How do we identify the lunatic fringe of conspiracy thinking?

[Lance Payette]

“Conspiracy theorizing makes strange bedfellows.” If that’s not an old saying, it should be.

On another thread, I apparently characterized Greg Doudna’s complex fake-Walker-shooting scenario as “lunatic fringe” stuff. Michael T. Griffith then seized on this phrase as applied to Greg as an example of just what an intolerant LN punk I am. Greg then chided me for my use of the phrase. MTG and GD – strange bedfellows, no? I backed off to the extent of explaining to GD that I certainly meant the phrase – which I do tend to bandy about rather loosely – in reference to his work in a "kinder and gentler" way than in reference to MTG’s contributions.

What is the lunatic fringe of conspiracy thinking anyway? MTG likes to pretend, because it suits his purposes as a card-carrying lunatic fringer if there ever was one, that I mean “anyone and everyone who thinks the JFKA might have been a conspiracy.” If I mean every CTer, then I'm just lumping MTG with Larry Hancock and all the others, and this allows MTG to retain some veneer of credibility. This is obviously not the case, as anyone who has read my posts would know.

Let’s be honest: Rational people who are acquainted with the evidence as whole know Oswald shot JFK from TSBD6 and murdered Tippit. There’s no real doubt about this. Any conspiracy theory that deviates from these truths is edging toward the lunatic fringe, simple as that. Any theory that has elaborate alternative scenarios for the Walker attempt, Dealey Plaza and Tippit is lunatic fringe stuff, simple as that. When your theory isn’t even internally consistent, and you don’t care, you are in the lunatic fringe of the lunatic fringe. Readers, meet MTG.

A non-LF conspiracy theory accepts at least 95% of the LN narrative. It simply has to. If it accepts 100% of the LN narrative but insists there were conspirators behind the scene, it has to identify these supposed conspirators with compelling evidence and connect them to Oswald and Dealey Plaza with compelling evidence. Merely identifying possible conspirators is child’s play; that goes nowhere. John Newman, Larry Hancock, woulda-coulda-shoulda – so far, it all goes nowhere as far as I can tell. It all “swirls around” Oswald and Dealey Plaza but never really gets there. I don’t believe it ever will.

The Achilles heel of the LN narrative is the SBT and everything that goes with it – bullet trajectories, the nature of the wounds, the Magic Bullet (both its provenance and condition). If the SBT falls, the LN narrative has a hell of a problem. This is about the only Dealey Plaza aspect of the JFKA that I can see being worth a CTer pursuing. The rest is just blather – so far-fetched and inconsistent that it just makes the CT community look silly. The jury of history is not impressed and never will be. If the SBT could be conclusively proven – as John Orr is attempting to do, but his work will always have the taint of being sponsored by a fanatical CTer – then who the conspirators were would become a much more relevant question. If I had the money and contacts, I would assemble a world-class panel of medical and ballistics experts from other countries, experts who don’t know or care bupkis about JFK or the JFKA, and have them freshly examine nothing but the SBT.

In all areas of religion and weirdness with which I have been associated, the lunatic fringe includes a wide swath of territory, from merely goofy to flat-out insane and even scary. As we see with the JFKA, occupancy of the LF bears absolutely no relation to an occupant’s intelligence, education or knowledge of the subject. All I mean when I use (and overuse) the phrase is “you are saying things that are simply too unrealistic, too far from the well-established facts, to be taken seriously.” (I have, only this morning, and with hand solemnly on a first edition of Best Evidence, vowed to stop using the LF phrase so freely since it does paint with too broad a brush.)

Much as MTG pops a vein every time I refer to the “conspiracy-prone mindset,” this is one of the keys – if not the key - to the lunatic fringe. One of the hallmarks of the conspiracy-prone mindset is a love of complexity – a preference for the elaborate, convoluted explanation over the straightforward one. Former Garrison investigator Tom Bethell addressed this in a humorous piece entitled “Was Sirhan Sirhan on the Grassy Knoll,” https://www.jfk-assassination.net/bethell.htm:

Making the Simple Complex

I promptly fell into disfavor with Jones Harris and other conspiratorialists. Some of them, I later heard, automatically relegated me to CIA status. Nevertheless, I always considered Jones a charming fellow, and he demonstrated the first quality of conspiratorialists that I want to bring out: their love of complexity.
…
The extraordinary complexity involved – three Oswalds! – is a fundamental characteristic of conspiratorialist reasoning. Philosophers like to point out that any belief, more or less, can be sustained if the believer is willing to encrust his belief with enough assumptions; the only problem is that the resulting theory starts to look very complicated compared to much simpler alternatives readily at hand. It is an important principle of philosophy (although one little valued in assassination conspiracy circles) that the simple explanation should be preferred to the complicated one.

In a more scholarly vein, this is from “Why Conspiracy Thinking is So Popular: Psychological Reflections,” https://medium.com/@manfred.ketsdevries_62226/why-conspiracy-thinking-is-so-popular-psychological-reflections-54414da6e343, by a renowned Dutch psychoanalyst:

From a psychological standpoint, it is far less frightening to imagine a cabal of villains controlling events than to confront the reality that many world-shaping forces like pandemics, climate change, and economic crises, operate without central coordination or moral logic. The mind prefers a coherent fiction to an incoherent truth.

Yet the irony is that in fleeing complexity, conspiracy thinking often constructs fantasies even more convoluted than the reality that they are rejecting. The mind seeks simplicity but finds itself building baroque illusions, twisting narratives into decorative knots while insisting they provide clarity. The conspiracy theorist, attempting to escape chaos, accidentally creates a universe of even greater complexity: a universe with omnipotent puppet masters, endless secret codes, and plots within plots. The stories feel coherent only because they impose agency on the unbearable.

Just stay in the lane of plausibility as best you can, CTers, and you’ll be fine. You (we?) might even convince the jury of history!

[John Corbett]

I could be cynical and say it includes everyone who doesn't think Oswald fired the shots that killed JFK.

[Jarrett Smith]

I am a believer in conspiracy, but if you can't accept that Oswald was involved then you have a problem. Why would a "patsy" kill a police officer?

[Michael T. Griffith]

Rational people who are acquainted with the evidence as whole know Oswald shot JFK from TSBD6 and murdered Tippit. There’s no real doubt about this. Any conspiracy theory that deviates from these truths is edging toward the lunatic fringe, simple as that.

I could be cynical and say it includes everyone who doesn't think Oswald fired the shots that killed JFK.

Well, there you have it, folks. According to these two guys, anyone who doubts that Oswald shot JFK and Tippit is "edging toward the lunatic fringe," or, anyone who just doubts that Oswald shot JFK is part of the "lunatic fringe."

Now, this is mighty interesting. Here's a partial list of the people who doubt that Oswald shot JFK:

-- Dr. David Mantik, a radiation oncologist and physicist whose had numerous papers published on radiology issues in peer-reviewed scientific journals and who has examined the JFK autopsy x-rays and photos at the National Archives.

-- Dr. Michael Chesser, a neurologist who has examined the JFK autopsy x-rays and photos at the National Archives and also JFK's pre-mortem skull x-rays at the Kennedy Library in Boston.

-- Dr. Gary Aguilar, M.D., who has examined the JFK autopsy x-rays and photos at the National Archives.

-- Barry Krusch, B.S. in psychology and author of Impossible: The Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald.

-- Dallas police chief Jesse Curry, who said it was not clear that Oswald shot JFK, and that no one had yet been able to prove he fired a rifle from the sixth-floor window.

-- Dr. Halbert Fillinger, a renowned forensic pathologist, who said the ammo that hit JFK's head behaved nothing like the ammo that Oswald allegedly used.

-- Dr. John Nichols, a professor of pathology and a court-certified expert in pathology and forensic pathology.

-- Doug Horne, former Chief Analyst for Military Records for the ARRB.

-- Dr. David Wrone, historian, a former professor of history at the University of Wisconsin, and author of The Zapruder Film: Reframing JFK's Assassination.

-- Jacob Hornberger, B.S. in economics and a Juris Doctor degree, a former professor of law and economics at the University of Dallas, and president of the Future of Freedom Foundation.

-- Robert K. Tanenbaum, a former Deputy Chief Council for the HSCA, former district attorney for New York County, former Chief of the Criminal Courts, New York County, and a former professor of  Advanced Criminal Procedure at the Boalt Hall School of Law at the University of California, Berkeley.

-- Dr. Walt Brown, Ph.D. in history from the University of Notre Dame, and a former professor of history at Ramapo College in New Jersey.

I suspect that Lance Payette and John Corbett are posting their extreme, discrediting polemic in an effort to offset the fact that they are in a decided minority on the JFK case. Recently, I've been pointing out that repeated surveys have shown that only about 1/4 to 1/3 of Americans and Europeans believe the lone-gunman theory and that about 2/3 to 3/4 believe JFK was killed by a conspiracy.

I suspect that Payette and Corbett are also posting their extreme polemic because lately I've been emphasizing the fact that the last federal investigation into the JFK assassination, i.e., the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), concluded that JFK was killed by a conspiracy, that two gunmen were involved, that four shots were fired, that one of the shots came from the grassy knoll, that scientific acoustical evidence proved that more than three shots were fired, that there is credible evidence that anti-Castro Cubans were trying to frame Oswald for the assassinations weeks in advance, that Jack Ruby had significant Mafia ties, that Ruby lied about how he entered the basement to kill Oswald, that Ruby lied about why he killed Oswald, and that someone was moving boxes in the sixth-floor window within 2 minutes after the shooting at a time when Oswald could not have been there, among other findings.

I suspect that at least part of the reason Payette specifies that one must believe that Oswald was the alleged lone gunman, instead of just believing that only one gunman fired at JFK, is that the HSCA concluded that Oswald was one of the gunmen (the sixth-floor gunman). Payette knows that if he merely required belief in only one gunman, regardless of his identity, he would have to label the HSCA as part of the "lunatic fringe."

Personally, I don't really care who the gunmen were. I have no ideological objection to Oswald being one of the shooters. I just don't happen to think he was. The core of my position is that there was more than one gunman, and that is how many conspiracy theorists view the matter. If hard evidence surfaced that proved Oswald was one of the gunman, this would have zero impact on my theory of the shooting and minimal impact on my theory of the assassination as a whole.

[John Corbett]

Well, there you have it, folks. According to these two guys, anyone who doubts that Oswald shot JFK and Tippit is "edging toward the lunatic fringe," or, anyone who just doubts that Oswald shot JFK is part of the "lunatic fringe."

Yup. Pretty much.

Now, this is mighty interesting. Here's a partial list of the people who doubt that Oswald shot JFK:

-- Dr. David Mantik, a radiation oncologist and physicist whose had numerous papers published on radiology issues in peer-reviewed scientific journals and who has examined the JFK autopsy x-rays and photos at the National Archives.

-- Dr. Michael Chesser, a neurologist who has examined the JFK autopsy x-rays and photos at the National Archives and also JFK's pre-mortem skull x-rays at the Kennedy Library in Boston.

-- Dr. Gary Aguilar, M.D., who has examined the JFK autopsy x-rays and photos at the National Archives.

-- Barry Krusch, B.S. in psychology and author of Impossible: The Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald.

-- Dallas police chief Jesse Curry, who said it was not clear that Oswald shot JFK, and that no one had yet been able to prove he fired a rifle from the sixth-floor window.

-- Dr. Halbert Fillinger, a renowned forensic pathologist, who said the ammo that hit JFK's head behaved nothing like the ammo that Oswald allegedly used.

-- Dr. John Nichols, a professor of pathology and a court-certified expert in pathology and forensic pathology.

-- Doug Horne, former Chief Analyst for Military Records for the ARRB.

-- Dr. David Wrone, historian, a former professor of history at the University of Wisconsin, and author of The Zapruder Film: Reframing JFK's Assassination.

-- Jacob Hornberger, B.S. in economics and a Juris Doctor degree, a former professor of law and economics at the University of Dallas, and president of the Future of Freedom Foundation.

-- Robert K. Tanenbaum, a former Deputy Chief Council for the HSCA, former district attorney for New York County, former Chief of the Criminal Courts, New York County, and a former professor of  Advanced Criminal Procedure at the Boalt Hall School of Law at the University of California, Berkeley.

-- Dr. Walt Brown, Ph.D. in history from the University of Notre Dame, and a former professor of history at Ramapo College in New Jersey.

Of the names I recognize on this list, most of them are bozos when it comes to the JFKA, particularly Mantik, Horne, and Aguilar. Horne actually recycled David Lifton's Invasion of the Body Snatcher's theory which tells us all we need to know about him. Of course, MTG subscribes to that theory as well. Birds of a feather.

Curry has often been cited by CTs for some of the things he said early in the investigation before the case had been nailed down. They ignore what he said in the first interview in this video, in the very first minute of it. He repeats the statement at the 2:40 mark.

I suspect that Lance Payette and John Corbett are posting their extreme, discrediting polemic in an effort to offset the fact that they are in a decided minority on the JFK case. Recently, I've been pointing out that repeated surveys have shown that only about 1/4 to 1/3 of Americans and Europeans believe the lone-gunman theory and that about 2/3 to 3/4 believe JFK was killed by a conspiracy

Given how uninformed the public at large is about the evidence against Oswald, that is not surprising. It's amazing how many people I've come across who got most of their "knowledge" about the JFKA from Oliver Stone's shitass movie.

I suspect that Payette and Corbett are also posting their extreme polemic because lately I've been emphasizing the fact that the last federal investigation into the JFK assassination, i.e., the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), concluded that JFK was killed by a conspiracy, that two gunmen were involved, that four shots were fired, that one of the shots came from the grassy knoll, that scientific acoustical evidence proved that more than three shots were fired, that there is credible evidence that anti-Castro Cubans were trying to frame Oswald for the assassinations weeks in advance, that Jack Ruby had significant Mafia ties, that Ruby lied about how he entered the basement to kill Oswald, that Ruby lied about why he killed Oswald, and that someone was moving boxes in the sixth-floor window within 2 minutes after the shooting at a time when Oswald could not have been there, among other findings.

The HSCA got it wrong. The WC got it right. 'nuff said.

I suspect that at least part of the reason Payette specifies that one must believe that Oswald was the alleged lone gunman, instead of just believing that only one gunman fired at JFK, is that the HSCA concluded that Oswald was one of the gunmen (the sixth-floor gunman). Payette knows that if he merely required belief in only one gunman, regardless of his identity, he would have to label the HSCA as part of the "lunatic fringe."

Personally, I don't really care who the gunmen were.

Obviously not. If you did, you would have concluded Oswald did it a long time ago.

I have no ideological objection to Oswald being one of the shooters. I just don't happen to think he was. The core of my position is that there was more than one gunman, and that is how many conspiracy theorists view the matter.

Yet few of you have ever tried to tell us who those gunmen were.

If hard evidence surfaced that proved Oswald was one of the gunman, this would have zero impact on my theory of the shooting and minimal impact on my theory of the assassination as a whole.

You don't seem to have a theory. Your whole gig is rejecting the WCR without even attempting to give us a viable alternative.

Please list your three best pieces of evidence that someone other than Oswald took part in the JFKA. I've issued this challenge countless times over the years and few CTs have even tried to answer. I won't be surprised if MTG dodges it as well.

[Tommy Shanks]

“Conspiracy theorizing makes strange bedfellows.” If that’s not an old saying, it should be.

Lance, at my own peril I have been looking at the JFK Education Forum ... their former moderator W. Niederhut would seem to be exhibit A for lunatic fringe!