Jump to content
The Education Forum

Lance Payette

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Lance Payette

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday 03/03/1950

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

2,744 profile views
  1. Lance Payette

    Bush not in Dallas- He is dead

    OK, you've really thought through this Presidential assassination. If all goes well, your shooters to the rear will get the job done and the whole package will be pretty tidy. But you are sophisticated planners and you leave nothing to chance. If all doesn't go well, your shooters in the front will blow his head off. That's Plan B. If you must activate Plan B, all sorts of things will flow from that, at least if you wish to preserve the guy on the sixth floor of the TSBD as your patsy. You're going to have to do some wild scrambling. You take JFK to a public hospital where all sorts of medical professionals who didn't get the memo say all sorts of dumb things about entry wounds to the throat and massive wounds to the back of the head. So now you have to deal with them - and all the things their dumbass statements trigger. You thought of Plan B, which was risky as hell from almost every angle, but you didn't think one second beyond Dealey Plaza. It's possible that I'm not reading "the right pieces of information in book form or documents," but I keep bumping my head on common sense and logic. I keep bumping my head on that "geniuses at steps 1-3-5-7-9, inept fools at steps 2-4-6-8" scenario. Just thinking out loud, if my Plan B involved shooters at the front, I think I would've had a Plan B patsy there as well.
  2. Lance Payette

    Explain this and I'll take you more seriously

    The best quick analysis of conspiracy thinking that I recall: Eyewitness 1 says the getaway car was dark blue. Eyewitness 2 says black. Eyewitness 3 says dark gray. The culprits are apprehended in a dark blue car. Conspiracy theorists: You call this police work??? There are two carloads of culprits still at large in this obvious conspiracy! What happened to the black car and the dark gray car - huh, huh, HUH??? In the conspiracy world, there are no honest mistakes, no bureaucratic bungling, no confusion - even in the chaos of a Presidential assassination. Every discrepancy is sinister.
  3. Lance Payette

    Explain this and I'll take you more seriously

    If you can stomach it, read my recent thread on "Epistemology and the JFK Assassination." I could believe the WC/Bugliosi "story" was imperfect in 100 ways and still believe that the Lone Assassin explanation is established beyond any reasonable doubt by a mountain of solid evidence and reasonable inferences. This is the mistake intractable fundamentalists often make: "The Bible is the 100% literal word of God, 100% inerrant in everything it says, whether theological, historical or scientific. Show me the tiniest error and, well, hell, I'll be an atheist overnight!" This is in fact almost precisely what happened to Bart Ehrman. My provisional Lone Nut position is not this rigid or brittle. I believe you have a complete misunderstanding as to how a belief system - and belief system - is constructed, and I decline to play these silly games. If I decide the Lone Assassin explanation is so flawed that it must be discarded, I'll let you know.
  4. Lance Payette

    Explain this and I'll take you more seriously

    Intuitively, of course, I would agree with you. You might want to watch a Carcano bullet penetrate 36" of pine boards and emerge in pristine condition: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=167&v=a-imJWUcMso. There is another documentary where, as I recall, a Carcano bullet penetrated 42" into a solid pine log and was likewise in pristine condition when removed.
  5. Lest we forget: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25306-the-inheritance-fantastic-book-on-the-jfk-assassination/ I have a friend who has appeared on Coast to Coast numerous times. He is intelligent and engaging but completely delusional. I'd describe his beliefs but I would only embarrass him and make you question my own sanity for associating with him.
  6. Lance Payette

    Logic seems to suggest...

  7. Lance Payette

    Epistemology and the JFK Assassination

    That's not Opie - that's my inner child, who reminds me that this is all a Monty Python skit. Technically, it's little me in Mrs. Hill's third-grade class at Lineweaver Elementary School, circa 1958. I have lots of other potential avatars that are equally droll. In fact, I think I'll change it today. I have no idea as to the extent to which you engage in epistemological self-analysis. I see no evidence of it here on the part of anyone. Pissing contests are not epistemological self-analysis. My guess would be that 98% of the participants have never given a thought to these matters, as I likewise had not for many years. Thus, I provide this food for thought FWIW. Regarding your final point, I was simply tweaking you and pointing out that this sort of longing for a Golden Age that never existed (and CERTAINLY never existed here) often has psychological roots. I actually posted this ten days ago, which was one of the things that sent Joe Bauer into his short-lived existential crisis: Slightly off-topic, but: When I look at threads from years ago, it seems to me that the level of discourse has deteriorated significantly. Not that it wasn't always The Church of Conspiracy Thinking, but it seemed to have much more substance. Many of the participants who seemed to me to have the most substance to contribute (including even some wild-eyed conspiracy zealots) seem to be gone. I'm not sure why that is, but I can guess. From the feedback I get, I wonder how many lurkers there even are. If I thought my posts were only viewed by the same 15 people again and again (whose responses are so predictable that I could pretty well write them myself), I'd question whether continued participation were even worthwhile. There ya go, note the new profile picture. Not as droll, but I decided to give my favorite cat some airtime.
  8. Lance Payette

    Boycott the nutters!

    Let's run that up the etymological flagpole and see who salutes: I don't know anyone who holds to the theory of a lone assassin who actually believes that Oswald was a "nut." I at least believe he was far from a nut. Moreover, Lone Nutter does not refer to Oswald but to those who believe Oswald was the lone assassin. Moreover, if you will consult a dictionary you will find that, entirely apart from anything to do with the assassination of JFK, the term "nutter" has a meaning that is identical to - wait for it - "loon," to wit: "madman/madwoman, maniac, lunatic, eccentric, loony, nutcase, nutjob, cuckoo, fruitcake, head case, basket case, headbanger, schizo, crank" (geez, what a rude dictionary!). Ergo, I hereby revoke my previous vow and reserve the right unto myself and my heirs and assigns to characterize anyone who refers to me as a Lone Nutter as a conspiracy loon and/or fruitcake if the shoe fits. My preferred terminology is Lone Assassin Truth-Bearer.
  9. Lance Payette

    Boycott the nutters!

    If you saw my contract with the Lone Nut Disinformation Agency, sir, you would not describe me as a "cheap" imitation. Not only am I handsomely compensated, but I am promised all the Guinness Extra Stout I can drink and all the Blue Corn Doritos I can eat while directly engaged in disinformation activities. For those unfamiliar with the Vatican-Jesuits-Knights of Malta angle on the assassination that Robert seems to be enthusiastic about, this will give you the idea: http://whale.to/b/phelps3.html. (Lee Harvey Oswald was a Roman Catholic? I confess the whole V-J-KOM thing was new to me.) Someone asked me on another thread if I would ever call out an over-the-top Lone Nutter, and I said absolutely. Since I have now taken a vow not to refer to any CTer as a loon, I am stumped as to how to respond here and thus will leave it to the CTers - does conspiracy thinking make bedfellows that strange?
  10. This is strictly a summation for those who have ears to hear. The rest of you, ignore or ridicule it to your heart's delight. Adam recently asked what one item of evidence or testimony was most troubling to me as a provisional Lone Nutter. When I mentioned a couple of items, Jake suggested there must be at least a spark of CTer within me. There has also been lots of discussion about “reasonable doubt” in the legal sense insofar as Oswald’s guilt is concerned. These are all aspects of what I call the “epistemology” of the assassination. Epistemology is the branch of philosophy dealing with the nature of knowledge, how knowledge is acquired, and what constitutes “justified” (or “warranted” belief). See https://www.iep.utm.edu/epistemo/. A belief may be justified even though it is, in fact, untrue. Every area of belief has both its “evidentiary” aspect and its “epistemological” aspect. In every area where I hold important beliefs (including my Christian faith, where Alvin Plantinga is the foremost epistemologist), I make an effort not to overlook the latter. I challenge myself as to whether my beliefs are justified: Why do I believe these things? Am I being influenced by something other than common sense, logic, the best evidence and most reasonable inferences? Am I perhaps resisting common sense, logic, the best evidence and the most reasonable inferences? If so, why? This is why I have introduced on these forums psychological materials pertaining to the propensity on the part of some people – even highly intelligent, highly educated people with impeccable credentials – to see conspiracies and lean toward fringe explanations. In areas where I myself have done this, I have stepped back and asked myself: Is the psychological profile describing me? If so, to what extent is this influencing my thinking here? Even if it isn’t me, is my thinking nevertheless being influenced by social, political, economic or cultural factors that may be distorting my view of what constitutes common sense, logic, the best evidence and the most reasonable inferences? Am I falling into the trap of placing too much reliance on supposed experts who may themselves be badly flawed or driven by hidden agendas? In short, I want my beliefs to have both a solid evidentiary foundation and a solid epistemological foundation. As I’ve gone through this process over the decades, my beliefs have indeed changed dramatically in several areas. One of these is the JFK assassination. I realized that I had a very one-sided evidentiary base and was being driven to a large extent by my own psychological propensities as well as social/political/cultural factors and the work of dubious self-appointed experts. I now tend to trust the epistemology of my provisional Lone Nut position precisely because I once did find wild conspiracy theories appealing and I do have a propensity to be drawn to fringe thinking. I have had to face and overcome these propensities. Hence, I do trust that my provisional Lone Nut position reflects a much more dispassionate view of the evidence. I simply challenge others to do the same. The extent to which this is resisted and ridiculed here speaks volumes. Intractable true believers always resist and ridicule any challenge to engage in self-examination. This is most obvious in religious communities, but it’s obvious here as well. Indeed, this is what I once did when I dismissed the Lone Nut literature as a waste of time while lapping up every new conspiracy tome that came down the pike. On the evidentiary side, let’s say for the sake of argument that I have 750 items of evidence, testimony and reasonable inferences that I have concluded point toward the Lone Nut explanation. I don’t have to believe that all 750 are rock-solid and free from doubt. I simply have to believe that, as a whole, they point toward the Lone Nut explanation. This is quite an evidentiary mountain. But let’s say there are 100 other items that cause me to say: “Incredible!” or “I believe there is very reasonable doubt that this can be fitted into the Lone Nut scenario” or even "If true, that does kind of point toward a conspiracy." Given the 750-item mountain, the question then becomes: Are these 100 items, individually or collectively, sufficient to call into question the collective weight of the other 750? Or are they most likely just the loose ends that remain whenever any crime is solved? Will many of them eventually prove to have a plausible but innocent explanation, as we saw with Umbrella Man? Something like Prayer Man would be a flat-out Lone Nut Killer. Show me a clear photo of Oswald standing on the steps of the TSBD at the time of the assassination, and this one piece of evidence will cause the Lone Nut theory to go poof. (Cliff believes his ‘irrefutable proof” is in the same vein, but we have amply demonstrated that it is not. It’s simply one area of debatable evidence that is indeed problematical but that does not topple the mountain of other evidence. The mountain of other evidence suggests that the Single Bullet Theory, unlikely though it may seem, is correct.) CTers want to focus almost exclusively on the 100 problematical items and suggest they show “reasonable doubt.” Those 100 items may well do this in the legal sense – in the hands of skilled defense counsel, they might cause enough confusion or honest doubt in the minds of jurors for Oswald to be acquitted. This happens all the time. Never mind that those 100 items point in diverse, irreconcilable directions, as a whole they “look bad” for the Lone Nut explanation. A legal verdict does not have to square with common sense, logic, the best evidence and most reasonable inferences, nor does it have to be epistemologically justified. (A judge cannot overrule a jury’s verdict of acquittal in a criminal trial even if he believes it was nonsensical; in other situations, the jury’s verdict may be overruled only in accordance with the extreme standard that “no reasonable jury could have reached such a conclusion,” which is in effect saying the jurors were irrational.) In short, a focus on specific items of evidence that might call into question the Lone Nut explanation or cause reasonable doubt about Oswald’s guilt is misguided. It’s just the arm-flapping that characterizes most discussions here. What is needed is a plausible assassination conspiracy theory that is consistent with the best evidence and inferences – one that has a solid evidentiary foundation and does not simply throw random darts at the Lone Nut explanation. One whose evidentiary foundation is more compelling than that of the Lone Nut explanation or that includes items of evidence that are flat-out Lone Nut Killers (e.g., a clear Prayer Man photo.) One that genuinely connects the dots with reasonable inferences and not raw, sinister speculation and dark, unreasonable inferences. So far, I have not seen it – but I have seen a whole lot of people who ought to closely examine the epistemological aspect of their theorizing.
  11. Lance Payette

    Explain this and I'll take you more seriously

    In a two-day mock trial (the real trial would have lasted many months) sponsored by the thoroughly conspiracy-oriented CAPA; with three defense counsel who have lived and breathed conspiracy theory for decades; a roster of "experts" who live, breathe and publish conspiracy theory; a prosecutor who is a general practitioner in private practice (and insofar as I can tell, no particular interest in the JFK assassination); and a jury pool contaminated by 50+ years of conspiracy-oriented rabble-rousing, the jury vote was 6 guilty and 5 non-guilty. Draw your own conclusions.
  12. Lance Payette

    Explain this and I'll take you more seriously

    That is what I believe, while recognizing at least in the case of the bullet that there can be good faith beliefs to the contrary. In the case of the Tippit murder I do not believe there is a scintilla of doubt that Oswald killed him. As David Belin recognized, the Tippit murder is the Rosetta Stone to the assassination (or at least one of them) - and it is as solid as the real Rosetta Stone. Again I refer you to Dale K. Myers, who pretty much lives and breathes the Tippit murder. Sandy, I truly derive no pleasure from embarrassing you. Your documents were ones that I discovered early in the PMO discussion. They do not say what you insist they say, THEY DO NOT INCLUDE THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE POSTAL SERVICE AND THE FEDERAL RESERVE, and this will be my final word on the silly PMO non-issue. Footnote 2 to Operating Circular No. 4, which deals in general terms with the collection of cash items: (b) Government checks, postal money orders, and food stamp coupons.2 2. Provisions governing the collection of the foregoing cash items are contained in Appendix A, Appendix B, and Appendix C, respectively, of this operating circular. Appendix B: 1. Postal money orders (United States postal money orders; United States international postal money orders; domestic-international postal money orders) will be handled by us as cash items in accordance with an agreement made by the Postmaster General, in behalf of the United States, and by the Federal Reserve Banks as depositaries and fiscal agents of the United States pursuant to authorization of the Secretary of the Treasury. With respect to matters not covered by that agreement, the terms and conditions of Regulation J applicable to cash items, of this operating circular, and of our time schedules shall be applicable to all such postal money orders. The AGREEMENT THAT WE DON'T HAVE is the governing document. Regulation J and the Operating Circular, including Appendix B, govern WITH RESPECT TO MATTERS NOT COVERED BY THAT AGREEMENT. Please, stop playing lawyer and go back to playing dentist.
  13. Lance Payette

    LHO Beauregard H.S. 1954

    Reading comprehension can be a wonderful thing: Lee Harvey Oswald Autograph Quotation Signed "Lee Oswald". One beige album page, 3.5" x 4.5", Beauregard Junior High School, New Orleans, 1954. In full: "Roses are Red/ Violites [sic] are blue/ People like/ you should/ be in a zoo." Included is the original autograph book from which the page came from; it belonged to his friend Ivan Hurlestone. Also included is a photo of Oswald from the period. All three items are matted with burled wood fillets and beautifully set into a handsome burled wood frame; the overall framed size is 22" x 23". In the center is a 4" x 1" engraved bronze plate stating, "LEE HARVEY OSWALD/ Beauregard Jr. High School/ 5-22-55/ Taken From Ivan Hurlstone's Autograph Book". Very fine condition and ready for display. I know, Shirley, you were hoping Harvey had given it to Lee. No such luck.
  14. Lance Payette

    Explain this and I'll take you more seriously

    Very reasonable, Adam, and I salute you. Well, sure, at various times I've been gobsmacked by the unlikelihood of all the things on which conspiracy theorists typically rely - the inconsistency in the medical observations, the magic bullet, the holes in the clothing, the timing of the shots, the apparent lack of motive on the part of Oswald, the dissenting witnesses in Dealey Plaza. I still accept these as areas of doubt - sometimes "very reasonable" doubt. As I've said, for many years I was neck-deep in nothing but conspiracy literature, to the extent that things like Best Evidence actually sounded plausible to me. The scales fell from my eyes not so much when I finally dived into the Lone Nut literature but when I did that and really dived into Oswald the youth and man. I also realized that the conspiracy community had grossly overplayed its hand - just too many diverse (and convoluted and elaborate) theories, too many conspirators, too many fakes, forgeries and alterations, too much dark speculation and too little common sense and logic. I was also blessed (or cursed) with my really extensive experience (five solid decades) in other weirdness communities (religious, paranormal, etc.) where fringe thinking is common. I realized that the JFK conspiracy community is entirely analogous. There clearly was skullduggery on the part of the FBI, CIA and Warren Commission, but I believe it is understandable and explainable skullduggery and not inconsistent with Oswald as the lone assassin. I have to say honestly that in my own mind there are no gaping holes in the assassination scenario as I envision it. I've said repeatedly that I can think of several areas where ONE PIECE of unimpeachable evidence would instantly shift my views 120 degrees or more, but those are the very areas where conspiracy theorists connect the dots with raw and sinister speculation and implausible inferences. I'm still somewhat troubled that Oswald would throw his life away with two tiny daughters whom he clearly loved - but the Walker note shows a willingness to do this and I believe that "being Oswald" on November 22nd was a very strange psychological state that none of us can fully grasp.
  15. Lance Payette

    Boycott the nutters!

    Well, no. I am not suggesting that everyone with impeccable academic and professional credentials - hey, that's me! - is a complete loon in some dark corner of his life. I am suggesting, and have demonstrated with examples, that this is sometimes the case. In what I call "weirdness" communities, it is quite often the case. No one should assume that it is not the case - whether we are talking about me, you or anyone else. I am simply saying "Do not make the assumption, based on academic or professional credentials, superficial reasonableness, the holding of a responsible position, or other such factors, that in regard to this particular subject matter the speaker is not a complete whacked-out loon." I learned some hard lessons before I adopted Lance's Axiom and have been spared untold grief since I did. Except in my own mind, I have not applied Lance's Axiom to anyone here. I leave it to readers to form their own judgments. By their fruits you shall know them. (Yes, I have sometimes used terminology such as "conspiracy loons" in a broader sense, but I have meant it as no more than a counterpart to "Lone Nutters" and am attempting to refrain since I understand that "conspiracy theorists" prefer to be addressed as such.)