Applying Logic and Critical Thinking to the JFK Assassination

[Lance Payette]

Good morning Lance. I don’t believe you understand the issues here. I assure you I care very much about the truth and facts. The issue is new information, not possibly known before 2019 but known now (because of the car identification), that Walker aide Robert Surrey was witnessed having walked out of the alley position from where the shot was fired, only seconds after the shot was fired. Yet he does not have a rifle. But it was him.

Now it is all well and good for you to say it makes no sense that Oswald would be there too at the same time as Surrey in that alley, but you need to explain then do you think Oswald was or was not there too with Surrey. One starts with facts first, not with interpretation and then deny facts because the interpretation doesn’t seem to make sense.

And if you are tempted to kneejerk deny Kirk Coleman’s man No. 2 was Surrey going to Surrey’s car, then I don’t think you have read and appreciate the argument there.

Even the FBI in their investigation thought Coleman’s man No 2 was either a Walker person, involved in the shot, or a frightened witness, one of those three, take your pick—who are you to know better. Maybe show a little more humility in commenting on things you haven’t read or understand. That said, I normally like your astute analyses on most things. You’ve got this one wrong here though.

My abstract of the argument:
https://www.scrollery.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Walker-chapter-summaries-110pdf.pdf

I did read or at least skim most of the long thread at the Ed Forum. My point in regard to your Walker scenario is different from my points in relation to the alteration of the Z film. I am going to post again on that thread because I want to keep that discussion in one place. Yes, your Walker theory is creative and internally consistent. Where it makes no sense to me is when we pose the question, "Why would General Walker, if wishing to be able to claim that an attempt had been made on his life, have resorted to such an elaborate scenario with so many obvious risks when the same claim could have been made on the basis of an extremely simple scenario?" No one had the presence of mind to say "Uh, General, couldn't we just ....?" With both Walker and Tippit, there seems to be a desire on your part for innovative, mind-boggling complexity. Everyone in those scenarios seems to me to have been completely lacking in common sense. But I will await your 140,000-word book and contribute my shekels if it's on Kindle.

[Tommy Shanks]

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.

Are you really surprised given what Michael T. Griffith believes about the Kennedy assassination?

[Greg Doudna]

Lance, I believe I addressed the question you raise in my chapter 16 summary. Yes, I agree that it would make no sense from a Walker staged shot point of view, for Oswald to have been involved, unless there was anticipation or intent for Oswald himself, as the “Communist”, to be immediately publicly implicated and/or arrested for it. If that were not the expectation or anticipation, then i agree it doesn’t make sense. However the facts are Oswald was both involved and that did not happen, which calls for explanation.

So I am not actually disagreeing with your reasoning, only the unwarranted conclusion you draw (apparently, that the facts therefore aren’t true to begin with). The problem I attempted to address was why the expected, anticipated arrest and/implication of Oswald immediately in that shot did not happen. That is the puzzle that calls for explanation.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Lance, I believe I addressed the question you raise in my chapter 16 summary. Yes, I agree that it would make no sense from a Walker staged shot point of view, for Oswald to have been involved, unless there was anticipation or intent for Oswald himself, as the “Communist”, to be immediately publicly implicated and/or arrested for it. If that were not the expectation or anticipation, then i agree it doesn’t make sense. However the facts are Oswald was both involved and that did not happen, which calls for explanation.

So I am not actually disagreeing with your reasoning, only the unwarranted conclusion you draw (apparently, that the facts therefore aren’t true to begin with). The problem I attempted to address was why the expected, anticipated arrest and/implication of Oswald immediately in that shot did not happen. That is the puzzle that calls for explanation.

It would make perfect sense for Oswald's handlers to have involved him in a staged shooting of Walker so that this could later be used to help implicate him in JFK's death.

I don't understand the logic that we should expect that Oswald would have been immediately arrested for trying to shoot Walker if he were involved in a staged Walker shooting. This would have raised the obvious question: Why would someone who wanted to kill the rabidly anti-Kennedy Walker then turn around and kill Kennedy when Kennedy had publicly disgraced Walker and had relieved Walker of command? I just don't understand that logic.

Plus, if Oswald had been arrested for trying to shoot Walker, he may have ended up in jail and would have been unavailable to supposedly shoot JFK.

I see some folks have howled at my argument that the gunman purposely missed Walker. The same guy who supposedly went 2/2 in 5.6 seconds from 60 feet up should have had no problem whatsoever missing the window pane/frame and at least hitting Walker somewhere on his torso when firing from no more than 147 feet and having plenty of time to carefully take aim.