I understand the HOW but not the WHY

[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!

[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 Thompson 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.

[John Iacoletti]

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?

Clearly you are special-pleading here, because you can't just say "Oswald did it" in the same way you might have said "the dog ate my homework" either.

Sometimes the most honest answer is "we don't know who did it", and the people who like to concoct prosecution "theories" just have to live with that.

[John Iacoletti]

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.

Paul Simon

[Tom Graves]

Sometimes the most honest answer is "we don't know who did it", and the people who like to concoct prosecution "theories" just have to live with that.

Iacoletti,

If Oswald didn't do it, then who went to the trouble of making it look as though he'd purchased the Carcano, who fired CE-399 and the large fragments found inside the limo through it, who put his palm print and fingerprint on it, who "altered" the backyard photos of him holding it, who "planted" it on the sixth floor, who stacked the box with his fingerprints on it at the Sniper's Nest window, and who put his fingerprints on the paper bag?

How many evil people do you figure were involved in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, and the all-important cover up?

Just a few, or oodles and gobs?

What are your three favorite JFKA conspiracy theories?

[John Iacoletti]

Graves, give it a damn rest.

This forum used to have a way to mute certain users so that their vapid, repetitive trolling remarks were not displayed.  I miss that feature.