JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate
The Lone-Gunman Theory: An Extremely Fragile House of Cards
Lance Payette:
Michael, like myself, is a veritable Rennaissance man of Weirdness, to wit:
https://sites.google.com/view/realissueshomepage/home?authuser=0
We share interests in Theology, Intelligent Design, the Shroud of Turin and, apparently, UFOs. We differ in his enthusiasm for Joseph Smith and Mormonism (although this is likewise one of my areas of intensive study just because it is indeed Weird), his conspiratorial views on the Civil War and Lincoln assassination (no interest, sorry), of Pearl Harbor as a false flag operation (I've read about it but remain unconvinced) and, of course, of the JFKA. I see no evidence on Michael's part of what is probably my overarching interest - i.e., anomalous phenomena, particularly those relating to the possible survival of consciousness after death and, indeed, the nature of consciousness itself.
Michael, like moi, is clearly highly intellgent and highly educated. His writings in our overlapping areas of interest are nothing goofy even if I'm not always in complete agreement.
Over the course of my 60+ year journey through the halls of Weirdness, I have at various times held what I call Gee-Whiz True Believer positions. Always, however, as I have become better-informed and more adept at critical thinking, my True Believerism has melted away. This is true even of the spiritual beliefs that are the foundation of my life. I still hold many Believer positions with which an arch-debunker like Michael Shermer (with whom I've corresponded) would disagree, but I don't hold any that he would dismiss as flat-out irrational or completely lacking in evidence.
This is true of my JFKA journey like everything else: From "Gee-Whiz True Believer CTer" to "No Way Jose LNer" to "Oh, probably it was Oswald alone, but he may well have been encouraged by fellow Castroites and possibly could have been an unwitting participant in a Mafia hit." As in all areas of Weirdness, I can live with the inevitable uncertainty and ambiguity. I even retain a kernel of doubt about my own most startling anomalous experiences.
Which is what befuddles me with MTG's voluminous work on the JFKA: It's self-evidently silly, Gee-Whiz True Believer-level stuff at its worst. It isn't going to resonate with anyone this side of a fellow Gee-Whiz True Believer CTer. Instead of his journey paralleling my own, at least a bit in the direction of rationality, Michael just seems to descend deeper and deeper down the rabbit hole and to be completely oblivious of this reality.
How do we explain this? Truly, I have no idea. It's like some Conspiracy Virus takes hold and cannot be cured. But then, how did I cure it? Not through any conscious effort, but simply by becoming better-informed about the JFKA itself, about critical-thinking and epistemology in general, and about the fallacies to which a conspiracy-oriented mindset like my own and Michael's is prone. The same applies to my evolution from Gee-Whiz True Believer to Slightly Skeptical Believer (or in some cases Non-Believer) across many areas of Weirdness. My decades as a lawyer certainly helped, but they are surely not the sole explanation.
Charles Collins:
--- Quote from: Lance Payette on January 20, 2026, 05:20:26 PM ---Michael, like myself, is a veritable Rennaissance man of Weirdness, to wit:
https://sites.google.com/view/realissueshomepage/home?authuser=0
We share interests in Theology, Intelligent Design, the Shroud of Turin and, apparently, UFOs. We differ in his enthusiasm for Joseph Smith and Mormonism (although this is likewise one of my areas of intensive study just because it is indeed Weird), his conspiratorial views on the Civil War and Lincoln assassination (no interest, sorry), of Pearl Harbor as a false flag operation (I've read about it but remain unconvinced) and, of course, of the JFKA. I see no evidence on Michael's part of what is probably my overarching interest - i.e., anomalous phenomena, particularly those relating to the possible survival of consciousness after death and, indeed, the nature of consciousness itself.
Michael, like moi, is clearly highly intellgent and highly educated. His writings in our overlapping areas of interest are nothing goofy even if I'm not always in complete agreement.
Over the course of my 60+ year journey through the halls of Weirdness, I have at various times held what I call Gee-Whiz True Believer positions. Always, however, as I have become better-informed and more adept at critical thinking, my True Believerism has melted away. This is true even of the spiritual beliefs that are the foundation of my life. I still hold many Believer positions with which an arch-debunker like Michael Shermer (with whom I've corresponded) would disagree, but I don't hold any that he would dismiss as flat-out irrational or completely lacking in evidence.
This is true of my JFKA journey like everything else: From "Gee-Whiz True Believer CTer" to "No Way Jose LNer" to "Oh, probably it was Oswald alone, but he may well have been encouraged by fellow Castroites and possibly could have been an unwitting participant in a Mafia hit." As in all areas of Weirdness, I can live with the inevitable uncertainty and ambiguity. I even retain a kernel of doubt about my own most startling anomalous experiences.
Which is what befuddles me with MTG's voluminous work on the JFKA: It's self-evidently silly, Gee-Whiz True Believer-level stuff at its worst. It isn't going to resonate with anyone this side of a fellow Gee-Whiz True Believer CTer. Instead of his journey paralleling my own, at least a bit in the direction of rationality, Michael just seems to descend deeper and deeper down the rabbit hole and to be completely oblivious of this reality.
How do we explain this? Truly, I have no idea. It's like some Conspiracy Virus takes hold and cannot be cured. But then, how did I cure it? Not through any conscious effort, but simply by becoming better-informed about the JFKA itself, about critical-thinking and epistemology in general, and about the fallacies to which a conspiracy-oriented mindset like my own and Michael's is prone. The same applies to my evolution from Gee-Whiz True Believer to Slightly Skeptical Believer (or in some cases Non-Believer) across many areas of Weirdness. My decades as a lawyer certainly helped, but they are surely not the sole explanation.
--- End quote ---
I think the difference is that an open-minded attitude allows some of us to evolve; while others have closed their minds to anything other than what they want to believe in…
Lance Payette:
I think what Charles says is on the right track. Across the entire spectrum of Weirdness, as well as political and religious beliefs (both being their own species of Weirdness!), confirmation bias is surely the most difficult pitfall to avoid.
In many areas - the JFKA, UFOs, crop circles, poltergeists, whatever - I don't think I have any confirmation bias at all. I merely find these subjects interesting, but I don't particularly care what the explanation turns out to be or have any great need for a particular explanation to be true.
With something like the survival of consciousness after death, or the existence of a deity - well, yes, I do have much more of a visceral or emotional involvement and thus a stronger confirmation bias. I try to be doubly careful in reaching convictions in these areas, which is why in discussions and debates with Gee-Whiz True Believer fanatics I am often accused of being a skeptic or debunker when this is not true at all (except in the sense in which everyone should remain a bit skeptical of his own most cherished beliefs). Based on truly vast amounts of study and a fair amount of experience, I have arrived at quite strong convictions in these areas - but not to the point of losing rationality or being unable to see the countervailing arguments.
It's really difficult for me to see how someone would have a strong confirmation bias insofar as the JFKA is concerned. But people clearly do - on both sides of the debate, LN and CT alike. What would be the deep need for the LN narrative or any conspiracy theory to be true, to the extent of this need overwhelming the ability to think rationally? The answer has to be that the JFKA is a critical cog in one's worldview. The explanation for the JFKA must to be "X," and "X" will inevitably mesh with one's overarching worldview. It is in fact the overarching worldview that is determining what "X" will be. I think this has to be the explanation when we see a fanatical LNer or CTer who is wedded to his position like a religious fundie and who regards anything to the contrary as practically a personal insult. You're not just challenging his position on the JFKA; you're challenging who he is, what he thinks the world is all about.
And yet ... can confirmation bias really be the explanation when we see someone as intelligent and educated as Michael say the preposterous things he says in regard to the JFKA? As far as I can tell, he says nothing comparably preposterous in his writings about Mormonism, Intellgent Design, the Civil War or the Shroud of Turin. He has to know at some level that the conspiracy he posits is a complete fantasy, impossible in the real world.
I'm thoroughly puzzled. If I were to give him and those like him more credit than "they simply lose the ability to think rationally when it comes to the JFKA," I would say that making these preposterous claims must serve some agenda that isn't clear to me. "I'm just going to shovel so much conspiracy sh*t that sooner or later they'll have to reopen the investigation." Maybe, but this seems a stretch as an explanation for the amount of time and effort that Michael puts into his conspiracy sh*t.
It's a puzzle! Michael, of course, would say he simply follows the evidence and applies the same critical-thinking skills to the JFKA that he applies to his other interests and that the LNers and even I are the ones being ruled by our confirmation biases. He even categorizes me as a fanatical LNer because there can be no shades of gray in the war of Good (CT) versus Evil (LN) in which he sees himself as being engaged.
I remember a debate on some religion forum where atheists made the argument that only magical-thinking dolts believe in a deity. Wait, I said, many of the greatest philosophers, scientists and other academics who have ever lived, right up to the level of Nobel Laureates, have been and are devout theists. Do you seriously think they abandon the critical-thinking skills that have carried them to the pinnacles of their fields and turn into magical-thinking dolts when it comes to their assessment of theism versus atheism? "Yes, we do," came the predictable answer. "They are victims of their confirmation biases." (But the atheists, you see, are not! They are immune to confirmation biases! And on it goes ...)
Tim Nickerson:
--- Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on January 19, 2026, 06:36:41 PM ---BTW, all three volumes of Barry Krusch's book Impossible: The Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald are available online in PDF format. He has combined all three volumes into a single PDF file online. In the PDF version, his analysis of the HSCA PEP's conclusion that boxes were rearranged within two minutes after the shooting is on pp. 657-690. Here's the link:
https://krusch.com/books/Impossible_Case_Against_Lee_Harvey_Oswald.pdf
--- End quote ---
Barry Krusch used to post here in this forum. He was able to get staff at the National Archives to take photographs of the three WCC shells that were found in the sniper's nest and then send them to him. He asked them to examine the shells and to point out any marks or initials scribed on them. Mr. Krusch made a big deal out of the fact that the shells were apparently missing marks of some those who he maintained should have marked it, including those of Carl Day. The NARA staff never saw Day's mark on any of them and neither did Krusch. Mr Krusch was kind enough to make those images available to anyone who wished to download them off his site. Carl Day himself was unable to find his mark on one of the shells during his WC testimony. He was successful in doing so in June 1964, But he needed to use magnification under enhanced lighting to do so. In the images that Krusch received from NARA, George Doughty's mark is visible on one of the shells and FBI Agent Doyle's is visible on two. That's what I recall anyway. Day's can be made out on one of them. That fact threw a wrench into the gears of Krusch's machine.
Charles Collins:
--- Quote from: Lance Payette on January 21, 2026, 12:51:37 AM ---I think what Charles says is on the right track. Across the entire spectrum of Weirdness, as well as political and religious beliefs (both being their own species of Weirdness!), confirmation bias is surely the most difficult pitfall to avoid.
In many areas - the JFKA, UFOs, crop circles, poltergeists, whatever - I don't think I have any confirmation bias at all. I merely find these subjects interesting, but I don't particularly care what the explanation turns out to be or have any great need for a particular explanation to be true.
With something like the survival of consciousness after death, or the existence of a deity - well, yes, I do have much more of a visceral or emotional involvement and thus a stronger confirmation bias. I try to be doubly careful in reaching convictions in these areas, which is why in discussions and debates with Gee-Whiz True Believer fanatics I am often accused of being a skeptic or debunker when this is not true at all (except in the sense in which everyone should remain a bit skeptical of his own most cherished beliefs). Based on truly vast amounts of study and a fair amount of experience, I have arrived at quite strong convictions in these areas - but not to the point of losing rationality or being unable to see the countervailing arguments.
It's really difficult for me to see how someone would have a strong confirmation bias insofar as the JFKA is concerned. But people clearly do - on both sides of the debate, LN and CT alike. What would be the deep need for the LN narrative or any conspiracy theory to be true, to the extent of this need overwhelming the ability to think rationally? The answer has to be that the JFKA is a critical cog in one's worldview. The explanation for the JFKA must to be "X," and "X" will inevitably mesh with one's overarching worldview. It is in fact the overarching worldview that is determining what "X" will be. I think this has to be the explanation when we see a fanatical LNer or CTer who is wedded to his position like a religious fundie and who regards anything to the contrary as practically a personal insult. You're not just challenging his position on the JFKA; you're challenging who he is, what he thinks the world is all about.
And yet ... can confirmation bias really be the explanation when we see someone as intelligent and educated as Michael say the preposterous things he says in regard to the JFKA? As far as I can tell, he says nothing comparably preposterous in his writings about Mormonism, Intellgent Design, the Civil War or the Shroud of Turin. He has to know at some level that the conspiracy he posits is a complete fantasy, impossible in the real world.
I'm thoroughly puzzled. If I were to give him and those like him more credit than "they simply lose the ability to think rationally when it comes to the JFKA," I would say that making these preposterous claims must serve some agenda that isn't clear to me. "I'm just going to shovel so much conspiracy sh*t that sooner or later they'll have to reopen the investigation." Maybe, but this seems a stretch as an explanation for the amount of time and effort that Michael puts into his conspiracy sh*t.
It's a puzzle! Michael, of course, would say he simply follows the evidence and applies the same critical-thinking skills to the JFKA that he applies to his other interests and that the LNers and even I are the ones being ruled by our confirmation biases. He even categorizes me as a fanatical LNer because there can be no shades of gray in the war of Good (CT) versus Evil (LN) in which he sees himself as being engaged.
I remember a debate on some religion forum where atheists made the argument that only magical-thinking dolts believe in a deity. Wait, I said, many of the greatest philosophers, scientists and other academics who have ever lived, right up to the level of Nobel Laureates, have been and are devout theists. Do you seriously think they abandon the critical-thinking skills that have carried them to the pinnacles of their fields and turn into magical-thinking dolts when it comes to their assessment of theism versus atheism? "Yes, we do," came the predictable answer. "They are victims of their confirmation biases." (But the atheists, you see, are not! They are immune to confirmation biases! And on it goes ...)
--- End quote ---
Do you think that there is a way for folks to try to separate the JFKA from their worldview, make it a “less critical cog” in their thinking. Perhaps they could try to just consider the JFKA an arbitrary abnormality. I know that when I simply opened my mind and thought that maybe there was a chance that the investigators, etc actually involved in the investigation and reporting got it (mostly) right, I began to consider things differently and eventually converted from believing that there “must have been a conspiracy” to seeing that there really doesn’t appear to be any credible evidence of a conspiracy. But I believe that I do remain open to being able to objectively consider any new evidence of a conspiracy that might arise.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version