How is the SFK theory any different than some of the theories on the Kennedy assassination or Area 51 for example?
People believe wholeheartedly in those theories and are entirely convinced that they are correct in their opinions. They offer just as much proof of their opinion as anyone has offered about the SF Killers.
You say that doubters need to "open your minds," and claim that the SFK theory is "not out of the realm of possibility." And yet when it comes to something like the fake moon landings or UFO's, you say that comparisons are "ridiculous." That sounds pretty closed minded to me. Aren't those theories in the "realm of possibility" as well?
Because most people who believe in the Kennedy assassination/Area 51 aren't actually experts in either of those fields, and the two people who made up SFK theory are experts in the field? Thought it was pretty obvious, but I guess it might be just a stab in the dark huh?
Let's see, which one is more believable. A serial killer or group of killers targets young college men and kills them, dumps them in bodies of water and puts a smiley face kind of near it as a "calling card" like pretty much all serial killers do
-OR- aliens crashed landed in Roswell and then we have their space ships and whatever at a random top secret base in Nevada.
Give me a break. They aren't even on the same level.
Last edited: