Question 2: How does my sequence of steps differ from those of other people?
Common steps
• Ask a question.
• List possible answers.
• Gather evidence.
• Two hypotheses survive:
1. Nonconspiracy, but we can’t prove who.
2. Conspiracy, but we can’t prove who.
Where we split
• Conspiracists push for new
evidence to learn who the conspiracists were. Anyone who believes in conspiracy must
push on.
• People who believe Oswald is guilty must also push on unless they can accept
that there is nothing more to be found about him and conspiracy. Most of them
are content to stop.
• Why do nonconspiracists stop and conspiracists not? After all, both deal
with the same evidence, and neither can be sure of their positions.
Why do conspiracists push on so much?
• Unsatisfying to know so little
about “the conspiracy.”
• If huge conspiracy, important to reveal to the world.
• They can’t accept the real interpretation that there is no strong evidence
for conspiracy.
• The real conspirators are out there. We are at war with them.
Why do nonconspiracists feel so little need to push on?
• Gaps don’t automatically imply
conspiracy.
• Experience with data tells them that after 35 years, gaps are insignificant.
• They really believe in a lone
gunman even though they say they don’t.
• Comfortable with the answer. No need to go further.
• Fatigue.
• The nonconspiracy answer has a certain settledness to it. The remaining
issues (such as the NAA) are being filled by nonconspiracist answers.
• The probabilities are 98% toward Oswald and 0% toward anyone else. Isn’t
the answer obvious?
• Since diminishing returns have set in strongly, why worry about the last 2%?
• They strongly suspect that we will never be able to prove that Oswald (or
anyone else) was a lone gunman.
• But we will probably also not be able to prove that any particular group was
involved in conspiracy.
Recap
• Both groups start with
same evidence.
• They diverge at how they classify the evidence:
* Nonconspiracists focus on the objective
evidence and conclude that none of it requires conspiracy.
* They combine strength of case against Oswald with
the lack of a case for anyone else and jump the remaining 2% to accept
nonconspiracy.
* Conspiracists include much weak evidence, all
requiring conspiracy but being unable to establish its particulars.
* Rather than questioning the evidence, they pursue
the “conspirators.”
* Even with no luck after 35 years, they don’t
reevaluate their basic position.
* Some conspiracists even turn these negative results
into high implied positives; i.e., into huge, powerful conspiracies that they
will expose.
* This makes them even more determined to persevere.
* I admire their perseverance but not their logic.