How do we identify the lunatic fringe of conspiracy thinking?

[Lance Payette]

Lance belongs to the Lunatic Fringe of Nutters. Tinfoil Nutters. Just like John Corbett and "Richard Smith"
Then there are LNers like Charles Collins and John Mytton.
Honest researchers who have worked their way to their own conclusions.
Not like the spoon-fed losers who have recently emerged on this forum.

Dan unwittingly and witlessly raises an interesting question: What is "research," anyway?

Dan seems to think that looking at photos and deciding what he sees, the experts be damned, constitutes research. Ya think? "That ain't Shelley and Lovelady on the sidewalk, and thus Bart Kamp must have faked his photo showing that it is, but I don't have the balls to confront Bart directly" - is that research? Ya think? Is Dan a researcher ... or just a blowhard?

I have said previously that I was amused to see myself called a "JFKA researcher" upon making one significant but purely dumb-luck discovery after an hour of goofing around on Google. (After nearly 50 years of using the legal search engine LEXIS, I am pretty good at formulating queries.)

I did spend 40 years in legal research because my practice focused largely on complex motions and appellate briefs. I know what research looks like, and it's damn hard work. When a JFKA factoid interests me enough to explore it, I do research. To wit:

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4962.msg178234.html#msg178234

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4559.0.html

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4484.msg168589.html#msg168589

I have now actually researched perhaps 25 of these. Each one was an absurd amount of work.

So what is "research" in the mind someone like Dan? Point us to some of yours, Dan.

[Dan O'meara]

Dan unwittingly and witlessly raises an interesting question: What is "research," anyway?

Dan seems to think that looking at photos and deciding what he sees, the experts be damned, constitutes research. Ya think? "That ain't Shelley and Lovelady on the sidewalk, and thus Bart Kamp must have faked his photo showing that it is, but I don't have the balls to confront Bart directly" - is that research? Ya think? Is Dan a researcher ... or just a blowhard?

I have said previously that I was amused to see myself called a "JFKA researcher" upon making one significant but purely dumb-luck discovery after an hour of goofing around on Google. (After nearly 50 years of using the legal search engine LEXIS, I am pretty good at formulating queries.)

I did spend 40 years in legal research because my practice focused largely on complex motions and appellate briefs. I know what research looks like, and it's damn hard work. When a JFKA factoid interests me enough to explore it, I do research. To wit:

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4962.msg178234.html#msg178234

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4559.0.html

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4484.msg168589.html#msg168589

I have now actually researched perhaps 25 of these. Each one was an absurd amount of work.

So what is "research" in the mind someone like Dan? Point us to some of yours, Dan.

Like all Tinfoil Nutters, Lance has been told what to think by the ridiculous Warren Commission Report.
Can this ultimate of blowhards show us even the tiniest detail where he doesn't suck down what the WCR lies about?
Dear Lance - shown us a single instance where you differ from the WCR.

[Dan O'meara]

I think that some very influential people were alarmed enough in reaction to demands growing stronger in 1966 - 67 to reopen the flawed WC investigsation
to influence them to make the proposals to reopen the JFKA investigation appear to be ridiculous, fringe.

After the 3 hour jury deliberation resulting in the Shaw not guilty verdict, there was no additional official inquiry for the next seven years, until 1975.

Garrison landed on his feet, after representing himself and miraculous winning not guilty verdicts on all federal charges. Considering a federal department of justice
conviction rate above 90%, it is not unreasonable to believe he had played his part in what amounted to a show trial.

The late Tom Purvis argued strenuously in posts on the Ed Forum that Garrison had people much more powerful than he in the New Orleans power structure,
some of which is comprised of secret societies that to this day do not reveal their membership. He shared that Burke's daughter, his wife, and her mother had all been Queens of Comus.

Seems an impressive amount of heavy lifting, if indeed the JFKA assassin was in truth a lone nut acting outside of any conspiracy!

Who "owned" Willard Robertson? He came to NOLA around 1950 to set up a sales office for a West Haven, CT small metal hull boat builder
that soon went bankrupt. He left his wife and two children for the 23 year old secretary he hired.  Somehow, he landed exclusive importation
and distribution rights for Volkswagen of America southeast region dealerships. He became an important financial backer of both Garrison's
and the then Governor's political careers.

He died in 1983, leaving an estate reported to be $30 million. He was the only "nobody" selected by Volkswagen for a regional distribution monopoly....
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/803/136/381311/?__cf_chl_f_tk=zrqboHTKHit.HG7jUPDwcZZnrvPoA72ZRZHRHefGOYc-1783035456-1.0.1.1-NU47McDgs9gZOO_hjsNT5XWv3_65gaiQmmkb.ap7xZA

Playing "both sides"...

Ed Butler's first cousin Rance was Gordon Novel's partner and Novel was ushered into this saga by Robertson.

This is so you in my mind.
I still don't have a f%cking clue what you actually think.
I don't know if this helps - the Warren Commission Report is a childishly obvious tissue of lies.
This can be demonstrated beyond the slightest doubt.
Does that count in any way?
Do you think Oswald took the shots?

[Tom Graves]

The Warren Commission Report is a childishly obvious tissue of lies.

Dear danny BOY o'meara,

That's a suggestion I refuse to accept.

-- Tom