I have had a JFKA epiphany!

[Lance Payette]

I’m embarrassed to admit that this never clicked with me before, but my interactions here have been a genuine epiphany.

I always assumed the JFKA research community, LNers and CTers alike, was a quest for What Really Happened. Silly me.

I thus assumed that CTers’ efforts to poke holes in the LN narrative were in furtherance of some coherent conspiracy theory. Some favored LBJ, some the Mafia, others the CIA or KGB, and so on and so forth.

I now realize this was simply wrong. Some, like Tom with his KGB narrative, do have and promote a coherent theory. However, a very large and vocal segment of the CT community is not working in furtherance of ANY THEORY AT ALL. Like criminal defense counsel, all they want to do is create doubt about the LN narrative.

A criminal defense attorney doesn’t need a theory as to who DID rob the bank or commit the murder. He just needs to create doubt that his client did. Any silly argument is worth making if there is the slightest chance the dummies on the jury might buy it. This is why lawyers refer to the “straight face test” – can you at least assert your nonsense with a straight face?

I now see why my efforts at the “epistemological” level go nowhere. I keep asking, “How does what you are saying making any sense at all unless the conspirators were utter bumbling fools?"

I never get any answers because, for the Oswald Defense Counsel Team, what they say doesn’t have to make sense! It doesn’t have to further any coherent conspiracy theory! Whether what they say would require the conspirators to have been utter bumbling fools is irrelevant!

This has been a true epiphany. I now realize that this is why I end up consigning this class of CTers to the bin of people not worth my time. Unless all I were interested in were defending the LN narrative like a religious zealot, why would I waste my time with folks who genuinely don’t care whether what they say makes any sense?

This does raise a second-level epistemological concern: Why would anyone waste so much time playing defense counsel for a guy who’s been dead almost 62 years? If your efforts aren’t in furtherance of a coherent alternative theory, what’s the point? Obviously, I expect no answers to THOSE questions either.

Epiphanies at age 75 are few and far between, but this was one.

[Lance Payette]

I might add that this is true, albeit less obviously so, even at the level of characters like Morley and Newman. They have no coherent theory of the JFKA.

Their game is to create a confusing mishmash of "CIA stuff" and hope you'll make the connection that it somehow "explains the JFKA."

This is why the well-known CTer who nevertheless encouraged my little efforts told me privately that "At some point, Newman will need to bring it all to Dealey Plaza, but I doubt he ever will."

[Fred Litwin]

The challenge for the conspiracy people, which they won't accept, is to take all of their planted evidence, the mysterious deaths, the second Oswalds, the multiple gunmen, etc and weave it into
a coherent narrative. They simply have too much conspiracy factoids that you cannot put into a narrative.

fred

[Charles Collins]

I’m embarrassed to admit that this never clicked with me before, but my interactions here have been a genuine epiphany.

I always assumed the JFKA research community, LNers and CTers alike, was a quest for What Really Happened. Silly me.

I thus assumed that CTers’ efforts to poke holes in the LN narrative were in furtherance of some coherent conspiracy theory. Some favored LBJ, some the Mafia, others the CIA or KGB, and so on and so forth.

I now realize this was simply wrong. Some, like Tom with his KGB narrative, do have and promote a coherent theory. However, a very large and vocal segment of the CT community is not working in furtherance of ANY THEORY AT ALL. Like criminal defense counsel, all they want to do is create doubt about the LN narrative.

A criminal defense attorney doesn’t need a theory as to who DID rob the bank or commit the murder. He just needs to create doubt that his client did. Any silly argument is worth making if there is the slightest chance the dummies on the jury might buy it. This is why lawyers refer to the “straight face test” – can you at least assert your nonsense with a straight face?

I now see why my efforts at the “epistemological” level go nowhere. I keep asking, “How does what you are saying making any sense at all unless the conspirators were utter bumbling fools?"

I never get any answers because, for the Oswald Defense Counsel Team, what they say doesn’t have to make sense! It doesn’t have to further any coherent conspiracy theory! Whether what they say would require the conspirators to have been utter bumbling fools is irrelevant!

This has been a true epiphany. I now realize that this is why I end up consigning this class of CTers to the bin of people not worth my time. Unless all I were interested in were defending the LN narrative like a religious zealot, why would I waste my time with folks who genuinely don’t care whether what they say makes any sense?

This does raise a second-level epistemological concern: Why would anyone waste so much time playing defense counsel for a guy who’s been dead almost 62 years? If your efforts aren’t in furtherance of a coherent alternative theory, what’s the point? Obviously, I expect no answers to THOSE questions either.

Epiphanies at age 75 are few and far between, but this was one.

Date Registered: February 02, 2025, 04:17:11 PMLocal Time:April 04, 2025, 03:28:58 PMLast Active: Today at 02:53:08 PM

What took you so long?   

Just kidding, quite frankly, it took me a lot longer….

[Royell Storing]

 "Coherent Conspiracy Theory"?  How about any Evidence to rebut Knott Labs Forensic SCIENCE finding the SBT, "IS IMPOSSIBLE"? Without even the possibility of the SBT, there are multiple shooters = Conspiracy. As it NOW stands, this is a Slam Dunk!

[Jim Hawthorn]

I'd say that CTers keep more of an open mind about the many possibilities that present themselves when one sifts through all this stuff.
I think that because you've had an "epiphany" in realising this Lance is a very good illustration of the tunnel vision of a typical LNer fan.
I myself remain wobbling on the fence. One day I can read something that sways to the lone nut, the next day, something else sends me swaying back the other way.

Remember that Gerald Ford told the president of France that they knew that there had been a conspiracy but hadn't been able to find out who was involved. Of course LNer tunnel vision will say as usual "The French president didn't understand English well enough" etc. 

[Jon Banks]

I now realize this was simply wrong. Some, like Tom with his KGB narrative, do have and promote a coherent theory. However, a very large and vocal segment of the CT community is not working in furtherance of ANY THEORY AT ALL. Like criminal defense counsel, all they want to do is create doubt about the LN narrative.

No one can "create" doubt in a murder investigation.

Doubt exists because there are holes in the case. The JFK assassination is full of sloppy police work, weird coincidences, inconsistent testimonies, and inconclusive evidence.

Even if you believe Oswald acted alone, it's impossible to reach absolute certainty due to the mountains of problems with the evidence.

I believe there was probably a conspiracy but I admit that I'm not certain there was one.

This does raise a second-level epistemological concern: Why would anyone waste so much time playing defense counsel for a guy who’s been dead almost 62 years? If your efforts aren’t in furtherance of a coherent alternative theory, what’s the point? Obviously, I expect no answers to THOSE questions either.

For me, it's not about exonerating LHO, its about establishing the Truth about what happened.

The murder of a US President is a BIG deal.

An even bigger deal if it was an inside job (as it increasingly appears to have been).

Even if no one is held accountable for the conspiracy to kill JFK, most of us will settle for the Truth because it matters...

[Jon Banks]

The challenge for the conspiracy people, which they won't accept, is to take all of their planted evidence, the mysterious deaths, the second Oswalds, the multiple gunmen, etc and weave it into
a coherent narrative. They simply have too much conspiracy factoids that you cannot put into a narrative.

fred

The Dallas PD was either incompetent or intentionally malicious, but most of the problems with the evidence at the Book Depository and Tippit crime scenes originates from the mishandling of the case by local police. Captain Westbrook appears to have been in the middle of nearly all the problems with the Dallas PD evidence on 11/22/63.

The FBI is responsible for the post-11/22 cover-up and they no doubt got orders from LBJ and Hoover to focus on Oswald and ignore other potential leads.

The CIA and Secret Service obstructed investigations and covered up stuff too.

All of the above could be dismissed as incompetence and attempts after the fact to cover up their incompetence. I'm receptive to that argument.

However, in the big picture, that explanation doesn't explain the inconsistencies in the forensic evidence and other inexplicable stuff related to this case.

For example, how is it that dozens of witnesses between Parkland and Bethesda said they saw the back of Kennedy's head blown out but the autopsy photos don't show it? We're talking about doctors and nurses. Not lay people. How could so many of them be wrong in their description of Kennedy's head wound?

The inconsistencies with the Medical evidence are one of the main reasons I don't think we'll ever be able to conclusively say there was a single shooter.

People intuitively feel that there's more to the story and they're probably right.