How come it's easy to believe that if Paul McCartney had died, it couldn't possibly be kept secret

[raccoon]

because too many people would have to be relied on to keep their mouths shut, and yet it's easy to believe there was something hinky about the JFK assassination? (For me it is anyway.) :shrug:

[SwampG8r]

1. people will make the narrative fit their beliefs

[Tyrone Slothrop]

2. Is this a serious question?

First of all, let's look at the motives behind keeping something like that secret. One group of people would be keeping something a secret to avoid depressing/saddening The Beatles' fanbase; the other group of people would be keeping something secret in order to avoid being executed for high treason. Slightly higher stakes for the JFK folks...

Secondly, at the height of The Beatles' popularity, Paul would have been in contact with LOTS of people. If he had just suddenly disappeared, a LOT of people would have taken notice. A conspiracy to kill JFK could have easily been set-up between 3 or 4 or 5 people (let's say, Sam Giancana, a disgruntled CIA man and two Cuban marksmen). It would be much easier to keep something like that a secret (particularly if you "disposed" of the marksmen after the assignment).

N.B. This argument is entirely hypothetical. It has nothing to do with my personal beliefs as far as what actually happened with either Paul or JFK.

[raccoon]

3. Yes, it's a serious question.

Thanks for your insights. :hi:

[TZ]

4. because most conspiracy theories aren't rationale

OR logical- which is why I'm skeptical of many of them. I also believe that things just happen...It seems like most conspiracy believers aren't of the mind that shit happens.

[LanternWaste]

5. Your premise appears to rest on the fact...

Your premise appears to rest on the fact that it would be necessary for many, many people to be in on the conspiracy.

However, if as few as only two people knew and/or were involved in the JFK shooting, it would be by definition "hinky". Granted, while two people are more likely to talk than one, I imagine two people are much less likely to talk than "too many people."

[Rabrrrrrr]

6. Your analogy would work only if JFK were killed secretly and a substitute put in his place.

Since he WAS clearly killed, it's much easier to cover up a conspiracy behind that than to try maintain a fiction that someone who DID die really didn't.

To maintain a Paul conspiracy would indeed require a shitload of people to keep the fiction up.

To maintain an assassination conspiracy requires only the one, two, or however many people were actually involved in the killing to keep the fiction up, and that's fairly easy to do.

[cbdo2007]

7. Or if thousands of people had witnessed Paul's "death".

To answer the OP, I don't think it has anything to do with the "secrets" behind comparing these two events as much as it has to do with these two events themselves.

It isn't the "people behind the conspiracy" that help us form our opinions but in these two instances, our own take on the circumstances. No credible person things Paul died and when we see and hear Paul from before and after the supposed death, it's the same guy.

When JFK was killed and then Oswald killed, that made it impossible to NOT have unanswered questions.