Applying Logic and Critical Thinking to the JFK Assassination

[Michael T. Griffith]

This is the first post of several that I will present in this thread.

In numerous surveys done in the U.S. and Europe over the years, including fairly recently, the percentage of people who have said they believe JFK was killed by a conspiracy has ranged from 56% to 85%, with about 6% to 10% undecided. Even in the 1970s, surveys found that a sizable majority of Americans did not buy the Warren Commission's lone-gunman story. I think one of the reasons for the rejection of the single-assassin scenario is that it does not hold up when analyzed with logic and critical thinking.

Let us begin by looking at the key issue of motive.

-- The lone-gunman theory is unable to provide a believable, credible motive for its alleged lone gunman. By all accounts, Oswald liked JFK. No one ever claimed to hear Oswald voice any intent to harm JFK. If Oswald's motive was to make a name for himself in history, why did he vehemently deny shooting JFK? If Oswald had killed JFK to make himself famous, one would logically expect that he would have proudly taken credit for JFK's death and announced his justifications to the world, but he did no such thing.

After Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme tried to assassinate President Gerald Ford in 1975, she made no effort to deny her guilt but proudly defended her action. She openly voiced two motives for her assassination attempt: (1) her anger over Ford's alleged destruction of the environment, and (2) her desire to draw attention to the Manson family.

After Leon Czolgosz was arrested for assassinating President William McKinley in 1901, he staunchly defended his action and made no secret of his motive. He said he viewed McKinley as an oppressive leader and was convinced it was his duty to kill an "enemy of the good people--the working people."

When John Wilkes Booth shot Abraham Lincoln in Ford's Theatre in 1865, he loudly made his motive clear seconds after he did the shooting, shouting to the shocked audience "sic semper tyrannis," i.e., "thus always to tyrants."

But Oswald behaved in a completely different manner. At every opportunity, whether under police interrogation or when speaking with journalists, he fiercely denied shooting anyone, and he told the police--and his brother--that the evidence against him was fraudulent, even going so far as to claim he was a patsy.

Furthermore, according to the lone-gunman theory, Oswald tried to shoot right-wing extremist General Edwin Walker in April 1963. Now why, oh why, oh why would the same allegedly pro-Soviet and pro-Cuban Marxist who supposedly tried to shoot the ultra-conservative General Walker turn around and shoot the center-left JFK, who was publicly trying to make peace with the Soviets, especially given the fact that JFK had publicly disgraced Walker and had relieved Walker of command? That makes no sense.

-- The conspiracy theory of the assassination can provide concrete, documented motives for its suspects. It has been amply documented, including with filmed interviews, that certain CIA officers who worked with the anti-Castro Cubans, along with some of the anti-Castro Cubans themselves, viscerally hated JFK and regarded him as a traitor. And we have two credible anecdotal accounts of CIA officers proudly admitting to close associates that they played a role in JFK's death.

One of the best books on evidence that some CIA officers and anti-Castro Cubans were involved in the assassination is former HSCA investigator Gaeton Fonzi's 1993 book The Last Investigation.

There is even stronger evidence of motive for certain Mafia elements. The historical record is clear, and no reputable scholar denies, that the Kennedy administration was waging an intense war against the Mafia, and that the Mafia viewed JFK and RFK as threats to their very existence.

Wiretaps recorded some Mafia leaders expressing a wish to see JFK dead before the assassination, and two informants reported that they heard Mafia leaders talking about a plot to kill Kennedy in the months leading up to JFK's death. Moreover, after the assassination, a government informant heard Mafia kingpin Carlos Marcello admit to playing a role in the assassination.

Three of the best books on the evidence that certain Mafia elements were involved in the assassination are Anthony Summers' 2013 book Not in Your Lifetime: The Defining Book on the J.F.K. Assassination (updated version), Lamar Waldron's 2013 book The Hidden History of the JFK Assassination, and Dr. David Kaiser's 2008 book The Road to Dallas: The Assassination of John F. Kennedy.

Summers was a Pulitzer Prize finalist in 2012 and has twice won the Crime Writers' Association's award for top non-fiction works. In recognition of his scholarship, Summers was made a Fellow of the Literary & Historical Society of University College Dublin.

Waldron is a respected journalist and historian. His historical research and non-fiction books have won praise from Publishers Weekly, Vanity Fair, the Boston Globe, the San Francisco Chronicle, and major publications in Europe. His research has been the subject of two prime-time specials on the Discovery Channel, produced by NBC News. He has been featured on CNN and the History Channel.

Kaiser is a respected historian. When Kaiser wrote his JFK book, he was a professor of history at the Naval War College. He later held professorships at Harvard University, Williams College, and Carnegie Mellon University. He earned his B.A. and Ph.D. in history from Harvard. He is now retired. (On a side note, Kaiser concluded that the HSCA's acoustical evidence was valid.)

[Benjamin Cole]

MTG--

You raise a lot of good points.

OTOH, understanding anyone's true character and personality, especially at a 60-year remove...well, tricky.

I strongly suspect LHO took a shot at General Walker. Ergo, LHO had an inclination to shoot a major public figures.

For me, the best explanations of the JFKA include LHO, either manipulated or participating, with a very small number of G2'ers, or Alpha 66'ers. Maybe just two.

I agree the SBT-LNT theories do not hold water.

[Lance Payette]

Fortunately for all of us, I have already applied logic and critical thinking to the JFKA. See if you recognize anyone. In fact, I may have had MTG in mind when I originally wrote this.

I originally created this in 2019. My exchange with Paul Cummings today made me think about it again. I’m surprised at how little my thinking has changed. The original is buried in the bowels of the Ed Forum, so I’m just creating a new thread to preserve it for posterity. I was actually going to write a book because I thought John McAdams’ JFK Assassination Logic: How to Think About Claims of Conspiracy was pretty weak. But then I said the hell with it.

1. In the Conspiracy Game, there are a variety of acceptable approaches to the interpretation of evidence. Say, for example, that three eyewitnesses report, respectively, a “bluish” car, a “reddish” car and a “maroon” car, or that three documents describe a bullet wound in “the right shoulder,” “about 4” down from the neck” and “high up in the back.” In the Conspiracy Game, there are three possible approaches to this evidence:

a. There were three cars and three wounds on the body, if this will further your pet Conspiracy Theory.

b. There was one reddish car and one wound 4” down from the neck, if this will further your pet Conspiracy Theory. (The eyewitnesses and documents that say otherwise may serve as further evidence of the conspiracy if you’re sufficiently creative.)

c. The car was actually black, the wound was actually in the side of the head, all the eyewitnesses are lying and all the documents are bogus, if this will best fit your pet Conspiracy Theory.

d. The choice is made without regard to which eyewitnesses or documents are the most reliable according to the applicable legal standards or which explanation best fits with the other evidence. The choice is made solely on the basis of which one best fits your pet Conspiracy Theory.

2. As your pet Conspiracy Theory – three cars and three wounds, for example – is repeated over and over, it pretty quickly hardens into Conspiracy Gospel. It’s extremely rude of anyone to go back to the original sources to see if this Conspiracy Gospel is supported by, consistent with, or the best explanation of the actual evidence.

3. If some nugget of Conspiracy Gospel is conclusively disproven – for example, photos or videos come to light that show the car was definitely red rather than black – the Conspiracy Theorist has three alternatives:

a. Claim that the new evidence is faked or altered, thereby preserving the black car nugget of Conspiracy Gospel.

b. Move the goal post. Move it as many times as necessary. There was a red car as well as a black one that doesn’t show up in the photos, perhaps. Maybe the car was repainted. Or even if the car was red, this just shows that two of the supposed eyewitness were lying and involved in the conspiracy. Who were they, really, and what were they up to?

c. If your nugget is reduced to rubble beyond all redemption, change the subject. This is the “Oh, yeah, well what about this over here?” gambit, an accepted move in the Conspiracy Game. The nugget that has now gone poof was never really important anyway.

d. Choices “a” and “b” afford a Conspiracy Theorist almost endless opportunities for creativity, which is a big part of the fun of the Conspiracy Game. It thus is utterly futile to attempt to argue or reason with a dedicated Conspiracy Theorist.

4. All gaps in the narrative, whether evidentiary or logical, are filled with sinister speculation and sinister inferences. As your pet Conspiracy Theory expands like Topsy, as it inevitably will, it’s especially important to keep this principle in mind. It’s quite amazing the gaps you can fill with such speculation. In the hands of a Conspiracy Game master, a plausible Conspiracy Theory may be woven from almost nothing else.

5. In the Conspiracy Game, human nature is inoperative.

a. No one ever makes an innocent mistake, is ever simply careless or is ever honestly confused or forgetful. There is no bureaucratic ineptitude. Every inconsistency in the evidence and testimony has a sinister, conspiracy-furthering explanation.

b. The fact that the JFKA was sudden, wholly unanticipated and traumatic is irrelevant. Even in these circumstances, no one ever makes an innocent mistake or becomes honestly confused. There are no excuses.

c. No matter the circumstances, all participants should have made their statements, written their reports and done everything else with one eye on “how it would look” to future generations of historians and (especially) conspiracy enthusiasts. If they didn’t, too bad for them.

6.The actual characters and life histories of the participants and witnesses are irrelevant in the Conspiracy Game except insofar as they further your pet Conspiracy Theory. If a participant or witness whose testimony is damaging to your Conspiracy Theory is a garden-variety housewife and mother who attends church regularly, is active in community affairs and has lots of friends who vouch for her impeccable reputation, the Conspiracy Theorist has three choices:

a. Of course, she is clean as a whistle – this is exactly what you would expect in a truly diabolical conspiracy such as we have here. These conspirators were no fools.

b. Dig, dig, dig for something, anything. Her second cousin twice removed was a secretary for the FBI? Well, there you go! Need we say more?

c. Make something up! Speculate! Everyone is fair game for defamation and character assassination. While these may be illegal or unethical in the real world, they are just part of the fun of the Conspiracy Game.

7. Even though real-world conspiracies tend to be as small, simple and compartmentalized as possible because this greatly enhances the odds of success and non-detection, no Conspiracy Theory can ever be too large or convoluted in the Conspiracy Game.

a. If necessary to preserve your pet Conspiracy Theory, the conspiracy net will be allowed to expand ever-wider until it has captured pretty much everyone involved – unlikely and seemingly unconnected people from all walks of life, unlikely agencies and organizations, whatever it takes. Be sure to keep in mind the rule about sinister speculation and inferences.

b. The fact that the JFKA is “explained” by 15 or more distinct and irreconcilable Conspiracy Theories is irrelevant. With the exception of those who are actually deriving income from the Conspiracy Game (who can be quite defensive of their turf), the players in the Conspiracy Game are a fraternal brotherhood, united against that icky Lone Nut narrative. By Conspiracy Logic, the existence of 15 or more irreconcilable theories merely underscores that by God there had to have been a conspiracy.

c. Similarly, the fact that a Conspiracy Theory requires the conspirators to have been diabolical geniuses at steps 1-3-5-7 and bumbling idiots at steps 2-4-6-8 is irrelevant. It’s rude even to point this out.

8. Those who fail to see the conspiracy are never a problem. They either lack the vast arcane knowledge the Conspiracy Brotherhood possesses, are unwitting stooges of the very forces responsible for the conspiracy, or are disinformation agents bent on disrupting the Conspiracy Game.

a. No matter how sterling the academic and professional qualifications of a naysayer, no matter how exhaustive his research may appear to be, no matter how cogent his arguments may seem, he is dismissed as either a fool or a disinformation agent – usually the latter because paranoia about disinformation agents is an integral part of the Conspiracy Game.

b. As a last resort, the “disinformation agent” label may be applied even to a fellow member of the Conspiracy Brotherhood when the competition gets fierce.

9. A certain naivete about the real world is helpful when playing the Conspiracy Game.

a. Even though law enforcement in the real world is plagued by wannabes, tellers of tall tales, and even those who confess, for no apparent reason, to crimes they didn’t commit, this almost never occurs in the Conspiracy Game. Anyone whose tale will support your pet Conspiracy Theory is accorded instant credibility. Often this continues long after the tale has been exposed as fraudulent. (If the tale is inconvenient for one’s pet Conspiracy Theory, the “disinformation agent” label may be applied to the teller. As you can see, “disinformation agent” is sort of the trump card of the Conspiracy Game.)

b. Even though fast-buck artists and con men abound in every other field of human endeavor, they do not exist in the Conspiracy Game. Every owner of a large website, every active blogger, every speaker at conspiracy conferences, every purveyor of conspiracy books, CDs, DVDs and conspiracy paraphernalia quickly accumulates a cult-like following as a “serious researcher” even if in the real world he is a Safeway cashier who dropped out of school in the seventh grade.

10. Common sense, logic and critical thinking are anathema in the Conspiracy Game. Conspiracy Logic is more like anti-logic (think Alice In Wonderland).

a. It’s exceedingly rude to ask, either about a Conspiracy Theory as a whole or any aspect if it, questions such as “What would that actually have looked like in the real world?” or “How would that have made any sense at all?” or “Why would the conspirators have done that when they could have easily done this with far fewer participants and far less risk?” You’ll never get any substantive answers anyway.

b. To successfully play the Conspiracy Game, you must become utterly absorbed in, and indeed obsessed with, minutiae. The JFKA must be examined with an electron microscope. The objective is to overwhelm the uninformed with such a mass of detail that they throw up their hands and agree, “Yeah, I guess there must have been some sort of conspiracy” just to shut you up. This will improve poll numbers, thereby causing the Conspiracy Brotherhood to gain credibility. You can scream that “75% of the American public believes in a conspiracy!” as though 75% of the public actually knew or cared what the heck you’re talking about (and would laugh out loud if they knew your pet theory is that Secret Service agent Hickey accidentally shot JFK).

c. The tactic described in item “b” will help avoid inconvenient questions such as those described in item “a.” You want to keep the discussion at the electron microscope level, avoiding like the plague those pesky “What sense would that have made?” questions.

11. The likelihood that you’ll enjoy the Conspiracy Game hinges on a variety of factors.

a. It’s a great advantage if you have a preconceived notion as to how the JFKA “should” be explained. You’ll see that much of the Conspiracy Brotherhood is less concerned with arriving at the historical truth of the JFKA than in fitting it into some ideological meta-narrative they carry in their heads as to how the world “works” and what dark forces are really “in control.” Keep this in mind and you’ll be far less inclined to wonder “How could any sane person actually believe that?” If you are interested in historical truth, arrived at through standard methodologies, the Conspiracy Game may not be for you.

b. It’s likewise beneficial if you fit the profile that is now emerging, through peer-reviewed studies in such fields as psychiatry, psychology and the social sciences, of the type of individual who is prone to conspiratorial explanations even in the face of better non-conspiratorial explanations. This doesn’t mean there is necessarily anything pathologically wrong with you, merely that you’re a natural and could go far in the Conspiracy Game.

c. At the fringes of the Conspiracy Game, of course, it helps if you’re exceedingly credulous and even, well, nuttier than a fruitcake. People who are this way seldom recognize or admit it, but you’ll notice that you quickly feel as though you’ve found a home among kindred spirits.

d. The Conspiracy Brotherhood is essentially a religion. The members worship their respective theories. Many are extreme fundamentalists, others more moderate, others fringe cultists. The various Conspiracy Theories are the equivalent of religious denominations, each with its own priests and deacons, its holy scriptures and sites, and whatnot. This is a useful analogy to keep in mind when the intra-denominational bickering starts to get out of hand. Always remember, the real enemy is that Great Satan, the Lone Nut narrative.

e. Leave your sense of humor at home. Participants in the Conspiracy Game do not regard themselves or their activities as humorous in the slightest. This is deadly serious stuff, being pursued by dedicated seekers of truth for the good of mankind. They have nothing in common - or at least they don't think they do - with those loony UfO enthusiasts, Bigfoot enthusiasts, Flat Earthers and the like. Stifle that urge to titter, chuckle and guffaw at their work or move along.

12. Oh, remember: Do not omit Oswald. This is an amateur mistake. Do not allow your enthusiasm for LBJ, Hoover, the CIA, the FBI, Army Intelligence, the Secret Service, the DPD, Texas oilmen, the Mafia, the Mossad, pro-Castro exiles, anti-Castro exiles, the KGB and/or the French Foreign Legion as the culprits to cause you to completely overlook Oswald. You simply must fit him in there somehow. It is perfectly acceptable - indeed encouraged - to reinvent him as necessary to fit your pet Conspiracy Theory, even if he ends up seeming considerably more interesting than JFK.

a. The same is true of all other principals - LBJ, Dulles, Ruth Paine, Marina, whomever. Don't be shy: Just reinvent them to fit your theory! Since you're really just writing fiction anyway when you play the Conspiracy Game, there is absolutely nothing out-of-bounds about this.

[Lance Payette]

You can't make this stuff up. On his own thread about logic and critical thinking, Our Hero immediately commits at least two logical fallacies:

This is the first post of several that I will present in this thread.

In numerous surveys done in the U.S. and Europe over the years, including fairly recently, the percentage of people who have said they believe JFK was killed by a conspiracy has ranged from 56% to 85%, with about 6% to 10% undecided. Even in the 1970s, surveys found that a sizable majority of Americans did not buy the Warren Commission's lone-gunman story. I think one of the reasons for the rejection of the single-assassin scenario is that it does not hold up when analyzed with logic and critical thinking.

This is the ad populum or "bandwagon" fallacy. It is similar to the "appeal to authority" fallacy but worse. The popularity of a viewpoint has precisely nothing to do with its quality or truth. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-to-Popularity (MTG won't like the Mormon example!).

Not a good start here, Mr. Logic.

The lone-gunman theory is unable to provide a believable, credible motive for its alleged lone gunman. By all accounts, Oswald liked JFK. No one ever claimed to hear Oswald voice any intent to harm JFK. If Oswald's motive was to make a name for himself in history, why did he vehemently deny shooting JFK? If Oswald had killed JFK to make himself famous, one would logically expect that he would have proudly taken credit for JFK's death and announced his justifications to the world, but he did no such thing.

This, of course, is all pure unadulterated opinion. I myself have highlighted the seeming disconnect with Oswald, but whether the LN narrative posits a "believable, credible motive" is a matter of opinion - and, moreover, "motive" is not an element of any crime.

The conspiracy theory of the assassination can provide concrete, documented motives for its suspects. It has been amply documented, including with filmed interviews, that certain CIA officers who worked with the anti-Castro Cubans, along with some of the anti-Castro Cubans themselves, viscerally hated JFK and regarded him as a traitor. And we have two credible anecdotal accounts of CIA officers proudly admitting to close associates that they played a role in JFK's death.

Weaving superficially plausible conspiracy theories is child's play because so many diverse individuals and groups despised JFK and/or stood to benefit from his demise. This is why there have been 25 or more distinct conspiracy theories. The problem is plausibly fitting the actual Lee Harvey Oswald and the actual Dealey Plaza evidence into any such theory.

Three of the best books on the evidence that certain Mafia elements were involved in the assassination are Anthony Summers' 2013 book Not in Your Lifetime: The Defining Book on the J.F.K. Assassination (updated version), Lamar Waldron's 2013 book The Hidden History of the JFK Assassination, and Dr. David Kaiser's 2008 book The Road to Dallas: The Assassination of John F. Kennedy.

Summers was a Pulitzer Prize finalist in 2012 and has twice won the Crime Writers' Association's award for top non-fiction works. In recognition of his scholarship, Summers was made a Fellow of the Literary & Historical Society of University College Dublin.

Waldron is a respected journalist and historian. His historical research and non-fiction books have won praise from Publishers Weekly, Vanity Fair, the Boston Globe, the San Francisco Chronicle, and major publications in Europe. His research has been the subject of two prime-time specials on the Discovery Channel, produced by NBC News. He has been featured on CNN and the History Channel.

Kaiser is a respected historian. When Kaiser wrote his JFK book, he was a professor of history at the Naval War College. He later held professorships at Harvard University, Williams College, and Carnegie Mellon University. He earned his B.A. and Ph.D. in history from Harvard. He is now retired. (On a side note, Kaiser concluded that the HSCA's acoustical evidence was valid.)

Here we see the classic fallacious appeal to authority. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-to-Authority Shall we line up the academic credentials of the historians and scientists who support the LN narrative? When wearing my CT propeller beanie (those tinfoil hats are too damn hot!), I myself lean towards the Mafia - but any theory has to stand or fall on its own merits. I know Harvard-trained psychiatrists who believe things that would simply astonish you.

Not a good start, Mr. Critical Thinking.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Fortunately for all of us, I have already applied logic and critical thinking to the JFKA. See if you recognize anyone. In fact, I may have had MTG in mind when I originally wrote this.

It is hilarious that you would cite that silly drivel as "logic and critical thinking." I note that you did not say one single word about any of the facts in my post.
 
To save any newcomers some time, Lance Payette argues that conspiracy theorists suffer from a mental disorder, from defective brains, from warped thinking, etc. He says it's not really their fault but that their brains are just wired to conjure up conspiracies where there are none. Seriously, that is his position.

Here are just a few of the people who must suffer from warped thinking because they believe JFK was killed by a conspiracy:

* Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL), chairwoman of the U.S. House of Representatives' Task Force on the Declassification of Federal Secrets.

* Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., one of JFK's nephews, a famous environmental lawyer, and currently the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services.

* Dan Hardaway, former HSCA investigator who investigated Oswald's activity in Mexico City for the HSCA.

* Edwin Lopez, former HSCA investigator who investigated Oswald's activity in Mexico City for the HSCA. He and Hardaway found evidence that someone was impersonating Oswald in Mexico City a few months before the assassination.

* Dr. Roger McCarthy, a ballistics expert with Failure Analysis, which assisted with the
American Bar Association's mock Oswald trials in the 1990s.

* Dr. David Kaiser, a former professor of history at the Naval War College, Williams College, Carnegie Mellon University, and Harvard University.

* The late G. Robert Blakey, a professor of law at Notre Dame University who served as the chief counsel for the HSCA.

* The late Gary Cornwell, the former deputy chief counsel for the HSCA and a prosecutor with the U.S. Department of Justice Organized Crime and Racketeering Section for seven years.

* The late Dr. Joseph Dolce, an Army wound ballistics expert who played a leading role in the
WC's wound ballistics tests.

* The late Senator Richard Schweiker.

* Senator Christopher Dodd, who served on the HSCA when he was a member of the
House of Representatives.

* The late Senator Richard Russell, who served on the WC.

* The later Senator Sherman Cooper, who served on the WC.

* The late Representative Hale Boggs, who served on the WC.

* The late Robert McNeil, formerly of the McNeil-Lehrer News Hour on PBS.

* The late Ambassador William Atwood, former Special Assistant to the U.S. delegation to the
United Nations.

* President Lyndon Johnson. (We now know from the Johnson White House tapes that
Johnson rejected the single-bullet theory. We also know from former Johnson aides and
associates that privately Johnson said he believed Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy.)

* The late Dr. Milton Helpern, a renowned forensic pathologist and formerly the medical
examiner for New York City. Helpern said the SBT was impossible.

* The late Dr. John Nichols, a forensic pathologist and formerly a professor of pathology
at the University of Kansas. Nichols, too, said the SBT was impossible.

* The late Carlos Hathcock, a Marine sniper who was widely regarded as the greatest
sniper of the 20th century. Hathcock scoffed at the idea that someone who barely qualified in the second of the three Marine Corps rifle qualification categories could have performed the shooting feat alleged by the WC.

* The late Evelyn Lincoln, who was Kennedy's White House secretary.

* The late Dr. George Burkley, Kennedy's personal physician. Burkley said he knew of evidence that JFK was killed by a conspiracy.

* The late Robert F. Kennedy, who was JFK's brother, who served as JFK's U.S. Attorney General, and who later served as a U.S. Senator from New York. Though he publicly endorsed the WC's findings, he privately rejected them and was certain his brother was killed by a conspiracy.

[Kevin Balch]

I am on the conspiracy side mostly because of the the nature of the JFK/JBC wounds and the timing difference in the shots that came “close together” whether 1 and 2 or 2 and 3.

But sadly, all the techniques you point out are widely used among those on the conspiracy side.

One of my favorites is what I call the “Cleanup Squad” that has for decades murdered inconvenient witnesses and got away with it every time. According to the book “Hit List” there are around 40 victims. However, with that many victims you would think there is a clear arrow pointing to who was behind the JFKA. But the list of victims points everywhere.

[Lance Payette]

To save any newcomers some time, Lance Payette argues that conspiracy theorists suffer from a mental disorder, from defective brains, from warped thinking, etc. He says it's not really their fault but that their brains are just wired to conjure up conspiracies where there are none. Seriously, that is his position.

Well, some of them - yes. Mr. Payette is actually a scholarly sort who has delved fairly extensively into the rather large and ever-increasing body of psychological and sociological literature identifying a distinct conspiracy-prone mindset. The literature makes clear that this mindset - which Mr. Payette shares to some extent but has the self-awareness to realize it - is not aberrant or pathological per se. Even those of us who share it recognize that there is, however, a lunatic fringe of credulous nutcases whose credulous nutcase beliefs do not necessarily bear any relation to their intelligence or education. Indeed, folks with a high level of intelligence and education seem to be somewhat over-represented in the credulous nutcase wing of conspiracy thinking. On this thread, I give you Exhibit A.

Here are just a few of the people who must suffer from warped thinking because they believe JFK was killed by a conspiracy:

When your fallacious appeal to authority starts with Hot Lips Luna and RFK Jr., well, things have gone off the rails, haven't they?