Are there any "researchers" here who started out as LNs but who are now CTs?

[Tom Graves]

Are there any JFKA "researchers" here who started out as Lone Nutters but who are now Tin-Foil Hat Conspiracy Theorists?

How about the other way around?

Don't be shy.

[John Corbett]

I started as an LN, became a CT in the 1980s for a few years, then became an LN again sometime in the late 1980s

[Benjamin Cole]

TG--

Started neutral, but based on some on-the-ground facts regarding the physical JFKA, moved into CT camp.

Never bought into extravagant left-wing-Islamo-fascist-KGB narratives regarding JFKA.

James Woolsey's book is informative, but not conclusive.

My guess is small clique involved, likely freelancers with connections to G2, or possibly Alpha 66, although G2'ers had penetrated Alpha 66.

Maybe three people involved in JFKA.

[Joffrey van de Wiel]

I started as an objective student in High School, who wrote in a paper for history class that President Kennedy had been assassinated by a man named Oswald. I had no opinion on it whatsoever, but assumed it to be true as it was given as a fact in the few books on JFK we had in our school library. But I guess it qualifies me as a LN at that time.

That changed when I had to review a (bad) book on JFK at University and found out there were a lot of questions about the validity of the conclusions of the official Report. It stimulated me to read more on the assassination, focusing on books written by critics/conspiracy theorists. Unfortunately I found out that many of their claims are not based on a correct interpretation of the evidence, to phrase it politely.

Now I consider myself to be a Warren Commission critic and support the HSCA conclusion of a 'probable conspiracy.' I have reasonable doubt about Oswald's guilt or even involvement, but try to keep an open mind. Like Mr. Cole above, I believe that a relatively small, but powerful and well-funded group was behind the assassination.

[John Corbett]

I started as an objective student in High School, who wrote in a paper for history class that President Kennedy had been assassinated by a man named Oswald. I had no opinion on it whatsoever, but assumed it to be true as it was given as a fact in the few books on JFK we had in our school library. But I guess it qualifies me as a LN at that time.

That changed when I had to review a (bad) book on JFK at University and found out there were a lot of questions about the validity of the conclusions of the official Report. It stimulated me to read more on the assassination, focusing on books written by critics/conspiracy theorists. Unfortunately I found out that many of their claims are not based on a correct interpretation of the evidence, to phrase it politely.

Now I consider myself to be a Warren Commission critic and support the HSCA conclusion of a 'probable conspiracy.' I have reasonable doubt about Oswald's guilt or even involvement, but try to keep an open mind. Like Mr. Cole above, I believe that a relatively small, but powerful and well-funded group was behind the assassination.

Vincent Bugliosi's book Reclaiming History addresses every criticism leveled at the WCR (at least the ones invented up to the time his book was published)_ He does a thorough job of demolishing every one of them. There are two absolute truths of the JFKA. One is the evidence is overwhelming that Oswald fired the shots that killed JFK and seriously wounded JBC. The other is there is no credible evidence he had even a single accomplice in the crime. Since CTs have no evidence, their only avenue to establishing a conspiracy is to tear down the findings of the WC rather than present any positive evidence there was a conspiracy. If people applied as much skepticism to criticisms of the WCR as they do to the WCR, there would be a lot fewer CTs. 

To paraphrase Yogi Berra, if people don't want to believe the WCR, nothing is going to stop them.

[Mark Ulrik]

[...] I have reasonable doubt about Oswald's guilt or even involvement [...]

I've seen statements like this before, but is it really up to the individual to decide whether his or her personal sense of doubt meets the threshold of legally defined reasonable doubt?

[John Corbett]

I've seen statements like this before, but is it really up to the individual to decide whether his or her personal sense of doubt meets the threshold of legally defined reasonable doubt?

The only doubt about Oswald's guilt is unreasonable doubt. Any objective examination of the evidence is going to convince any reasonable and objective person Oswald fired the shots that killed JFK and seriously wounded JBC. The only reason for believing Oswald could be innocent is a desire to believe there was a conspiracy and since there is no credible evidence of a conspiracy, negating the findings of the WCR is the only path to the conclusion. Hardcore Oswald-deniers will come up with any cockamamie excuse they can think of to dismiss each and every piece of evidence of Oswald's guilt. Vincent Bugliosi has identified over 50 such pieces of evidence. It becomes a rather silly exercise when one has to invent so many excuses to argue for Oswald's innocence.

Conspiracy believers could argue for conspiracy with Oswald as the shooter. Such a scenario is theoretically possible. If Oswald had even a single accomplice, say a getaway driver who got cold feet and bailed on him at the last minute, you would still have a conspiracy. The evidence under that scenario would look exactly the same as it does with Oswald as a lone gunman, but since there is no evidence of such an accomplice or any other accomplices, there really isn't much reason to believe there was a conspiracy at all.

The other type of CT are the ones who have not educated themselves regarding the evidence in the case and their body of knowledge consists of what they read in any of the myriad conspiracy books published over the years or Oliver Stone's fictitious presentation of the evidence. Such people have allowed themselves to be duped into believing things such as the impossibility of the SBT or a second shooter on the GK. If they had a thorough knowledge of the evidence, they would know the evidence doesn't support either of those beliefs. Some really smart people fall into that trap. Bill Maher is one such person.  I disagree with him about 75% of the time on political issues but I am still a fan because I find him both funny and smart. It seems obvious to me he was taken in by Oliver Stone's bogus courtroom reconstruction of the SBT, bogusly claiming the SBT was impossible.  Either that or he got it from a conspiracy book that has made much the same invalid arguments.