I understand the HOW but not the WHY

[Lance Payette]

I understand the HOW of the Conspiracy Game. This was the point of my magnum opus at the Ed Forum, “A Beginner’s Guide to the Conspiracy Game.” It has vanished from the Ed Forum just in the past few weeks – odd, no? – but is preserved right here:

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4152.msg159373.html#msg159373.

What I truly don’t understand is the WHY of the Conspiracy Game. Explain it to me if you can.

As a civil lawyer for either the plaintiff or the defendant, and in my few cases as a criminal prosecutor, I needed to start with a “theory of the case" and work from there. This theory of the case is what I was trying to sell to the judge or jury.

Only a criminal defense lawyer doesn’t need a theory of the case, merely to create reasonable doubt about the prosecution’s case. But even here, the prosecution may point out that what the defense is arguing simply does not hold together logically or make any real-world sense.

Even among CTers who actually do have an overall theory – e.g., the Mafia did it – the Conspiracy Game is played at the level described in my “Beginner’s Guide.” It’s almost entirely about poking holes in the LN narrative, not about advancing the Mafia narrative or even explaining how the holes you've poked fit into the Mafia narrative.

There is a very obvious avoidance of what should be the threshold "theory of the case" issues: (1) what sense would this have made and (2) how would it actually have worked? In my considerable experience, asking such questions gets the same sort of response as displaying a crucifix gets from a vampire.

You at least need some broad but coherent hypothesis – don’t you? You can't just say "the Mafia did it" in the same way you might have said "the dog ate my homework" - can you?

Within the Conspiracy Game, where we deal over and over and over, ad nauseam, with specific items of evidence (the curtain rods! the money order! the shirt!), these same questions can be asked: OK, we'll stipulate someone other than Oswald ordered the rifle in March. Explain, please, (1) what sense this would have made and (2) how it actually would have worked, both specifically in regard to the rifle and more broadly in the context of your Mafia-did-it hypothesis.

Again, crickets. Every time, crickets. When I don’t get crickets, I get some snarly response (“useless garbage” just this morning!) suggesting I’m somehow being impolite by even asking such questions. I have violated the rules of the Conspiracy Game. I’m not playing fair.

The reality is that logic, critical thinking and coherency are anathema to Conspiracy Game participants. It’s all just ad hoc “What about this … and this over here … and that over there?” … and this too ... what about all that - huh, huh?"

I learned this early in my foray into JFKA research, when I established that the Klein’s postal money order is stamped with a file locator number proving it was processed through the Federal Reserve banking system and deposited at the federal records center in Alexandria, VA. The locator number was stamped at the records center so the money order could be easily located if a need for it should arise (as it did on the day of the JFKA). Silly me, I assumed this would end the “fake postal money order” nonsense.

Did it? Hell, no. The “fake” crowd just shifted the goal posts. The file locator number itself was fake! Instead of ending the nonsense, the “fake” locator number and the “supposed discovery” of the money order at the records center just showed how clever the conspirators were (except that they omitted the “necessary” [imaginary] bank stamps, showing how stupid they were whenever the theory required them to be stupid rather than clever.)

Ask what sense this would have made and how it actually would have worked and you get … nothing. Ask how it fits into the Mafia-did-it hypothesis or even Harvey & Lee and you get … nothing.

All of which drives me to the conclusion that the WHY of the Conspiracy Game is really just - that's right - mental masturbation.

At least when I waste three hours on a jigsaw puzzle, I do get the satisfaction of seeing it completed. Hey, there's a quaint Scottish village! But the Conspiracy Game just seems to me to have no point, like wasting 7,000 hours on a jigsaw puzzle that you know in advance will just be a big Rorschach blob when you're finished. Why is this fun, why is it deemed a worthwhile endeavor to the tune of 5,000 or more posts?

Am I wrong? Is there a WHY? Explain it, please – and why you so studiously avoid addressing “What sense would that have made?” and “How would that actually have worked?”

[Charles Collins]

I understand the HOW of the Conspiracy Game. This was the point of my magnum opus at the Ed Forum, “A Beginner’s Guide to the Conspiracy Game.” It has vanished from the Ed Forum just in the past few weeks – odd, no? – but is preserved right here:

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4152.msg159373.html#msg159373.

What I truly don’t understand is the WHY of the Conspiracy Game. Explain it to me if you can.

As a civil lawyer for either the plaintiff or the defendant, and in my few cases as a criminal prosecutor, I needed to start with a “theory of the case" and work from there. This theory of the case is what I was trying to sell to the judge or jury.

Only a criminal defense lawyer doesn’t need a theory of the case, merely to create reasonable doubt about the prosecution’s case. But even here, the prosecution may point out that what the defense is arguing simply does not hold together logically or make any real-world sense.

Even among CTers who actually do have an overall theory – e.g., the Mafia did it – the Conspiracy Game is played at the level described in my “Beginner’s Guide.” It’s almost entirely about poking holes in the LN narrative, not about advancing the Mafia narrative or even explaining how the holes you've poked fit into the Mafia narrative.

There is a very obvious avoidance of what should be the threshold "theory of the case" issues: (1) what sense would this have made and (2) how would it actually have worked? In my considerable experience, asking such questions gets the same sort of response as displaying a crucifix gets from a vampire.

You at least need some broad but coherent hypothesis – don’t you? You can't just say "the Mafia did it" in the same way you might have said "the dog ate my homework" - can you?

Within the Conspiracy Game, where we deal over and over and over, ad nauseam, with specific items of evidence (the curtain rods! the money order! the shirt!), these same questions can be asked: OK, we'll stipulate someone other than Oswald ordered the rifle in March. Explain, please, (1) what sense this would have made and (2) how it actually would have worked, both specifically in regard to the rifle and more broadly in the context of your Mafia-did-it hypothesis.

Again, crickets. Every time, crickets. When I don’t get crickets, I get some snarly response (“useless garbage” just this morning!) suggesting I’m somehow being impolite by even asking such questions. I have violated the rules of the Conspiracy Game. I’m not playing fair.

The reality is that logic, critical thinking and coherency are anathema to Conspiracy Game participants. It’s all just ad hoc “What about this … and this over here … and that over there?” … and this too ... what about all that - huh, huh?"

I learned this early in my foray into JFKA research, when I established that the Klein’s postal money order is stamped with a file locator number proving it was processed through the Federal Reserve banking system and deposited at the federal records center in Alexandria, VA. The locator number was stamped at the records center so the money order could be easily located if a need for it should arise (as it did on the day of the JFKA). Silly me, I assumed this would end the “fake postal money order” nonsense.

Did it? Hell, no. The “fake” crowd just shifted the goal posts. The file locator number itself was fake! Instead of ending the nonsense, the “fake” locator number and the “supposed discovery” of the money order at the records center just showed how clever the conspirators were (except that they omitted the “necessary” [imaginary] bank stamps, showing how stupid they were whenever the theory required them to be stupid rather than clever.)

Ask what sense this would have made and how it actually would have worked and you get … nothing. Ask how it fits into the Mafia-did-it hypothesis or even Harvey & Lee and you get … nothing.

All of which drives me to the conclusion that the WHY of the Conspiracy Game is really just - that's right - mental masturbation.

At least when I waste three hours on a jigsaw puzzle, I do get the satisfaction of seeing it completed. Hey, there's a quaint Scottish village! But the Conspiracy Game just seems to me to have no point, like wasting 7,000 hours on a jigsaw puzzle that you know in advance will just be a big Rorschach blob when you're finished. Why is this fun, why is it deemed a worthwhile endeavor to the tune of 5,000 or more posts?

Am I wrong? Is there a WHY? Explain it, please – and why you so studiously avoid addressing “What sense would that have made?” and “How would that actually have worked?”

You at least need some broad but coherent hypothesis – don’t you?


Sadly, it appears to me that the answer is no for many folks. (If sixty one plus years of the same old sh*t is any indication.) People are typically distrustful of the authorities; that’s the game changer. Apparently, it matters not to many folks whether they make any sense whatsoever. They will continue to believe whatever they want to believe (and that typically excludes anything the authorities say, no matter what).
I think that if and when they truly want some answers (instead of just more and more questions) they will start listening to reason. But not until they truly decide to put aside their prejudices and approach the case with an open mind.

[Jarrett Smith]

Carlos Marcello ordered the hit on JFK. RFK was waging all-out war against organized crime (Who felt betrayed) and also had Marcello deported. Oswald's uncle in New Orleans had ties to Marcello, and Oswald lived in New Orleans. Oswald was a shooter that day and Jack Ruby who had plenty of mafia ties was chosen to silence him. My theory is they killed JFK to eliminate RFK's war on organized crime. Santo Trafficanti reportedly said on his deathbed, "Carlos [Marcello] screwed up. We shouldn't have killed John. We should've killed Bobby,"

[Jon Banks]

At least when I waste three hours on a jigsaw puzzle, I do get the satisfaction of seeing it completed. Hey, there's a quaint Scottish village! But the Conspiracy Game just seems to me to have no point, like wasting 7,000 hours on a jigsaw puzzle that you know in advance will just be a big Rorschach blob when you're finished. Why is this fun, why is it deemed a worthwhile endeavor to the tune of 5,000 or more posts?

Don't overthink it. Mysteries fascinate some people. People debate endlessly online and offline about unresolved historical events or plot-twists in their favorite TV shows.

If you're bored with debating and discussing the JFK assassination, why are you here?

[Lance Payette]

Carlos Marcello ordered the hit on JFK. RFK was waging all-out war against organized crime (Who felt betrayed) and also had Marcello deported. Oswald's uncle in New Orleans had ties to Marcello, and Oswald lived in New Orleans. Oswald was a shooter that day and Jack Ruby who had plenty of mafia ties was chosen to silence him. My theory is they killed JFK to eliminate RFK's war on organized crime. Santo Trafficanti reportedly said on his deathbed, "Carlos [Marcello] screwed up. We shouldn't have killed John. We should've killed Bobby,"

Yes, I can articulate a fairly coherent Mafia theory. Not only do we have the obvious wish to de-fang RFK, but pinning the JFKA on a Castro supporter had the potential to restore the Mafia's incredibly lucrative Cuban casino/resort empire. HATE + MONEY makes for a compelling motive. The stumbling blocks (for me) are that Oswald's uncle's ties to the Mafia are tenuous at best, Ruby's ties to the Mafia (if any) are equally tenuous, and I have difficulty picturing the Mafia making use of characters like Ruby and Oswald in a Presidential assassination plot. Plus, I have difficulty picturing a Mafia hit looking like Dealey Plaza. If the Mafia were setting up Oswald as a pro-Castro patsy, he would've been one of the shooters and there would have no mess - he would never have left the sixth floor.

I guess my problem is, I have too much respect for the Mafia's professionalism to think this was the best they could do! I grew up in Tucson, which was then "owned" by Joe Bonanno (Joe Bananas). Every now and then, an Italian restaurant or some Cadillac would blow up. Everyone - police, journalists, everyone - knew it was Joe, but there was never a clue, never anything that really led to him.

I know the Marcello and Trafficante stories, but Marcello or Trafficante saying anything incriminating to anyone, ever, about a Presidential assassination would be distinctly un-Mafia like.

But your perspective is not one that I flat-out reject, and at least you have a "theory of the case" to work with.

[Lance Payette]

If you're bored with debating and discussing the JFK assassination, why are you here?

A fair question. In certain subject matter areas - Christian theology, the UFO phenomenon, psychical research, golf, and (to a lesser extent) the JFKA - I have accumulated such a large body of knowledge that I almost feel a responsibility to do something with it. With regard to the JFKA (as well as theology and the UFO phenomenon), I'm always under the illusion that I can help people focus their thinking and understand where they may have gone awry; it's futile, indeed an illusion, but I persist. Moreover, all my life I have written humor, and the JFKA is an almost irresistible outlet for silliness; since I am my own best audience, I enjoy exercising my propensity for silliness even if no one else does!  Lastly, exploring and exploding the occasional factoid is very similar to what I did in my legal career and just kind of fun even if I actually care nothing about the factoid. But then I'll get bored and realize it all goes nowhere, and eventually I'll move on. I did pull the plug at the Ed Forum (no regrets) and once here (as Martin keeps reminding me), but then I'll get stuck in the house by the weather and return to something like this forum as an outlet for my pedantry and silliness. Someday, probably soon, everyone will realize (perhaps to their relief!) that they haven't see Lance in months.

[Jon Banks]

A fair question. In certain subject matter areas - Christian theology, the UFO phenomenon, psychical research, golf, and (to a lesser extent) the JFKA - I have accumulated such a large body of knowledge that I almost feel a responsibility to do something with it. With regard to the JFKA (as well as theology and the UFO phenomenon), I'm always under the illusion that I can help people focus their thinking and understand where they may have gone awry; it's futile, indeed an illusion, but I persist. Moreover, all my life I have written humor, and the JFKA is an almost irresistible outlet for silliness; since I am my own best audience, I enjoy exercising my propensity for silliness even if no one else does!  Lastly, exploring and exploding the occasional factoid is very similar to what I did in my legal career and just kind of fun even if I actually care nothing about the factoid. But then I'll get bored and realize it all goes nowhere, and eventually I'll move on. I did pull the plug at the Ed Forum (no regrets) and once here (as Martin keeps reminding me), but then I'll get stuck in the house by the weather and return to something like this forum as an outlet for my pedantry and silliness. Someday, probably soon, everyone will realize (perhaps to their relief!) that they haven't see Lance in months.

That's a fair response. My only objection is that you seem to think there's something wrong with people speculating about unexplained phenomenons or unresolved history.

Speculating about UFOs or the JFK assassination harms no one. Millions of rational and intelligent people aren't convinced by the LN narrative and that's not likely to ever change given all the weird stuff in the JFK assassination and the investigations. So it is futile to keep trying to change people's minds.

As for myself, despite being a millennial, I personally have always been fascinated with the history and pop culture of the 1960s. The assassinations of political leaders in the 60s, the Vietnam war, the Manson murders, and the music of the 60s are often on my list of topics to research.

[Lance Payette]

That's a fair response. My only objection is that you seem to think there's something wrong with people speculating about unexplained phenomenons or unresolved history.

No, not at all. Theology, by necessity, is entirely speculative. The UFO phenomenon (which I have experienced) is a genuine phenomenon, but what it is remains entirely speculative. Virtually all the phenomena with which psychical research deals (a number of which I have experienced) are well-established, but what they are and what they mean remains entirely speculative. Ditto with the Shroud of Turin and the NDE phenomenon, another two of my pet interests but also largely speculative. I speculate, speculate, speculate along with everyone else. But there is rational, logical speculation and Gee Whiz, True Believer speculation that is driven more by cognitive bias and wishful thinking than evidence and rational analysis. Since I share some of the conspiracy-prone mindset myself, I (thanks largely to my legal training) make an effort to stay in the ballpark of evidence and rational analysis. All areas of Weirdness, including the JFKA (in spades), are rife with folks who simply aren't thinking clearly.

Speculating about UFOs or the JFK assassination harms no one. Millions of rational and intelligent people aren't convinced by the LN narrative and that's not likely to ever change given all the weird stuff in the JFK assassination and the investigations. So it is futile to keep trying to change people's minds.

Mostly it's harmless, but certainly many psychologists and sociologists think it isn't necessarily harmless. One could make an argument that irresponsible JFKA conspiracy theorizing has had some very harmful ripple effects.

As for myself, despite being a millennial, I personally have always been fascinated with the history and pop culture of the 1960s. The assassinations of political leaders in the 60s, the Vietnam war, the Manson murders, and the music of the 60s are often on my list of topics to research.

Well, hey, I lived through the 50's and 60's and once had a collection of thousands of 45s that were catalogued and cross-referenced in absurd detail. I was a legend. I once had a woman I'd never even met walk up to me at a party in the 80s and ask, as a test, "Who sang Red Rubber Ball." I replied, "The Cyrkle - C-Y-R-K-L-E," and started reciting the lyrics. She walked away shaking her head and saying, "It's true, it's true." So start some inappropriate threads on THAT subject, which will be way more interesting than the JFKA!