Applying Logic and Critical Thinking to the JFK Assassination

[Lance Payette]

A bullet that nicks a window frame "logically" suggests the gunman was trying to miss and the attempt was staged? There would be 100 ways to miss, but the gunman zeroed in on the edge of a window frame? This is Conspiracy Logic 101, a/k/a Alice In Wonderland logic, a/k/a Anti-Logic.

I waded through Gerg Doudna's Walker scenario just as I waded through his Tippit scenario. It is a clever but completely preposterous effort by someone almost pathethically desperate to make a mark in JFKA research. I believe it might have been Kevin Balch who characterized his Tippit effort as an "off-Broadway production" - i.e., an entire cast of not very talented actors with a not very believable script.

[Mark Ulrik]

Didn’t the bullet fired at Walker hit part of the window frame?

Yes, and it nicked the window pane in the process.

This is a good example of confirmation bias and faulty assumptions.

Apparently, it has not occurred to WC apologists that the fact that the bullet hit the window frame [...]

OK, Mr. Iron Logic. What part of "the bullet hit the window frame/pane" is fact, and what part is confirmation bias and faulty assumptions?

[Lance Payette]

Yes, and it nicked the window pane in the process.


This is a good example of confirmation bias and faulty assumptions.

Apparently, it has not occurred to WC apologists that the fact that the bullet hit the window frame [...]


OK, Mr. Iron Logic. What part of "the bullet hit the window frame/pane" is fact, and what part is confirmation bias and faulty assumptions?

Oh, I can answer that! It's your confirmation bias and faulty assumptions that causes you to think that someone who shoots and misses must have simply shot and missed. If you weren't a victim of such faulty thinking, cold logic would tell you that he intentionally missed and that this was a staged effort to try to give the apperance of an attempt on Walker. This is Greg Doudna's scenario. It's not clear to me, victim of confirmation bias and faulty assumptions that I am, how one could be certain that a bullet glancing off a wooden window frame would actually miss. It seems like it would be much safer just to aim a couple of inches to the side of Walker and shoot through the glass.

[John Corbett]

A bullet that nicks a window frame "logically" suggests the gunman was trying to miss and the attempt was staged? There would be 100 ways to miss, but the gunman zeroed in on the edge of a window frame? This is Conspiracy Logic 101, a/k/a Alice In Wonderland logic, a/k/a Anti-Logic.

Just one question. Are you serious?