It seems clear to me that at the heart of the disagreements between CTs and LNers isn?t evidence per se, but differential appraisal of different types of evidence. For what it?s worth, on the average, LNers tend to put more emphasis on that which can be subjected to scientific analysis and prefer the word of experts over witnesses, though this is often abdicated where a witness confirms their case. Conversely, CTs oftentimes put more weight on witnesses than on physical evidence and show a tendency to distrust or be skeptical or experts (often with inverted commas) and their analyses, and often show an element of cognitive inflexibility or rigidity (e.g. ?I/they know what I/they see/saw?).
Neither epistemology is bulletproof, though the LNer runs into a lot less issues, with the most notable failure of their approach being the infamous pseudosciences perpetrated by Thomas Canning and Vincent Guin.
The CT oftentimes shows only a facile understanding of the facts of the case; Major arguments are commonly glib repetitions of what the ?talking heads? (e.g. Marrs, Fetzer, Mantik etc) have written or said. While showing excessive scepticism toward LNer ideas, CTs are often highly suggestible to other CT claims (traits also but less frequently observed in LNers).
The cognitive distortions of each side is most evident when looking at the gunshot recollections. LNers don?t show any questioning of the shot number (3) heard by most, but origin and sequence are disputed?which the CTs thrive on. (The majority opinion on shot origin is disputed). A psychoacoustic field experiment seemed to dispute echo chamber, though the participants were all experts who were expecting gunfire, though it?s worth pointing out that the majority of the small subsection of earwitnesses familiar with firearms (e.g. Willis, Yaraborough, JBC) provided; accounts consistent with 3 well spaced gunshots all striking occupants of the limousine (see Thompson, 1967, ch 3-5).
There is a strong and totally unneeded focus on legality among CTs, particularly with respect to whether a price of evidence would be admissible in a courtroom trail. There is a failure to grasp that something being dismissed on technicality doesn?t mean the evidence is logistically faulty or fabricated, it?s just that the conduct of the DPD showed a marked disparity from the stringent bureaucracy that attempts to regulate criminal proceedings more generally.
TL;DR: some or much of the dispute between CTs and LNers has got more to do with group differences in deciding what type of evidence is most important, than it has to do with most other variables
