JFK Assassination Forum

Ah, epistemology - my favorite topic! Religious beliefs cannot be proven in any ultimate ontologiacal sense because they by definition deal with matters beyond our reality. Ditto for atheistic beliefs - the nonexistence of a deity cannot be proven (and some 20% of atheists do hold beliefs that are amazingly "supernatural"). However, there is scientific and anecdotal evidence that bears on the religious questions, as well as reasonable inferences from that evidence, and philosophical reasoning. By diligent study and reflection, one can arrive at a high level of conviction. If someone has done the work and holds a 95% level of conviction in materialistic atheism, Catholicism, Islam or Scientology, I can only explain why I think differently but I can't screech "You're wrong, the truth is obvious!" We see again and again and again on religious forums and many others that a very large percentage of people simply cannot abide doubt or ambiguity. They cannot admit, to themselves or others, "Yes, I hold a high degree of confidence in my convictions, but they are just convictions and I have to acknowledge they could be partially or wholly wrong." Hence, most "discussions" sound a great deal like this forum: "What is the matter with you? Why can you not see how right I am? It's so obvious!".

Atheists also play a game that seems to underlie your posts: "Hey, it's your religious claims that are extraordinary. You have the burden of satisfying me, and it's a damn high bar because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Materialistic atheism is the default position for any intelligent, rational person." This is, of course, completely false. There is nothing inherently more extraordinary about the existence of a deity than the nonexistence of one. There is nothing inherently more extraordinary about the existence of a higher level of reality than the nonexistence of one. This is a game internet atheists play because they are as mindless about their beliefs as most religious believers and this game frees them from the obligation to justify their position. It's all just "Hey, you gotta convince me." No, I don't have to convince anyone but myself. If I were trying to convert an atheist, or vice versa, then indeed the burden would be on he who was trying to do the converting - and the standard still wouldn't be whether I had met some imaginary standard of extraordinariness, but simply whether I had convinced my listener.

Ditto with the JFKA: There is nothing inherently more extraordinary about a logical and internally consistent conspircy theory than about the LN narrative.

Who killed JFK and why is a real-world question and thus differs from religious ones in that respect - but the epistemological principles are largely the same. The fact is, the WC was an agenda-driven inquiry that intentionally avoided some critical questions. [/quote

Such as?

Quote

The HSCA was staffed largely by conspiracy enthusiasts, had an organized crime orientation, and bought into dubious acoustical evidence. Some 62 years of inquiry and debate has generated lots of new information. Just as with religion, the field is polluted by folks who can't think clearly. (A key epistemological principle is that for beliefs to have epistemic justification - not to be true, but just to be justified - the believer must have "cognitive faculties properly operating in an environment in which they were intended to operate." IMHO, an awful lot of people on a forum such as this would not make it past the "cognitive faculties" threshold.) The LN narrative is a compelling and evidence-based one, but it hasn't eliminated all doubt by any means. If someone is an LN fundamentalist or a CT fundamentalist who can't acknowledge the doubt and uncertainty inherent in his convictions, then the discussion is just like a religious one in which "doubt-free" Catholics, Baptists, Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses just screech at each other.

I say without hesitation that there is zero doubt that Oswald killed JFK and I will generously concede the theoretical possibility the had accomplices. I would put the chances of that being the case around 0.01%. The only question in my mind is how many zeros belong to the right of the decimal point.

Quote

It's not my burden to present "just what evidence" makes me believe what I believe, and that exercise is futile with a fundamentalist anyway. My modicum of doubt about the LN narrative is based on a host of factors, some of which I've explained here. One is just that a Mafia hit in many ways just "makes more sense" and is inherently more believable to me than the LN narrative. Did Carlos Marcello actually confess to Jack Van Laningham? Did Santo Trafficante actually confess to Frank Ragano? I'm not saying absolutely yes to either, but the accounts are evidence that demands to be considered and evaluated. This is true of virtually every aspect of the JFKA. If someone has done his homework and decided the WC narrative is true, that's fine - but the mistake is thinking that one's convictions equate to ontological truth, that it is heresy even to challenge them, and that anyone who holds different convictions is ipso facto wrong.

In lieu of any evidence to the contrary, you give me no reason to reconsider my absolute belief that Oswald killed two men on 11/22/1963. As the late Carl Sagan once said, "I don't want to believe. I want to know.". I know Oswald was a double murderer. If you choose to base your beliefs on something other than evidence, that is your right. I choose not to go down that road and I wonder why anybody would.

Some of us think the truth is worth defending, even if our reach doesn't extend beyond the online forums. For decades, before online discussion groups became a reality, the CTs had the field to themselves. The two main avenues for one to express their opinions were writing books and appearing on  electronic media programs. Few LNs were writing books defending the WC because there was no money in it and few appeared on radio or TV programs because there were no ratings in it. That allowed conspiracy theories to flourish like unattended weeds. With the popularization of the internet, some semblance of balance was restored to the discourse. The CTs were still in the majority, but the LN narrative was allowed to breathe. I don't know if it is reflective of public opinion but my very unscientific observation is the LNs make up a significantly higher percentage of the participants on the various forums than we did even 10 years ago. Has progress been made in shaping public opinion. I don't know. I haven't seen a recent poll on the subject but I would be there are still 60-65% who believe in conspiracy of some sort. I think if people were completely honest about it, a majority would say they don't give a rat's ass one way or another.

People, people, people - thank you, I guess, but I KNOW all the LN responses. I can (and have) regurgitate them myself. As stated, I believe there is a high likelihood the LN version of the Tippit murder is correct. But noooooo, this is insufficient for a hardcore LN zealot. There is a mysterious compulsion to keep pushing the LN narrative as though there were some crowd of lurker historians out there who might be swayed unless all comments that don't toe the LN party line are immediately shut down.

Much the same thing is encountered on religion forums, which is why I have equated the LN narrative to some quasi-religious gospel. On those forums, there is a species of believer who keeps parroting something along the lines of "It's all in the Bible, just read the Bible" no matter how theologically deep the discussion might be. On those forums, I attribute such responses to fear - fear that examining one's faith might shake it. That surely can't be what's going on here ... can it?

I'm mystified by the CT compulsion to find somebody, anybody other than Oswald was behind the JFKA.

Religious dogma cannot be proven. The Oswald-did-it narrative was proven a long time ago. The fact that so many reject it is their shortcoming, not the narrative.

Since you are an attorney, I have to think you have a healthy respect for evidence. Just what evidence is there that makes you think somebody other than Oswald was involved in the crime?