I understand the HOW but not the WHY

[Jon Banks]

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.

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.

But do you at least acknowledge that not all JFKA speculation is the same?

There are some people like Josiah Thompason for example, who don't propose theories about "who really killed JFK". They just identify the holes in the LN narrative.

Another group are people who speculate about who might've killed JFK but stay in the realm of plausible alternative theories (ie the mob, the CIA, the Cubans, the KGB, etc). I consider myself part of this group.

The final group are people who speculate about who might've killed JFK but go into the realm of implausible theories about who killed JFK and play fast and loose with the facts of the case.

Should all three groups of people be viewed the same? I don't think so. Nor do I view all conspiracy theories in general as the same.

Speculating about a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination isn't as ridiculous as speculating that 'the Moon landing was faked', or that '9/11 was an inside job', or the 'Q-Anon' and 'Pizzagate' theories.

[Lance Payette]

But do you at least acknowledge that not all JFKA speculation is the same?

There are some people like Josiah Thompason for example, who don't propose theories about "who really killed JFK". They just identify the holes in the LN narrative.

Another group are people who speculate about who might've killed JFK but stay in the realm of plausible alternative theories (ie the mob, the CIA, the Cubans, the KGB, etc). I consider myself part of this group.

The final group are people who speculate about who might've killed JFK but go into the realm of implausible theories about who killed JFK and play fast and loose with the facts of the case.

Should all three groups of people be viewed the same? I don't think so. Nor do I view all conspiracy theories in general as the same.

Speculating about a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination isn't as ridiculous as speculating that 'the Moon landing was faked', or that '9/11 was an inside job', or the 'Q-Anon' and 'Pizzagate' theories.

Sure, not all JFKA theorizing is fungible. There are LNers for whom the LN narrative - or worse yet, the Warren Report - is a fundamentalist religion, and their motivations and thought processes are equally puzzling to me. As I said to Jim Hawthorn recently, the fact that the WC may have had an agenda to portray Oswald as a Lone Nut does not inevitably mean that he was not, in fact, a Lone Nut.

Interestingly, or maybe not, I had extensive theological dealings with a really bright 61-year-old guy who seemed to be on the same wavelength as I. Then he steered me to his own site - and it was all Fake Moon Landing and Flat Earth - and he definitely wasn't kidding. At the Ed Forum, the current lead moderator is a "Harvard trained psychologist" (as he will remind you again and again) who is also a foaming-at-the-mouth 9/11 Truther who thinks all LNers are trolls and cognitive infiltrators. 

And on it goes. One of my little axioms is, "Just because someone seems reasonable, intelligent, educated, high-functioning and successful in all other areas of his life, do not assume that there is not some corner of his mind where he is pretty much completely insane." Until I realized this and pasted it inside my hat, I got burnt several times in circumstances a lot more serious than a JFKA forum.