General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Who was responsible for the JFK conspiracy theories? [View all]longship
(40,416 posts)And then, if additional data does not support the hypothesis, then it may be in question.
But the important thing is that it is not sufficient to merely malign a hypothesis you don't agree with. Nullifying a hypothesis without a replacement hypothesis is worthless, and is a classic mistake by conspiracy theorists. When asked for a replacement hypothesis they have nothing to offer -- or virtually everything to offer. It was the mafia, or Cuba, or Russia, or the KKK, or those fucking UFOs!!!
There's no cogent explanation from any conspiracy theory. They exist only to shoot down the prevalent narrative when they have none of their own. I've dealt with this before with both Kennedy and 9/11. I ask for data to support their hypothesis and they only say things aimed at negating the actual data. They have no credible data to support their non-existent hypotheses except for possibly cherry-picked data.
We also see these things with Creationists and climate change deniers. Their techniques are the same.
It's all rubbish.