• Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team

Lance Payette

Members
  • Content count

    201
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Lance Payette

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday 03/03/1950

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Arizona
  1. To the extent it was being characterized as a "bank endorsement," yes, that would be incorrect. However, I don't believe, for the reasons stated above, that there was any need for a Federal Reserve member bank like the First National Bank of Chicago to put ANYTHING on the Klein's PMO before packaging it as a cash item and transmitting it to the regional Federal Reserve bank in Chicago. These were both banks within the SAME SYSTEM that was acting as the COLLECTION AGENT for the Postal Service. As I recall, Hank's point - that I do believe is legitimate and with which I would agree - was that if there WERE any need for First National Bank of Chicago to show that it had paid the Klein's PMO, the "Pay to the order" stamp would have sufficed for this purpose. The way the system worked, I believe, made any such indication unnecessary. If a PMO was being transmitted to a regional Federal Reserve bank by a Federal Reserve member bank, then BY DEFINITION that member bank had paid (or accepted for deposit) the PMO. If the PMO had been paid by a non-member bank, it would not find its way to the regional Federal Reserve bank through a local member bank like the First National Bank of Chicago but through a designated clearinghouse bank. Over and out - and I do mean "OVER" and I do mean "OUT."
  2. Micah, you are being lured deeper and deeper down a rabbit hole by people who (1) have reasons for wishing to keep the Klein's PMO a mystery and (2) don't know what they are talking about. I am no longer active on this silly forum, but I have been a lawyer for 35+ years, do know how to read federal statutes and regulations, and do at least have some idea what I am talking about. 1. Start with the File Locator Number (FLN), which no CT loon had even addressed before I identified what it was in a mere two hours of research on Google. (Let me repeat that: In the DECADES that the Klein's PMO had been debated, no one had even discussed what those rather prominent numbers across the top of the PMO might be!) The FLN is the number assigned when a PMO makes its way completely through the payment/collection cycle and is put into storage at the Federal Records Center, where it is retained for a period in case the Postal Service raises questions about it and wishes to examine it (or needs it for evidence in a court case). The FLN allows the PMO to be easily located, as this one was after the assassination. The fact that the Klein's PMO bears a FLN is a huge problem for the CT loons because IT IS PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE THE KLEIN'S PMO MADE IT ENTIRELY THROUGH THE PAYMENT/COLLECTION CYCLE. 2. John Armstrong started all the silliness about the Klein's PMO not having the required bank endorsements. In Harvey and Lee, he cited to a bank official at the First National Bank of Chicago (named Wilmouth, as I recall) who supposedly said this. I exposed that the citations were FICTITIOUS. The bank official never said anything about bank endorsements. Armstrong's fiction became CT "gospel" and has been repeated \throughout the conspiracy literature, apparently without any of these "experts" bothering to check Armstrong's footnotes as I did. When I pointed out that Armstrong's citations were fictitious, which you can easily confirm for yourself, the non-response was deafening. 3. When you put 1 and 2 together, I don't believe there is much need for further discussion about the authenticity of the Klein's PMO. But I will persevere for your benefit ... 4. Under the federal regulations of the time, a PMO could have ONLY ONE ENDORSEMENT. That was by the payee, in this case Klein's. The "Pay to the order of" stamp on the back of the PMO is Klein's endorsement. People who insist the Klein's PMO should have "bank endorsements" merely reveal their ignorance. The federal regulations also stated that "bank stamps" were not deemed endorsements, which logically raises the question "What is a bank stamp, and should the Klein's PMO have had one or more bank stamps?" 5. The Federal Reserve is a BANKING SYSTEM with a central bank, 12 regional banks, and many member banks. Most banks are members of the Federal Reserve system, but there can be non-member banks. The First National Bank of Chicago was a member bank. 6. Insofar as PMOs are concerned, the Federal Reserve acts as the COLLECTION AGENT for the Postal Service under an agreement with the Postmaster General. In banking terminology, the Postal Service is deemed to be the "paying bank" for PMOs, while the Federal Reserve is merely a collection agent that does the processing and transmittal to the Federal Records Center. (The bank that accepts a PMO for deposit - in this case the First National Bank of Chicago - is the "depository bank." If Klein's had deposited a check written on an account at the Bank of America, BOA would be the "paying bank.") 7. Under the Federal Reserve regulations, PMOs are treated as "cash items." This is relevant to how they are packaged and transmitted from member banks to the Federal Reserve regional and central banks. They are treated like government checks and food stamps, with a minimum of processing since there is seldom serious concern about their authenticity. 8. I believe that when a PMO was deposited by a payee (such as Klein's) at a bank that was a member of the Federal Reserve system (such as First National Bank of Chicago), the depository bank simply packaged the PMO as a cash item and transmitted it to its Federal Reserve regional bank (in this case the one in Chicago). There was no need for a Federal Reserve member bank to "endorse" (i.e., stamp) the PMO - the member bank was simply transmitting the PMO to its regional Federal Reserve bank. Nor was there any need for the regional Federal Reserve bank to "endorse" (i.e., stamp) the PMO when it transmitted the PMO to the central Federal Reserve bank. All banks in the chain were part of the Federal Reserve system, which was simply acting as a collection agent for the Postal Service. 9. The Postal Service, of course, had received its money when the initial buyer of the PMO purchased it. The point of the collection process was merely for the depository bank that had accepted and paid the money order to be reimbursed from the Postal Service's account with the Treasury Department. Getting the PMO into the Federal Reserve system is what ensured that this would be done. The Federal Reserve regulations made clear that the Federal Reserve would not become involved in disputes as to whether a PMO had been stolen or had other issues. The Federal Reserve was simply acting as a collection agent. If an issue later arose, it was up to the Postal Service to retrieve the PMO from the Federal Records Center and deal with the depository bank (if necessary) and the person who had stolen or forged the PMO. 10. So where do bank stamps fit into this? I found a federal court case that I believe explains this. PMOs were sometimes deposited or cashed at banks that were NOT members of the Federal Reserve system. In order for the collection process to work, the PMO had to get into the Federal Reserve system. This was done by the non-member bank sending the PMO to a designated "clearinghouse" bank, which then got the PMO into the Federal Reserve system. It is the non-member bank and possibly the clearinghouse bank that I believe would have been required to stamp a PMO in order to establish the chain of payment from the initial deposit with the non-member bank. All the talk of "missing bank endorsements" on the Klein's PMO is just nonsense by people who don't know what they are talking about and are determined to perpetuate a mystery that was put to rest by items 1 and 2 above. Sandy's post immediately above is just nonsense from a layman who deludes himself that he can interpret federal regulations. If nothing else, my participation in this discussion was an eye-opening, eye-popping lesson for me about how the CT loons operate. You literally cannot have a rational discussion with these folks. There may be some aspects of the Kennedy assassination that are genuinely puzzling and worth pursuing, but this isn't one of them. If you insist on allowing yourself to be lured ever-deeper down this rabbit hole to nowhere, I can only say: YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.
  3. Because I am exceedingly kind and patient (as lawyers go), I will kindly and patiently point out the fuzziness in your thinking: The question is not whether I "believe" abortion is murder or you "believe" abortion is not murder. The question is, "What is abortion? Is it more like murder, or is it more like getting a nose job? Should society outlaw, restrict or tolerate it?" If you premeditate the killing of your grandmother, whether you "believe" it is murder or just good clean fun is irrelevant. Those who enact the laws have defined it as murder, and this happens to accord both with Christian doctrine and with the thinking of 99.9% of sane people of all beliefs. Probably 99% of all laws "impose beliefs" on segments of society that disagree with them. I firmly believe I should be able to ride my Yahama FJR1300 150 miles an hour whenever I think it's safe to do so, but the Motorcycle Unbelievers who wrote the un-American traffic laws disagree. The Man-Boy Love Society firmly believes sex between adults and children is healthy for children, but the Pedophilia Unbelievers who wrote the un-American molestation laws disagree. See how long that lasts. So when the Supreme Court decides abortion is murder, or at least that it may be flatly prohibited at the State level, will this be "American" or "Un-American"? Will it be Un-American because President Trump has appointed Justices who happen to think this way? Will you change your views on abortion because "the Supreme Court has decided otherwise"? I prefer to base my thinking on less shifting sand than "what the Supreme Court has decided" at any given point in time. Are you familiar at all with the history of Supreme Court rulings, with the rather unbelievable things the Wise Justices have decided over the years - even long before the typical Justice was a partisan political hack and the Court had become the Unelected 5-4 Legislature it now has? I do? Remind me again, what are those views I am imposing? What, I am not entitled to express opposing views "if the Supreme Court has decided otherwise"? Gee, you would have made a good little Nazi or Stalinist, wouldn't you? I believe the pro-abortion position is literally evil - not because "God has said so," but for precisely the same reasons I believe the Holocaust was literally evil - and I am entitled to work my hardest both to change minds and to change the laws. That is what America is all about. I would suggest it is you who "don't seem to get it." Actually, more than 50% of Americans favor greater restrictions on abortion - so why is their position "Fascist" while the pro-abortion position is not? The fact that my position on abortion happens to square with mainstream Christian doctrine may irk the hell out of you, but it does not make the position any less valid. To repeat: The question is not whether I, a Christian, "believes" abortion is murder or your Aunt Hatty, a New Atheist, "believes" abortion is not murder. The question is, "What is abortion? Is it more like murder, or is it more like getting a nose job? Should society outlaw or restrict it, or should society tolerate or even encourage it?" I believe this is what those of us in the legal profession refer to as a non sequitur. I don't care if a woman rips out her reproductive organs with her bare hands if it makes her happy. I don't care if a woman chooses never to have children if it makes her happy. But when she does manage to get herself pregnant despite the plethora of ways society affords her to avoid becoming pregnant, then I do firmly believe the rights of the incipient human being she has brought into existence trump (or Trump, if you will) any right she might think she has to terminate said incipient human merely being because she finds the pregnancy inconvenient. I really don't think you're advertising your critical thinking skills here, Cliffaroo, I'd stick to that "weaponized fact of conspiracy."
  4. See, that's why the world needs lawyers who can actually think through issues: I could be a raving New Atheist who believes God is a dangerous fantasy yet still believe abortion is murder. Whatever your notion of the "separation of Church and State" may be, it does not mandate a pro-abortion perspective, as you seem to believe it does. Is this an example of your critical thinking skills? Some who claim to be Christians support abortion. Most do not. Filtering my religious beliefs entirely out of the equation, as I am perfectly capable of doing, I still come down on the side that believes the rights of the incipient human being far outweigh, by several magnitudes, any right of the mother to terminate the incipient human being she has brought into existence. I still come down on the side that believes abortion is murder and should not be tolerated in a society that at least wants to pretend it is civilized and enlightened. Ta-ta for now.
  5. No, I'm one of those "large God" guys who believes abortion is murder.
  6. No one could possibly have more disdain for the military-industrial complex than I do. My biggest disappointment with Obama was that he immediately turned into Dubya Jr. insofar as the insane "military actions" favored by the MIC were concerned. I was fool enough to think he might actually put an end to them. The MIC does indeed control the country, if not the world. Eisenhower's parting warning has come to fruition, in spades. Neither Obama, nor Hillary, nor Bernie, nor The Donald could lay a glove on the MIC. That's just the reality. I simply accept it. Obama, Hillary or Bernie might not have given the MIC everything it wanted, whereas The Donald will, but they did and would have played ball because they have no other alternative. I'd like to think if I were President the military budget would be reduced to about $1.2 million, but that's just a fantasy on my part; I'd play ball too because I'd have no other alternative. As everyone who is elected finds out, the President is almost as much a figurehead as the Queen. It is unfortunate that "The Left" and "The Right" are now monolithic entities, each of which comprises a weird diversity of positions on economic, social, moral and religious issues. I happen to be solidly in The Left in regard to issues such as the MIC and solidly in The Right - indeed, The Extreme Far Right - on certain other issues like abortion. I and most people who voted for Trump did so because (1) to the maximum extent realistically possible, he is an egomaniacal political outsider who might at least attempt to buck some of the craziness of the current system, (2) he holds or at least supports positions that are the same as ours on social and religious issues, and (3) we believed that Hillary Clinton was, personally, a fraud, pretty much the personification of evil, and an unthinkable President. I refuse to be pigeonholed, to allow The Left or The Right to define who I am. You, if I may say so, seem to be a card-carrying lemming. I revel in being equally irritating to The Left and The Right. I am interested in following the JFK assassination only as far as the best evidence leads. The MIC and a host of other agencies, organizations and individuals were unquestionably delighted by his assassination - but it doesn't mean they killed him. The best evidence I have seen suggests LHO killed him for a combination of reasons unique to LHO, including the fact that he thought he would be a hero to at least some of the elements that were in fact delighted by the assassination. I have no obligation to support wild conspiracy theories that invest the assassination with cosmic significance just because this is consistent with what The Left would prefer than I do to support Planned Parenthood because this is what The Left would prefer. I do indeed see within the conspiracy community (as others have) a tendency to view the assassination through the lens of the current political situation - the election of someone like Trump "must have" its roots in the assassination, things "would have" been so much better today if the assassination had not occurred, the same Dark Forces that "must have been" responsible for the assassination "must be" in control today. I do indeed believe that the forces Eisenhower warned against were and are in control - not necessarily in any concerted, conspiratorial way, but certainly not in a good way - but this does not mean there is some direct link to the assassination. The best evidence suggests to me there is not.
  7. I truly hope for your sake that your entire post was tongue-in-cheek. Yes, my deep "family connection" to the UFC is that my father, who died in 1971, once made an offhand comment that my middle name, Baker, is in honor of Lorenzo Dow Baker, who brought the first bananas to America and was one of the founders of the UFC. I am now trying to establish the precise connection on Ancestry.com, and it's proving damn difficult because half the family was born in Jamaica. Oh, and I do eat the occasional banana, I must confess. My deep "family connection" to the Dulles clan is that my maternal grandmother, who died in 1967, was, via marriage, Richer Than Anyone You Know, traveled in rarified social circles, and (I was told) on social-acquaintance terms with the Trumans, the Dulleses, and other luminaries. If she was a CIA operative, the CIA must have had an inordinate interest in country club gossip. I believe the term "master," that you apparently find suspicious, is Rather Common in occult literature, spy novels, and wherever loonies congregate; I used it precisely because it would resonate with the loonies here. Yes, I can easily see how all this would cast dark suspicion on a small-town Arizona lawyer in 2017. I may as well just confess: I am indeed a "dangle," whatever the F a dangle is, and a very poorly compensated dangle at that. The tentacles of the CIA are everywhere, I tell ya. In fact, you're probably a dangle without even realizing it. In fact, I'm now almost sure you're a dangle. Your cleverly disguised post is what we in the trade refer to as reverse-dangling. My post here, of course, is but an example of triple-dog-dare counter-dangling. What you regard as my "identifying thread" and "giving myself up," I would submit, is actually evidence of the mindset of the tinfoil-hat conspiracy community that causes it to be regarded as pretty much insane by those with at least one foot in reality.
  8. People, people, people. Let's not overlook the obvious. Dorothy had to be silenced because of - yes, that's right - her UFO connection. We folks in the UFO research community cannot be certain the aliens themselves did it, of course, but that would explain the clumsy crime scene. That Dorothy Kilgallen was indeed implicated in the UFO controversy is not a matter of any doubt. In the May 23, 1955 edition of the Los Angeles Examiner, Kilgallen wrote: “British scientists and airmen, after examining the remains of one mysterious flying ship, are convinced these strange aerial objects are not optical illusions or Soviet inventions, but are flying saucers which originate on another planet. The source of my information is a British official of Cabinet rank who prefers to remain unidentified.” [This is believed to have been Lord Mountbatten.] The “British official” told Kilgallen that: “We believe, on the basis of our inquiry thus far, that the saucers were staffed by small men – probably under four feet tall. It’s frightening, but there is no denying the flying saucers come from another planet.” Kilgallen was further advised that a report concerning the crash was being withheld by the British Government, since it did not wish to alarm the general public. In other words, this gels very well with the comments attributed to Kilgallen in the CIA document obtained by Milo Speriglio. If you will simply connect the dots of UFOs/Marilyn Monroe/JFK assassination, all of which have a Kilgallen angle, I believe you will have pretty well solved all three mysteries.
  9. I watched the entire David Lifton "Night Fright" episode on YouTube a while back. I was at least expecting a coherent, intelligent discussion. I was simply agog. Is there not a point at which even those who are most favorably disposed toward an elaborate conspiracy have to say, "This has gone too far down the rabbit hole. This is making us all look like complete fools. This guy is just desperate to either (1) sell books, or (2) remain relevant." (The host, I must admit, was priceless, well worth the price of admission as he gasped and popped his eyes at Lifton's revelations.) What I do see is what you are suggesting about Bugliosi. When one reads the Lone Nut literature, everything flows, makes sense, and is consistent with the actual evidence; the overall picture is entirely believable. Some of it can seem implausible, but in the way events in the real world are implausible. Did anyone follow the completely weird deaths of the healthy, happy, well-to-do Korkki sisters in the Seychelles a few months ago? Or the well-to-do grandmother in a Hummer who, this week, was trying to steal stuff out of a charity donation box at 2:30 a.m., had the lid slam shut on her arms, and was found hanging and dead the next morning with her Hummer still running? How much fun could a conspiracy theorist have with those events? A substantial percentage of crimes have strange, almost inexplicable elements, but it doesn't mean the CIA or FBI was behind them. The elaborate conspiracy theories, on the other hand, seem to be largely based on people (almost EVERYONE) not being who they seemed to be, on evidence (almost ALL OF IT) not being what it seems to be, on motives not being what they seem to have been, and on ALL of the gaps being filled and all of the dots being connected with conspiracy-oriented speculation. This is why 15 or more different conspiracy theories seem or have seemed at various times to be plausible, because they rely so heavily on rank speculation. It increasingly seems to me that the real explanation for the popularity of conspiracy theories is to be found in the psychology of the believers. I would challenge some of the true believers to take a break and read something like Empire of Conspiracy: The Culture of Paranoia in Postwar America, https://www.amazon.com/Empire-Conspiracy-Culture-Paranoia-Postwar/dp/0801486068. You might find more answers there than in Lifton's latest book. As one who has been heavily involved in Weirdness himself, I think you have to make a genuine effort not to become a one-dimensional zealot, to step back and take a hard look at wild claims, and to force yourself to confront with an open mind the literature of those who oppose the wild claims; this is easy to say, but very difficult to do. Just as FWIW addendum, here is how I currently view the assassination in descending order of likelihood: The Assassination 1. LHO acted alone, for motives unique to LHO. (HIGHLY LIKELY) 2. The above, but LHO made assassination-related statements during his trip to Mexico City and was "encouraged" by Cuban contacts there ("You'll be a hero to Fidel, and to true Marxists everywhere if you pull it off"). (FAIRLY LIKELY, BUT PURE SPECULATION) 3. A limited conspiracy along the lines of what Larry Hancock has suggested. (CERTAINLY POSSIBLE, AND SUPPORTED BY AT LEAST SOME THINGS RESEMBLING "EVIDENCE") Post Assassination 1. A scrambling cover-up to minimize the embarrassing fact that the CIA and FBI had failed to keep adequate tabs on LHO, perhaps coupled with legitimate fear about provoking a public outcry for an invasion of Cuba or even an attack on the USSR. (HIGHLY LIKELY AND CONSISTENT WITH ANY OF THE ABOVE ASSASSINATION SCENARIOS) 2. There was no cover-up, just bureaucratic fumbling and bumbling. (POSSIBLE BUT UNLIKELY)
  10. I was sort of a Marguerite myself from the ages of about 15 to about 30. Sometimes just for fun I try to recreate all the jobs I had and places in which I lived. I had some jobs more than once and lived in some apartments up to four different times. An accurate recreation is impossible. Likewise, as I mentioned on another thread, I have numerous photos of myself from the ages of about 15 to about 30. I would almost swear these were different people, and they are all me; you would definitely swear they were different people. To me the photos of Marguerite look far more like the same woman than do the photos of moi. Indeed, the four photos above look exactly like the same woman. As I've said before, I was surprised and disappointed that Harvey & Lee just stopped with the assassination as though it had hit a brick wall. Fake Marguerite and Fake LHO just vanished into the mist. Having supposedly pieced together their trail over a period of decades, I would have expected Armstrong to leave no stone unturned in an effort to show what became of them after the assassination. The fact that they vanished into the mist would be consistent with them never having existed.
  11. How does one "infiltrate" a public forum? In other weirdness forums on which I participate, the prevailing mode of paranoia is to suspect those who disagree with our pet theories of being "disinformation agents" planted by the Government, the Illuminati or whatever other real or imaginary group feeds our fantasies. If I were inclined toward paranoia, this would be my suspicion within the JFK research community as well. Some of the theories that seem to be taken seriously are so laughably, demonstrably preposterous that it would be very easy to suspect they exist only to sow confusion. Since I am increasingly convinced the Lone Nut theory is correct or at least substantially correct, however, it's hard for me to see what purpose would be served by a disinformation agent promoting wild and crazy conspiracy theories. Ergo, my conclusion is that what I see here - can I say this, so long as I don't point any fingers or name any names? - is (1) a fair degree of genuine mental illness on the part of some, and (2) the promotion of a leftist political agenda under the guise of "assassination research" on the part of many. I enjoy the occasional thread that slides off into some side topic like UFOs simply because most of the conspiracy threads are boring and silly, and the political threads are so predictably leftist they serve no purpose except to reinforce the prevailing paranoia. I am DELIGHTED the Donald was elected. I am 67, highly educated, financially secure, and stupid enough to have voted for Kerry once and Obama twice. To repeat, I am DELIGHTED the Donald was elected. Waking up in the morning to learn he had been elected, after an entire night of truly strange dreams that he had been elected, is one of the genuinely unforgettable moments of my life - really far more stunning to me than the JFK assassination, although I remember the moment I learned of it as well. I applaud every step Trump has taken in his effort to restore our country to moral and fiscal sanity. If Hillary had been elected (as I fully anticipated), however, I would have simply shrugged and said "Well, the inmates have spoken. Four more years of sliding into the cesspool, but I'll just have to lay low and deal with it." But now we see how the amalgamation of extreme special interests that constitutes the left reacts when things don't go their way; the country is bitterly divided, and perhaps on the brink of a genuine civil war, but the bitterness is almost entirely on the part of the losers who have seen their fantasies evaporate via the elective process and can't deal with it. Good Lord, people, get over your childish fantasies of what might have been achieved if JFK had lived and your equally childish fantasies that the Dark Forces responsible for his assassination have reached their zenith in the election of Trump. Hillary Clinton is about as much in the tradition of JFK as Pee-wee Herman (is he still around?). JFK is no more relevant today than Warren Harding. The Donald is the new sheriff in town. Deal with it or go "infiltrate" Canada or France.
  12. Forget Newman's scholarly twaddle, people, now you can get the scoop directly from JFK's mouth: https://www.amazon.com/Spirits-Speak-Conspiracies-Mysteries-Strohm/dp/0764352695 This new book did not make my buy list - but, given the nature of such books, I'm betting the word from the Great Beyond is not "Oswald did it, case closed." I do think any conspiracy theorist worth his salt owes it to himself to factor JFK's actual words into the equation - although, alas, this author is about the 473rd psychic, medium or channeler to contact JFK. To the best of my knowledge, none of them has reported JFK saying "Oswald did it, case closed." A thread comparing all of the accounts would probably be way more fun, and at least as valuable, as debating Prayer Man.
  13. Michael and Sandy, I appreciate your comments, but I realize any further discussion of Christianity or Newman's book on Jesus would be inappropriate here. christianforums.com is one of the most active sites on the Internet and has so many forums and sub-forums that almost any subject is fair game for discussion. My point here, which I realize has been beaten to death and beyond, was simply that taking a scholarly but extremely fringe position on one subject may be relevant when one takes a scholarly but fringe position on another. What if Posner or Bugliosi had written the same book Newman has - think that would have been highlighted here? Perhaps I have spent so much time in the world of weirdness that the term "lunatic fringe" is second nature to me. It actually does have a dictionary definition and is not typically understood as having any connection to mental illness or anything of that sort: lu·na·tic fringe ˈˌlo͞onəˌtik ˈfrinj/ noun noun: lunatic fringe; plural noun: lunatic fringes an extreme or eccentric minority within society or a group.
  14. With all due respect - and I mean that - this again is conspiracy logic. It's the classic "post hoc" ("confusing cause and effect") fallacy. Yes, many different people and groups benefitted from the assassination of JFK. This is why a host of different conspiracy theories are plausible. The logical fallacy is to assume that because these people and groups benefitted from the assassination, one or more of them must have caused the assassination. It assumes a connection that is not necessarily there. I can't tell you how many people have said to me, "Want to know who killed JFK? Look at who benefitted." Wrong. Your post is one small example, but most of the conspiracy theories are riddled with this "dot connecting" logical fallacy. I realize that even mentioning the Lone Nut theory is like waving a red flag in front of a bull around here, but this is one thing that impresses me about the theory - it does flow from point A to B to C with a minimum of speculation and logical fallacies. This is precisely why people are fans of murder mysteries - they invite you to commit the post hoc fallacy and reach an "obvious" conclusion, only to find out at the end you were dead wrong.