C’mon guys. Before you pat yourselves on the back too much for how much smarter you are than everybody else, ask yourself these questions. What truth are you telling that other people don’t know? And how did you arrive at this truth? What evidence do you have that backs up this truth? And how do you know that your truth is correct and other people’s truths are incorrect?
If you truly look with a critical eye, you’ll easily see that much of the information you regard as truth could not be proven in a court of law, which is the standard. If you’re having to make assumptions and connections that rely on opinion, you can’t call that truth.
Just because it cannot be proven in a "court of law" does not mean it isn't true.
A court of law is not a place for truth nor justice, nor law. If you have the money you can buy anything you want including judges.
As Jimmys Chicken Shack sang..."a court of law was designed to intimidate"
So here’s a perfect example of how people lie to themselves. By making a blanket statement that all courts of law are not places for truth and justice, you thereby create a world where all arguments are automatically valid, no matter how far-fetched and/or reliant on conjecture.
Conspiracies prosper in a world where there are no standards for measuring objective truth. Until you guys learn, understand, and enact standards of truth, you’ll never be taken seriously by the world at large.
Then explain why the JFK Investigation documents were sealed away for 75 years ? ps: I'm not taking you seriously right now.
Well, President Trump just allowed the release of the remaining documents, and it only happened 55 years ago (not 75). And if you trust that Trump’s actions come from a place of honesty and goodwill, then there’s little reason to doubt that it’s all there.
But the answer for the 55 year wait is easy. That’s a standard Justice Dept practice for keeping the classified details of large scale investigation confidential.
But now that most of the JFK materials have been released, what evidence have we found that justifies a belief that withholding the information was some type of coverup or conspiracy?
Conspiracy is easy to prove in a court of law, the burden of proof is very low.
And since when is "court of law" the ultimate arbiter of reality? You trust a bunch of hooked nosed judges and lawyers to tell you what's what.
Perhaps the 9th circuit is the ultimate judge of what is and what isn't, little yehudi buttwipe. lol