JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Lance Payette on April 19, 2025, 07:19:49 PM
-
Another of my “epistemological” essays no one cares about – but at least Jake Maxwell and I are amusing ourselves and having fun, which is the whole point of jigsaw puzzles. I really think epistemology - examining whether your beliefs are rational, coherent and defensible - is the level at which much theorizing about the JFKA goes awry.
The late John McAdams wrote a book called JFK Assassination Logic: How to Think about Claims of Conspiracy. I bought it and was disappointed. I didn't think the book delivered what the title promised. I actually am interested in "how to think about claims of conspiracy" in an epistemological sense.
I was struck by Michael Walton’s statement, “I have no doubt there was a conspiracy.” This is what many of friends say. They really have no interest at all in the JFKA, but they do have a vague sense that “there’s just too much weird sh*t for Oswald to have done it alone.” There simply had to be “a” conspiracy.
What is “a” conspiracy? Conspiracy theories range from Oswald doing exactly what the LN narrative says he did to Oswald being an innocent patsy who thought Friday was just another day at work, The prime conspirators range from LBJ to CIA higher-ups to the Mafia to grungy Cubans who either hated or loved Castro to the KGB to Israelis to numerous others. Dealey Plaza had everything from Oswald shooting alone to several multi-person kill teams with snipers and spotters.
Does “I have no doubt there was a conspiracy” mean anything at all?
Do I say, “I have no doubt there wasn’t a conspiracy”? Absolutely not. I certainly have doubt, but I’m a provisional Lone Nutter because:
1. Taken as a whole, from who Oswald was to the events in Dealey Plaza and the aftermath, the LN narrative, warts and all, seems to me the most realistic, coherent, evidence-based theory.
2. The number of full-blown but completely irreconcilable conspiracy theories, and the unwillingness of their proponents to deal with the core issue of what real-world sense they would have made and how they actually would have worked, gives me pause.
3. The number of obviously absurd conspiracy theories that are embraced by seemingly educated and intelligent people (e.g., Harvey & Lee) gives me pause.
4. The sloppiness of much CT “research,” and the enthusiasm for factoids that are demonstrably false, gives me pause.
Hence, I am a Lone Nutter who is willing to entertain a coherent, evidence-based conspiracy theory that can be articulated in a way that makes real-world sense. I may not change my position, but I'll listen.
When most people refer to “a” conspiracy, they mean no more than my friends do: There’s just too much weird sh*t to believe the LN narrative (by which they really mean "the Warren Report"). “I have no clue what the conspiracy might have been, but by God there was one.”
This weird sh*t is mostly the product of CTers’ efforts to poke holes in the LN narrative. It really has little to do with any conspiracy per se. It has to do with whether Oswald would have been found guilty at a criminal trial.
A model federal jury instruction defines reasonable doubt thusly:
A reasonable doubt is a doubt based upon reason and common sense and is not based purely on speculation. It may arise from a careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or from lack of evidence.
Note the phrase “all the evidence.”
I personally have reasonable doubt about the Magic Bullet and the SBT. I have reasonable doubt about the alignment of the holes in JFK’s clothing with the holes in his body. I have reasonable doubt the FBI and DPD were entirely honest. Oswald’s preternatural calm after the assassination and during intense interrogation, and his demeanor at the midnight press conference, are almost enough in themselves to give me reasonable doubt about the whole case against him. My difficulty articulating a clear motive on the part of Oswald gives me pause. The obvious motive and means of some hypothesized conspirators, such as Marcello, is hard to ignore. I have little patience with Lone Nutters who seem to feel they are defending religious dogma and can’t acknowledge any issues at all with the LN narrative.
And yet, “all the evidence” is enough to put me in the LN camp. Notwithstanding reasonable doubt about a number of aspects of the LN narrative, it is the theory that is to me the most realistic, coherent and evidence-based.
My point is that “too much weird sh*t” is really no basis for saying “I have no doubt there was a conspiracy.” I think you at least need to study and reflect enough to be able to fit the weird sh*t into some theory that seems reasonably realistic, coherent and evidence-based, that explains the weird sh*t better than the LN narrative and that you can defend when challenged as to how it makes any real-world sense and actually would have worked. You need more than “a” conspiracy.
When I read polls saying things like, “73% of Americans believe the JFKA was the product of a conspiracy,” I always think, “Uh-huh, ‘a’ conspiracy, just what my friends who know essentially nothing about the JFKA also believe.” More accurately, 73% of Americans have some vague notion that there is too much weird sh*t for the LN narrative to be true.
As Walter Cronkite famously said back in the days when I was a journalism major, “We don’t feature stories about all the cats who don’t get stuck in trees and don’t have to be rescued by the Fire Department.” Ditto with the JFKA: The media doesn’t cover the LN narrative because it’s not news. Sixty years of yammering by CTers does tend to look like a lot of weird sh*t, but I really don’t think we’re closer to “the” conspiracy (if there was one) than we were 50 years ago. We just have a somewhat bigger pile of weird sh*t.
-
My point is that “too much weird sh*t” is really no basis for saying “I have no doubt there was a conspiracy.” I think you at least need to study and reflect enough to be able to fit the weird sh*t into some theory that seems reasonably realistic, coherent and evidence-based, that explains the weird sh*t better than the LN narrative and that you can defend when challenged as to how it makes any real-world sense and actually would have worked. You need more than “a” conspiracy.
That's a matter of personal judgement. You have the Right to choose to ignore the "weird sh*t". Others have the Right to not ignore all the "weird sh*t.
At the end of the day, does it matter who is Right or Wrong?
When I read polls saying things like, “73% of Americans believe the JFKA was the product of a conspiracy,” I always think, “Uh-huh, ‘a’ conspiracy, just what my friends who know essentially nothing about the JFKA also believe.” More accurately, 73% of Americans have some vague notion that there is too much weird sh*t for the LN narrative to be true.
Either way, everyone is entitled to their own opinions because we can never reach 100% certainty about what happened on 11/22/63. Most unresolved issues in the Kennedy assassination will remain unresolved.
Why does it bother you that most people believe there was a conspiracy in JFK's assassination if you admit that you have doubts yourself?
-
When most people refer to “a” conspiracy, they mean no more than my friends do: There’s just too much weird sh*t to believe the LN narrative (by which they really mean "the Warren Report"). “I have no clue what the conspiracy might have been, but by God there was one.”
That's nearly as bizarre as "taken as a whole, from who Oswald was to the events in Dealey Plaza and the aftermath, the LN narrative, warts and all, seems to me the most realistic, coherent, evidence-based theory".
-
I think you at least need to study and reflect enough to be able to fit the weird sh*t into some theory that seems reasonably realistic, coherent and evidence-based, that explains the weird sh*t better than the LN narrative and that you can defend when challenged as to how it makes any real-world sense and actually would have worked.
And that doesn't require oodles and gobs of evil, evil bad guys' and really, really bad gals' witting involvement in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, and/or the all-important COVER UP.
-
“A” conspiracy? What is “a” conspiracy?
In my view, it typically boils down to pretty much just this:
(https://i.vgy.me/fk4MqN.jpg)
-
That's a matter of personal judgement. You have the Right to choose to ignore the "weird sh*t". Others have the Right to not ignore all the "weird sh*t.
At the end of the day, does it matter who is Right or Wrong?
This completely misses the point. Thank you for making my point that most people completely miss the point when talking about the JFKA.
I do not have the right to "ignore the weird sh*t' if I wish to have an informed opinion about the JFKA and speak intelligently about it.
I need a theory that deals plausibly with the weird sh*t.
Where you are correct is remarkably similar to my point that almost all JFKA theorizing is just a game or puzzle that ultimately goes nowhere.
-
That's nearly as bizarre as "taken as a whole, from who Oswald was to the events in Dealey Plaza and the aftermath, the LN narrative, warts and all, seems to me the most realistic, coherent, evidence-based theory".
You completely miss the point. Thank you for making my point that most people miss the point when talking about the JFKA.
Yes, that LN position would be equally "bizarre" if someone said it on no greater base of knowledge that "I understand that's what the WC said, and that's good enough for me." This is the functional equivalent of "I've seen too many news stories with weird sh*t in them to believe the WC."
Neither is an epistemologically justified position. Most Flat Earthers actually have a more epistemologically justified position than that. I've debated them, and they can be quite a handful.
My statement could have been prefaced by "After some 50 years of fairly intense study and reflection, including perhaps 400 books and 3,000 articles and ten years of debate on internet forums, it seems to me that, taken as a whole ..."
Little bit of difference, eh?
LOL. But cool story, bro.
-
This completely misses the point. Thank you for making my point that most people completely miss the point when talking about the JFKA.
I do not have the right to "ignore the weird sh*t' if I wish to have an informed opinion about the JFKA and speak intelligently about it.
I need a theory that deals plausibly with the weird sh*t.
Where you are correct is remarkably similar to my point that almost all JFKA theorizing is just a game or puzzle that ultimately goes nowhere.
The world does not revolve around you. Your preferences are personal yet you seem to be arguing that everyone should analyze things the way you do. You're the smartest person in the world in your own mind. :D
It's reasonable for others to draw different conclusions given that there are so many holes in the JFKA evidence and problems with the investigations.
-
As little a two people involved = a conspiracy.
-
As little a two people involved = a conspiracy.
Sure, as I have pointed out (and been hooted down). Certainly, a conspiracy with Oswald and someone else not in Dealey Plaza, or Oswald and a rear gunman, is more plausible and easier to rationalize. But two-person conspiracies are no fun, are they?
Bear in mind, when I speak of epistemology I'm not talking about whether you can convince me or anyone else. I'm talking about YOUR OWN thought processes: examining whether you are thinking rationally and whether your ideas are coherent and deal with the weird sh*t in a realistic and plausible manner.
If someone's attitude is, "I don't really care whether anything I say makes sense, BS-ing about the JFKA is just fun. I can juggle four irreconcilable theories and 25 irreconcilable pieces of evidence at once, no problem" - well, OK I guess, but in most areas of my life I prefer to examine whether I'm thinking rationally and coherently and can articulate and defend a realistic, plausible idea. That's why epistemological justification MEANS; it doesn't mean my ideas must be TRUE.
-
The world does not revolve around you. Your preferences are personal yet you seem to be arguing that everyone should analyze things the way you do. You're the smartest person in the world in your own mind. :D
It's reasonable for others to draw different conclusions given that there are so many holes in the JFKA evidence and problems with the investigations.
You continue to completely miss the point. See my response to Jim immediately above.
You ... are ... completely ... missing ... the ... point.
-
One more attempt, my fellow philosophers:
"There is no God. The physical universe is all there is or ever has been."
"There is a triune God who created everything and who hears and answers our prayers."
Both of these metaphysical positions can have epistemological justification. Both are held by philosophers, theologians, Nobel laureates and others of the highest intellectual caliber.
Both are held by True Believers (or Non-Believers, as the case may be) for pretty much mindless reasons having nothing to do with the truth of the position. If I say there is no God because babies wouldn't die of terrible diseases if there were, this is not an epistemologically justified position.
EITHER POSITION COULD BE TRUE. BOTH COULD BE FALSE. BOTH CAN BE EPISTEMOLOGICALLY JUSTIFIED.
I want my position on the JFKA to be as justified as I can make. At least in my own mind, I want to be able to explain it to myself in a way that seems rational, coherent, realistic (plausible), that confronts and deals with the problem areas, and that I can articulate and defend if I need to do so.
It seems to me - perhaps you disagree or don't care - that an awful lot of CTers don't feel the need for much if any epistemological justification for THEIR OWN BELIEFS and rather obviously avoid articulating and defending them if called upon to do so. Witness my CE-399 thread where only Martin even took a stab at addressing my very basic "What sense does that make?" questions. They are rather curiously content with just "a" conspiracy.
In the abstract, a conspiracy theory with Oswald as a complete patsy, multiple three-man kill teams and LBJ at the helm COULD BE as epistemologically justified as the LN narrative. That's why I'm still waiting, waiting for someone to provide a plausible, realistic set of answers to "What sense would have that have made? Why would the conspirators have done that? How would that actually have worked, from the time it was a gleam in someone's eye until all was said and done?"
-
To me almost as compelling as the evidence linking Oswald to this crime is the absolute absurdity of any alternative explanation that explains away all this evidence as the product of fakery or bad luck. There is no coherent alternative narrative that could be the product of any plan. In the CTer fantasy, Oswald is forever like the cartoon character Mr. Magoo innocently blundering into situations that appear to link him to the crime. At times he is Gomer Pyle going along in blissful ignorance while being framed. At other times he says "Shazam" and realizes his patsy status. It's a dizzying array of often mutually contradictory explanations to shoehorn a conspiracy theory into the known facts and circumstances.
-
Sure, as I have pointed out (and been hooted down). Certainly, a conspiracy with Oswald and someone else not in Dealey Plaza, or Oswald and a rear gunman, is more plausible and easier to rationalize. But two-person conspiracies are no fun, are they?
Bear in mind, when I speak of epistemology I'm not talking about whether you can convince me or anyone else. I'm talking about YOUR OWN thought processes: examining whether you are thinking rationally and whether your ideas are coherent and deal with the weird sh*t in a realistic and plausible manner.
If someone's attitude is, "I don't really care whether anything I say makes sense, BS-ing about the JFKA is just fun. I can juggle four irreconcilable theories and 25 irreconcilable pieces of evidence at once, no problem" - well, OK I guess, but in most areas of my life I prefer to examine whether I'm thinking rationally and coherently and can articulate and defend a realistic, plausible idea. That's why epistemological justification MEANS; it doesn't mean my ideas must be TRUE.
Most conspiracy theories in general are BS. Even in the world of JFK assassination theories, I'll grant you that there are many implausible theories in the JFKA CT universe.
Nevertheless, conspiracies happen. Both criminals and governments conspire to do crimes or unethical stuff.
If you say: "90% of conspiracy theories are implausible", I can agree with you if you say that.
But we're probably going to disagree on the remaining 10% because as I noted, conspiracies do happen sometimes. I'm not convinced that all the weird stuff in the JFK assassination is coincidental or due to incompetence, therefore, I'm not convinced of the LN'er narrative.
-
One more attempt, my fellow philosophers:
"There is no God. The physical universe is all there is or ever has been."
"There is a triune God who created everything and who hears and answers our prayers."
Both of these metaphysical positions can have epistemological justification. Both are held by philosophers, theologians, Nobel laureates and others of the highest intellectual caliber.
Both are held by True Believers (or Non-Believers, as the case may be) for pretty much mindless reasons having nothing to do with the truth of the position. If I say there is no God because babies wouldn't die of terrible diseases if there were, this is not an epistemologically justified position.
EITHER POSITION COULD BE TRUE. BOTH COULD BE FALSE. BOTH CAN BE EPISTEMOLOGICALLY JUSTIFIED.
I want my position on the JFKA to be as justified as I can make. At least in my own mind, I want to be able to explain it to myself in a way that seems rational, coherent, realistic (plausible), that confronts and deals with the problem areas, and that I can articulate and defend if I need to do so.
It seems to me - perhaps you disagree or don't care - that an awful lot of CTers don't feel the need for much if any epistemological justification for THEIR OWN BELIEFS and rather obviously avoid articulating and defending them if called upon to do so. Witness my CE-399 thread where only Martin even took a stab at addressing my very basic "What sense does that make?" questions. They are rather curiously content with just "a" conspiracy.
In the abstract, a conspiracy theory with Oswald as a complete patsy, multiple three-man kill teams and LBJ at the helm COULD BE as epistemologically justified as the LN narrative. That's why I'm still waiting, waiting for someone to provide a plausible, realistic set of answers to "What sense would have that have made? Why would the conspirators have done that? How would that actually have worked, from the time it was a gleam in someone's eye until all was said and done?"
This is basically about how badly you crave attention, and it's bad. As high as eight ramblings a day at one time, now roughly five. It's the ego thing, case closed.
-
This is basically about how badly you crave attention, and it's bad. As high as eight ramblings a day at one time, now roughly five. It's the ego thing, case closed.
I guess if I were inclined to be snide - me? - I might say, "This is the best you can do?"
The comments section at FOX News is always humorous because someone is always posting, "Yet more clickbait garbage from FOX." To which the response is always: "And here you are, clicking and commenting on it."
BTW, you are averaging 2.4 posts per day while I am averaging 4.8. An additional 2.4 posts per day is apparently the difference between a desperate craving for attention and out of control ego and - what? - restrained and statesmanlike participation.
A greater mystery to me is participants such as yourself and several others who never actually say anything of substance. What is the psychological explanation for that, I wonder?
I just scrolled through your posts. They are almost entirely non-substantive, mostly one-line observations with a distinct reliance on ad hominem attacks. Whatever.
-
I need a theory that deals plausibly with the weird sh*t.
Then you need to actually deal with the weird sh*t in the official narrative rather than just ignoring it.
-
Then you need to actually deal with the weird sh*t in the official narrative rather than just ignoring it.
Iacoletti,
What's your theory regarding CE-399?
Any idea as to how it became part of the JFKA "mythos"?
Was it fired by one of the bad guys or bad gals that day, or maybe even before that day?
You have thought about it, right?
What have you come up with as far as a plausible origin theory is concerned?
Have you decided not to think about it because it's an "unimportant mystery" and therefore doesn't require an origin theory that meshes with your overall . . . gasp . . . belief, i.e., that Oswald was innocent!!!, innocent!!!, innocent!!! and therefore some other bad guy(s) or bad gal(s) must have dood da deed?
Do you think he or she were rogue CIA agents, by any chance? Or a dirty "cop" or two or three from the DPD? How about oodles and gobs of evil, evil [fill in the blank]?
How does CE-399 fit in with what they did?
Did they want it to be found? Did they create it with such unusual deformation because they somehow knew in advance the kinds of wounds their ice bullets (or whatever) would cause?
Please enlighten us, Mr. Abt I mean Mr. Iacoletti.