this post was submitted on 11 Mar 2026
11 points (76.2% liked)
Asklemmy
53516 readers
361 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think Kennedy is a mole trap.
It's the most well documented conspiracy ever, literally the textbook example of conspiracy theories. Every detailed has been looked at time and time again by every pair of braincells ever interested in conspiracy. There's absolutely no chance that the government doesn't have every single facet of it fully understood. Instead of giving it a case closed and a pretty bow, they leave it out there as a test. Any time some quack comes out with "secret insider information" and mentions Kennedy, they know they can write him off because anyone that really knows would know the Kennedy thing is a joke.
Every so often an agent has to go stir thr pot by asking this question so everyone still thinks it's important.
We assassinated the president and covered it up so that we can more easily identify conspiracy theorists.
How is there any utility in being able to identify a few crackpots—only the ones who happen to crack their pot on this one particular event? How is Identifying crackpots of any use to the state?
Think of it like an expert playing dumb to catch someone lying about their specific field of study.
If I go out and say I'm a former government agent who had access to the must classified of classified documents, someone has to actually look into that on the off chance it's real. If I follow by mentioning I know the truth about Kennedy, you can basically close the case there as there's no "truth" to be known.