.

Much like your op a conspiracy theory is lacking in evidence and it is sensationalist.

Onemore time no conspiracy loons are being silenced proving you wrong

 

You didn't name any objective criteria. You just cited a bunch of subjective, vague bullcrap.

And I was silenced. My thread was sent to this netherworld because one poster labeled the thread a "conspiracy theory" even though the story is being reported on by virtually every mainstream news outlet.

It is a meaningless term that bootlickers throw around in order to discredit and silence any attempt to question or challenge official lies and narratives.

You think you're smarter because you parrot the lies of officials. You're not. You're just like all the people throughout history who groveled before pharaohs and emperors. A pawn.

 

Wrong having evidence or not having evidence is objective criteria and conspiracy theorists consistently have no evidence to support their narratives.

Just as you have none to support the claims in your op.

You were not silenced period the fact that you still post proves that fact. You just do not like the fact that many consider your theory to be flaky BS which it is. The right to express yourself does not equate to a right to be heard by others.

You have not been silenced.

It is a meaningful term for people who demand attention yet never question or challenge anything.

You have questioned or challenged nothing you have instead preached. Just as BObo does on all of the 911 threads

I am parroting nothing I continually ask for evidence which you run away from

 

The evidence is objective, but your interpretation of the evidence is not. And that is what you really mean when you say "having evidence" or "not having evidence". You're not referring to an objective standard, but to your own personal opinion about what the evidence says or does not say.

And, yes, I was effectively silenced. My thread was taken from the most trafficked subforum and sent to one of the least trafficked subforums. It is the difference between being allowed to protest in the middle of Times Square and being sent to some abandoned property on the outskirts of the city.

Almost no one will read or post in this thread now that it is in this subforum. And that was the intent behind the troll who kept trying to get it sent down here. It is a form of censorship, plain as day.

As for your requests for evidence, evidence of what? The story is about RFK Jr. calling for a new investigation. That's just a fact. It's been widely reported by virtually every mainstream news service. You might as well ask me to provide evidence that the sun rose today.

 

The evidence for your claim is not only not objective it is non existent.

My interpretation is objective and sound.

I am stating facts about evidence and the fact is you have offered none. An opinion even from a surviving family member is not evidence.

You were not silenced. It is no such difference because this is a private forum not a public one.

Evidence for your claims that Oswald and Sirhan were patsy's. A call for a new investigation is not evidence neither is a person claim that one is a patsy such as Oswald made.

 

That is just your subjective opinion. In my subjective opinion, I've provided a fairly decent amount of evidence for people to consider. Namely, I've provided evidence that (a) three CIA operatives were present the night RFK was killed and (b) the coroner determined that RFK was killed from a shot that entered BEHIND his ear, despite the fact that Sirhan was to RFK's FRONT. So, you see, even though I've clearly provided evidence, you are still claiming the evidence is nonexistent. In other words, you're proving, though you do not seem to realize it, that while the evidence itself may be objective, various interpretations of the evidence will always be subjective. And the definition of a "conspiracy theory" you gave relies entirely on interpretations of evidence, which makes your definition of a conspiracy theory entirely subjective.

LOL

Oh, of course it is! After all, you're the one who made it.

You see. Despite the fact that I've already provided some evidence, you are claiming I didn't. An excellent demonstration of the subjective nature of the interpretation of evidence.

In any case, my thread met all the criteria for thread creation in the Current Events forum. The opinion of RFK Jr. is the news story. Whether or not one agrees with his opinion is neither here nor there. The mere fact that he is calling for a new investigation into his father's death is newsworthy in its own right. But because one troll labeled my thread a "conspiracy theory", it was sent to this netherworld where the only people who will read are obsessives such as yourself. That is a form of censorship whether you admit it or not.

 

No you have not presented evidence for any of those claims.

 

But of course I have.

I provided a link to a BBC article about the CIA officers and I provided a link from the SF Gate about the coroner's assessment of RFK's wounds.

So either you are lying or you are just too lazy to read the thread in a thorough manner. In either case, your behavior does not presage a reasonable discussion.

More to the point, no matter what evidence I provide or do not provide, your interpretation of it will always remain subjective. That is the nature of interpretation.

 

The BBC is a tabloid not a valid source that is objective fact.

You have presented no evidence which typical of conspiracy theorists which is a real term referring to cranks.

 

LOL

Thanks for proving my point.

 

I defeated it.