The Lone-Gunman Theory: An Extremely Fragile House of Cards

[Lance Payette]

Do you think that there is a way for folks to try to separate the JFKA from their worldview, make it a “less critical cog” in their thinking. Perhaps they could try to just consider the JFKA an arbitrary abnormality. I know that when I simply opened my mind and thought that maybe there was a chance that the investigators, etc actually involved in the investigation and reporting got it (mostly) right, I began to consider things differently and eventually converted from believing that there “must have been a conspiracy” to seeing that there really doesn’t appear to be any credible evidence of a conspiracy. But I believe that I do remain open to being able to objectively consider any new evidence of a conspiracy that might arise.

At the risk of sounding like an insufferable know-it-all - which I am, of course, but I hate to sound like one  - I think it's virtually impossible in this day and age. These days, it's a combination of (1) strong confirmation bias combined with (2) the ability to live in an echo chamber of folks who continually reinforce that confirmation bias thanks to the internet and all forms of social media. Across the entire spectrum of political, religious and weirdness beliefs, huge numbers of people are essentially cultists. They would literally have to be deprogrammed the way someone is deprogrammed out of the Moonies or Scientology - no easy task. The cult comes to define these individuals and serves as a very comforting substitute family.

I started out my religious journey in a fundie organization that many people would describe as cult-like, to the extent of entering a graduate seminary. I dropped out after a year because the light bulb went on that fast: No one in his right mind could believe this stuff. We're all just pretending in order to fit in. Why did I have that epiphany? I really don't know. Maybe I've been blessed or cursed with the "ultra-rational gene." That epiphany didn't cause me to abandon the entire enterprise but launched me on a l-o-n-g quest for what I actually could and did believe. So now, like any rational person, I worship a little plastic figurine of Sai Baba that I keep on the dashboard of my car. 

I truly have no answers. Across the entire spectrum of political, religious and weirdness beliefs, I have somehow deprogrammed myself (or at least kid myself that I have) through intense study and thought and the good old rational gene eventually kicking in. I have no real clue as to what is going on with someone like Michael or his LN-fanatic counterpart. But these days there are Michaels everywhere, not just the JFKA community by any means. As a veteran of perhaps 40 internet forums - eventually banned from all of them and proud of it, by God!  - I've been down this road again and again with Gee-Whiz True Believers of every stripe. (The Ed Forum, to its credit, was the only one from which I self-banned to wild applause.)

Ones like Michael are the most puzzling because he is clearly very intelligent, very educated and capable of rational and non-wacky thought in other areas. But when it comes to the JFKA, he posts stuff that is literally the equivalent of "The earth is flat" or "King Charles is a reptilian alien." When he is called out on this, he just digs in his heels even deeper. When his absurdities are factually exposed, he just moves on to the next absurdity without missing a beat. Maybe it's some combination of conspiracy-prone mindset, confirmation bias, huge ego, self-amusment and hidden agenda that has hardened into a one-man MTG Cult. Those whose minds are simply not tracking in the channels of normality are more obvious and not nearly as interesting.

"Stay thirsty, my friends."

[Lance Payette]

I would add, while my wife is making the oatmeal: The JFKA debate is essentially a religious debate. There will NEVER be a definitive answer. There will ALWAYS be uncertainty and ambiguity. The LN narrative has X% probability of being correct. Each one of the myriad conspiracy theories has X% probability of being correct. You simply have to go through your own little Bayesian analysis and reach some level of conviction: OK, I my conviction is that the LN narrative (i.e., my version of it) has a 60% probability of being correct, while Oswald and some tiny cadre of fellow Castroites has a 26% probability and a Mafia hit with Oswald as a participating patsy has 14% probabilty. Then you study to revise these percentages as best you can and live with the inevitable uncertainty and ambiguity.

In any religious debate, what drives the Gee-Whiz True Believers (of every stripe) absolutely mad is the suggestion that there can be any uncertainty and ambiguity: No, we KNOW the LN narrative is correct! No, we KNOW the CIA did it! And we will shout you down if you believe otherwise because the LN or CT narrative defines who we are and how we view the world. Been there, done that.

Apologies to Sai Baba. I confused him with the Most Interesting Man in the World.

"Stay thirsty, my friends."