[joke ] Conflicting conspiracy theories

Hello everybody,
As you all know, not all conspiracy theories are alike. Conspiracy theorists each have their own view on the JFK-assassination.
Here's a sample :

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

What do you think ?

[parody] Proof of conspiracy...

Hello everybody,
As you all know, some conspiracy theorists pretend they can see signs of foul play in some of the images that we have about the Dealey Plaza events. Some pretend to see a so-called "black-dog man", some a "badgeman" : nothing more than blur and shadows.
Recently, fringe conspiracy theorists have claimed that it was Lee Harvey Oswald, and not Billy Nolan Lovelady, who was standing in the doorway of the Texas School Book Depository. That's ludicrous, if you ask me. It has been proven beyond any doubt that it was Billy Lovelady (and he himself acknowledged it, as well as his colleagues). To reach such a false conclusion, those fringe conspiracy theorists pretend that the pictures were faked (especially Altgens's fifth photograph).
Among those "researchers" are Ralph Cinque and Richard Hooke, who have showed that they are incompetent, worthless at analyzing pictures.
Working with low-resolution images, they see things that don't exist. They take their own dreams for granted. They misinterpret everything. Such a shame !
Anyway, I'll hereby show that anybody can do what they do. I'll hereby show that what they do is easy but leads nowhere. I'll hereby do the same as they do.
Here is my own Cinque-style "research", to "prove" a conspiracy :

About Bill O'Reilly's new book

Hello everybody,
You all know that journalist Bill O'Reilly has written a new book,"Killing Kennedy: The End of Camelot" (Henry Holt and Co., 2012)
O'Reilly writes that Lee Harvey Oswald was the sole assassin. Well, you might say, we already knew.
Well, that's true. We already had the Warren report, the HSCA, John McAdams, Gerald Posner, Jim Moore, David Von Pein, Vincent Bugliosi, and a few others.
The official version of the assassination is the truth, pure and simple. Science has proved it beyond all doubt.
Still, it's good to have Bill O'Reilly's take on that case. He brings new light, he brings an interesting perspective, though his book will not change a thing, nor will it add anything to what we already know.
But what is very noticeable is the effect that book has on the embittered, envious, desperate conspiracy theorists. They are annoyed. They are angry. The same happened when Gerald Posner's book came out, and again when Vincent Bugliosi's book came out.
Conspiracy theorists don't like it when people write books saying Oswald did it. They will stop at nothing to try to prevent people from buying and reading Bill O'Reilly's book.
Take one example : Barry Krusch (you know, the guy who invented the now famous "fake challenge" : a challenge that he is so sure he would lose that he will make sure nobody can take it, all the while pretending he is looking for candidates… what a joke !) has uploaded a video on Amazon to review O'Reilly's book.
I watched that video and really, sincerely felt sorry for Krusch. My God ! It's as if he wanted to show everybody that he had no case. You know, as if he wanted to make sure we would see that he is very poor at analyzing evidence, unable to face the facts, very partial, not honest, and totally ignorant of critical thinking (for those who were not aware of it yet).
Well, I, for one, already knew that.
Barry Krusch focused for long moments on the idea that the sniper's nest (which provided the assassin a perfect place to hide from view) was not arranged by Lee Oswald but by other people in the course of their work.
So what ?
Who cares ?
What matters is that there was indeed some book cartons that provided the assassin a place to hide. That Oswald arranged the boxes himself or that he took advantage of the boxes that were already there, or that, maybe, he arranged the boxes that were already there, does not matter a bit.
It proves nothing either way.
Krusch is ducking the real issues.
Then Krusch mentions some sort of sports event where Lyndon Johnson was in the audience. So what ?
Is that the sort of information that makes Krusch believe, as he wrote elsewhere, that Oswald had an alibi ?
"Oh, I saw Johnson at a football game, Oswald must be innocent…"
That's the kind of "logic" Barry Krusch lives with.
Even James DiEugenio realized that Krusch had nothing. Let me quote DiEugenio (from The Education Forum) : "He depicts a photo of Byrd at a UT game. He then widens the photo to reveal LBJ sitting two seats away. (How this shows anything I don't know. Except upper class Texans went to UT games and sat in good seats together.)"
And I don't even want to bother mentioning Krusch's use of the pictures and drawings of Kennedy's wounds. Pretty soon I am sure Krusch will conclude that the assassin was in the trunk... ("trunk" AmE = "boot" BrE)
Well, I guess that when people see the total lack of quality and the absence of any substance in Barry Krusch's video they will understand that the truth must rather be in Bill O'Reilly's book.
The result ? The more Krusch rants about O'Reilly, the more "Killing Kennedy" books will be sold !!
And I am happy about that.
Thank you, Mister Krusch.