Sometimes life really is just as bizarre as the events that happened that November weekend in 1963. But more often than not, another explanation is entirely more rational.
Sometimes life really is just as bizarre as the events that happened that November weekend in 1963. But more often than not, another explanation is entirely more rational.
I think, in life, we always look for the most plausible explanation. Such as if the virus emerged in Wuhan, and there was a virology lab in Wuhan, then the "wet market" thesis is more than a bit "wet." So Oswald as the "lone gunman" would not be the most rational nor first choice.
I personally do not rely on the "rationality" of an explanation. After all, many of these events are highly irrational, so why should they have rational explanations? I rely heavily on real research, and this has certainly been the case with the JFK assassination, along with 9/11 and many (many!) other events of history and science.
Sometimes life really is just as bizarre as the events that happened that November weekend in 1963. But more often than not, another explanation is entirely more rational.
If you are saying that Oswald was a lone gunman, then you are the one who is not being rational!
I think, in life, we always look for the most plausible explanation. Such as if the virus emerged in Wuhan, and there was a virology lab in Wuhan, then the "wet market" thesis is more than a bit "wet." So Oswald as the "lone gunman" would not be the most rational nor first choice.
He doesn't seem to be saying that.
I personally do not rely on the "rationality" of an explanation. After all, many of these events are highly irrational, so why should they have rational explanations? I rely heavily on real research, and this has certainly been the case with the JFK assassination, along with 9/11 and many (many!) other events of history and science.