This is a response to VC 26 Stuart 1 ("So (lift the)-lid on facts")...
I really am at a loss at how to begin in addressing in your last card.
Perhaps, I'll just pull out a few items I found most interesting and see if a general response will coalesce as I perform this exercise.
First, where did you get the notion that I assume that you are a supporter of a Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory? I never recall that thought entering my head, and as I reread my cards I can find nothing that (to me) suggests that I said (or implied) that. I would be very interested in knowing what text gave you that impression.
Second, I agree in general with the notion that scientific "truth" as defined by research is being refined every day. Therefore, what is "truth" one day may be changed somewhat the next. However, I think that is a very simplistic way of looking at it. In reality, there are usually different versions of "truth" of a phenomenon which exist at any given time. Any changes later are not a surprise to everyone (someone has probably predicted the change but their theory wasn't in vogue at the earlier time). But, the important point is that someone, somewhere probably had some facts to support the change.
Third, I vehemently disagree with your assertion that "research into contemporary history presents problems that scientific researchers don't encounter; i.e., nature doesn't actively try to hide evidence from researchers the way the governments are wont to do." Maybe, you're implying that governments can consciously hide things while nature can't. But, that doesn't in the least mean that information that is being "hidden" by nature is any more accessible. To me it matters not that information is inaccessible due to a sealed CIA file, the enormity of the universe, the microscopic size of the atom, or the complexity of the mind.
Fourth, I take exception to the way you take exception to my statement that "objectively, what is the difference between the theory that there was a conspiracy to kill JFK and the white supremacist theory that the Holocaust never happened." If you notice, that statement compares two theories (1) a conspiracy to kill JFK, and (2) a white supremecist theory. The heart of your exception is that I am equating "the EXISTENCE of such evidence that millions of people were killed ....... with the ABSENCE of clear evidence that proves that there was a conspiracy to kill Kennedy." What??!! It seems to me that I am comparing the ABSENCE of clear evidence to support the "Zionist theory" with the ABSENCE of clear evidence that proves that there was a conspiracy to kill Kennedy. It seems to me that you have convoluted my argument to fit yours.
What does all this mean? Well, I haven't changed my opinions. I still believe that after 30 years with no verifiable evidence to support a conspiracy theory, that it should be dismissed. If there were a conspiracy, and even though the CIA and the KGB may keep their information private, there were enough other people involved in the affair that it seems quite unlikely that there isn't anyone who could provide some hard evidence to support that theory. This was not like some secret military operation in a foreign country, relatively inaccessible to investigators, and where only a handful of people are involved. The JFK affair happened in full view of the American public and was investigated to death by numerous people and organization, for years and years and years. And still only rumor exists.
And more importantly, I still believe in the comparability of a JFK conspiracy theory with a "Zionist theory" or any theory that is driven only by emotion and/or a desire to support a particular belief, and has NO HARD EVIDENCE to support it. I put them all in the same category with Elvis sightings. And I'm not saying that facetiously - especially in the case of JFK. Through the years, JFK has taken on a sort of folk hero status, as has Elvis, and (to White supremecists), Hitler. People who idolize these individuals as folk heroes tend to keep them alive in one way or another. For further discussion see Larry Card Number 2, this Volume - For Enquiring Minds.