Narrative Fallacies and How to Avoid Them
A Guide to Contextual Narrative Reasoning as applied to the JFK Assassination
*NOTE* This glossary is not yet complete and additional terms will be added as the Kennedy assassination series progresses.
The Kennedy assassination is a controversial historical event, subject to conflicting narrative accounts of the events that led to the murder of John F. Kennedy, the reasons he was murdered, the way he was murdered, who was responsible for the murder, and the aftermath of his murder.
In disputed areas of fact, competing narratives contend with each other to account for the facts of the case and how to interpret them. In such cases, a common error of reasoning is to arrive at a narrative prior to considering the evidence—a process I refer to as narrative frontloading. The following glossary lists a number of narrative fallacies that support or create frontloaded narratives.
The glossary also lists a number of narrative reasoning tools that can uncover the presence of narrative fallacies and the frontloaded narratives that establish them. The formula I recommend for using narratives in the reasoning process is called contextual narrative reasoning, which proceeds through the following steps:
Identify evidentiary questions of fact. Then identify the possible ways of interpreting that evidence.
Hold the competing interpretations open in a narrative frame comparison process. Each interpretation exists as a narrative frame in which some things must be true and other things cannot be true.
Explore the implications of each narrative frame by applying them in the context of other evidence and by eliminating impossibilities. The necessary implications of each narrative frame become more precise as a result.
Check for narrative consistency by considering all points of evidence in context with each other, and in the context of the implications that proceed from competing narrative frames. True evidence combined with true narrative frames will result in contextual narrative integrity. No points of evidence will contradict each other, nor will they contradict the implications of the narrative frame.
Over the course of steps 1-4, some narrative frames will be revealed as impossible and can be discarded. Some narrative frames will appear increasingly unreasonable while remaining technically possible. Some narrative frames that seem unreasonable may in fact be reasonable—their seeming unreasonableness may be pointing to the presence of an unexamined frontloaded narrative. Once an unexamined set of assumptions (i.e., a frontloaded narrative) is identified, it can be tested using another narrative frame comparison process.
The implications that proceed from surviving narrative frames become increasingly precise in their implications, and these implications are run through the four-step process of contextual narrative reasoning to sharpen their implications further. This is continually repeated with new narrative frame comparisons that arise from the process.
Throughout the process, impossibilities are continually eliminated. Certainties arise only through the elimination of these impossibilities. Unanswered questions always remain at the edges of the available evidence. Increasingly implausible narrative frames are still held open in case additional evidence comes to light to rehabilitate them; however, these implausible narratives are held to higher standards of substantiation the more implausible they become.
This process yields a narrative picture shaped by evidence and reasoning. Some things are established as certain, and some are presumed true due to the highly implausible, unlikely, or unreasonable nature of the alternative. Other things remain in the realm of the possible or unknown. In all cases, previously unexamined evidence and reasoning is welcomed. No conclusion, not even certainties, are ever held exempt from questioning.
The glossary of terms follows below. In some cases, examples from the Kennedy assassination case are provided to illustrate application of the concepts.
A
Authoritative narrative allure — The attraction to accepting a frontloaded narrative due to the authoritative veneer associated with that narrative. Capitulation to the authoritative narrative may also result from intimidation or awe due to the power of the source of authority.
Authoritative veneer — A projection of credibility onto a source by virtue of that source’s perceived authority. This veneer may adhere to the pronouncements of a government body, an academic institution, establishment media sources, or experts authorized by these authorities with access to advanced technological tools (in a combined approach of authoritative narrative allure and expert foreclosure). Search engines may also confer authoritative veneer to favored perspectives through over-representation in search results. Authoritative veneer may also adhere to individuals in our private lives who present themselves with unshakable confidence or charisma, and amplified by their measure of social status and power.
B
Begging the Question — A classic logical fallacy that also applies to narrative reasoning in the form of premature narrative foreclosure. A conclusion is assumed true from the outset, and as a result, all reasoning is influenced and distorted by this foregone clonclusion.
Example: Lee Harvey Oswald is assumed to have killed President Kennedy. When evidence exonerating Oswald is presented, such as evidence showing that Oswald could not have been on the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository at the time of the shooting, this evidence is dismissed, regardless of how strong it is. On what basis is this evidence dismissed? Since Oswald must have killed Kennedy, evidence showing he didn’t kill Kennedy must be false. Instead of using evidence to reach a conclusion, the pre-determined conclusion is used as a basis for accepting or discounting the evidence—thus “begging” the question of whether the conclusion should have been assumed in the first place.
Burden of Proof Fallacy — The insistence that one’s own frontloaded narrative must be accepted and presumed true by others unless and until it can be disproved. This is another classic logical fallacy that is also a prominent narrative fallacy in the form of premature narrative foreclosure.
Example: At a glance, Kennedy’s backward motion in the Zapruder film following the fatal head shot indicates the strong likelihood that this shot originated from the front. But due to the presence of a frontloaded narrative claiming all shots that hit Kennedy were fired from behind, it must be assumed that the shots did come from behind—unless it can be proven that in no possible world could the shot have come from behind.
C
Cherry Picking — Ignoring the totality of evidence and focusing only on a piece of evidence that seems strongest for one’s argument (or weakest for the opponent’s argument). Evidence ripe for cherry-picking can be referred to as low-hanging fruit.
Concrete Corroboration — Evidence corroborated by known facts that are time and place specific. This approach to evidentiary analysis applies temporal or spacial circumstances (corroborating external conditions) to the evidence in question to establish the truth or falsehood of that evidence beyond doubt. Types of concrete corroboration include evidence of prior knowledge, verified alibis, or evidence corroborated by known facts that are otherwise time and place specific. For these reasons, concretely corroborated evidence is extremely strong.
Example: Michael Paine reported being shown a print of one of the “backyard photographs” at Dallas Police Headquarters on the evening of November 22, even though the police reported first discovering the photos on the afternoon of November 23. At around noon on November 23, Captain Fritz took notes while interrogating Lee Harvey Oswald, and the notes showed that Fritz mentioned Paine’s statements from the night before about the photo.
Conclusion: Not only do Fritz’s notes independently corroborate Michael Paine’s reports of being shown the photo the night before, these notes were written four hours before the photos were officially discovered and could not have contained the information about Paine’s reports had Paine not actually given such reports. The evidence of the DPD having possession of the photos on November 22 is concretely corroborated.
Contextual narrative integrity — A narrative reasoning tool used in the narrative frame comparison process in which open narrative frames are tested for consistency with the evidence in the case. Each piece of evidence in the case must align in context with all of the other evidence. Any explanatory narrative that fits this evidence must demonstrate internal consistency, or integrity with these contextual evidentiary relationships.
Contextual narrative reasoning — The application of narrative reasoning tools to test evidentiary conclusions for consistency in the context of all relevant evidence.
Corroborating External Condition — Evidence of prior knowledge, established alibis, or evidence corroborated by known facts that are time and place specific. These conditions are used in the process of concrete corroboration to eliminate possibilities due to universally accepted principles of linear time and space.
Example: Lee Harvey Oswald is witnessed entering the Texas Theater at approximately 1:07pm and buying popcorn at 1:15pm on November 22, 1963. On the same day, witnesses observe the shooting of JD Tippit several blocks away sometime between 1:06pm and 1:15pm. Due to the constraints of linear time and space, Oswald cannot be present at the theater and also be the person who shot Tippit.
E
Eliminating impossibilities — Sharpening the scope of narrative possibility in a narrative frame comparison process. This is achieved by eliminating narrative frames proven impossible by reliable evidence and evidentiary requirements. This process hinges upon locating suitable narrative inflection points in the comparison process.
Expert foreclosure — This occurs when a layperson abandons their own analysis of the evidence in question by deferring to an expert pronouncement, or by excluding the evidence in question from their own analysis entirely.
Example 1: Handwriting experts contracted by the state conclude the handwriting on the back of a print of the backyard photos belongs to Oswald. Whether the handwriting appears markedly different from other examples of Oswald’s handwriting at a glance, or appears similar but could have been forged, the experts must be correct. The experts could not be lying or inaccurate.
Example 2: Expert photo analysts contracted by the state conclude the Oswald backyard photographs are authentic. Other experts disagree. Therefore it is not possible for a layperson to determine whether they are authentic.
H
Hand waving — A blunt dismissal of evidence without even attempting to justify the reasons for dismissing it.
L
Limited Hangout — An official entity admits to previously withheld truth, but only in limited areas. In protected areas, official corruption continues to be denied. The hope is that the public will split the difference and accept the new narrative as a compromise.
Example: The House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) reopened the Kennedy Assassination case in response to public outrage after the Zapruder film was finally broadcast on network television. The HSCA concluded that a conspiracy did exist to kill Kennedy, but endorsed the Warren Commission’s conclusions that Oswald killed Kennedy and all of Kennedy’s wounds were caused by shots from Oswald’s rifle. In addition, it promoted a narrative suggesting that the conspiracy was solely a Mafia plot and no agents of the Federal Government were involved.
Limited Hangon — This occurs when researchers, commentators, or members of the general public accept an official limited hangout narrative uncritically and incorporate it into their own narrative framework as established fact.
Example: The HSCA admitted Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy, but they also established that Oswald killed Kennedy, the assassination was simply a mob hit, and no elements of the Federal Government were involved. Therefore, we can close the book on those aspects of the case and confine our further research into contemplating the reasons why the Mafia wanted to take Kennedy out. What a relief to know that US democracy was in no way compromised by Kennedy’s death and we can still basically trust our official institutions.
N
Narrative fallacies — Reasoning mistakes that create or support a frontloaded narrative.
Narrative reasoning tools — Methods by which narratives can be utilized in appropriate relationship to applicable evidence. Primary examples of narrative reasoning tools include narrative frame comparison and testing for contextual narrative integrity. Both are examples of contextual narrative reasoning, in which narratives are shaped by the constraints of the evidence in question. This is in contract to narrative frontloading, in which consideration of evidence is shaped to fit a pre-existing narrative.
Narrative frontloading — The process of fixing beliefs and conclusions in place prior to the examination of evidence. Evidence or reasoning that contradicts this belief is discarded as soon as the contradiction is made apparent. The mind concludes, “There must be something wrong with this evidence or line of reasoning. Even though I can’t detect the evidentiary or reasoning flaw, I know it must be flawed because I know my pre-existing narrative is true.” In an accurate reasoning process, narratives must fit the evidence. If a narrative does not fit the evidence, the narrative must be discarded, not the evidence. Narrative frontloading reverses the process and discards evidence that does not fit the narrative. This forms the basis for all narrative fallacies.
Example: “There could not be a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination because major institutions of government and the corporate press could not have colluded to cover it up. The world just doesn’t work that way.”
Narrative frame comparison — In this process, competing narratives are both held as open possibilities and evidence is considered in accordance with both narratives. As more evidence is examined and incorporated, the competing narratives are winnowed down to sharper levels of specificity through a process of eliminating impossibilities. As the process continues, new narrative frames are suggested by the mounting evidence in question. These are likewise held open in a continuing narrative frame comparison process, and the narrowing of possibilities continues. Over time, some narratives collapse completely under the weight of mounting contradictions, and surviving narratives more closely approach the truth. Along the way, certain evidentiary facts are corroborated to the point that certainty can be reached in a number of areas. This is the process by which we can develop narratives and worldviews that match the evidence in our world, rather than developing a false and skewed view of the world by distorting or ignoring evidence to prop up a pre-selected narrative.
Narrative Inflection point — An instances of divergence in competing narrative frames that delineates distinct and mutually exclusive possibilities in the narrative frame comparison process. The narrative frames that diverge from these inflection points are central to the process of eliminating possibilities. By holding and testing competing narratives that flow from a narrative inflection point, considerable progress can be made in the search for truth.
P
Piecemeal Analysis — The dismissal of evidence in compartmentalized, piecemeal fashion. One point of evidence may not make a strong case on its own, but when viewed in the context of corroborating evidence, the case is strengthened. With piecemeal analysis, each point of evidence is considered and dismissed as if the rest of the evidence didn’t exist.
Example: It is easy to believe that one doctor may have been mistaken about witnessing a large, gaping exit wound in the lower rear of President Kennedy’s skull. It becomes difficult to believe this doctor was mistaken when twenty other doctors are shown to have observed the same thing. With piecemeal analysis, each doctor’s testimony is dismissed as mistaken with no regard for the other twenty. The testimony of the twenty other doctors is placed in a comparmentalized memory hole so each doctor’s testimony can be dismissed in isolation.
Premature Narrative Foreclosure — This narrative fallacy presumes that a frontloaded narrative is true from the outset. As a result, other narrative frames are not considered, and evidence that weakens or disproves the fronloaded narrative is dismissed out of hand. (see “begging the question” and “burden of proof fallacy.”)
Example: Lee Harvey Oswald is assumed to have killed President Kennedy. When evidence exonerating Oswald is presented, such as evidence showing that Oswald could not have been on the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository at the time of the shooting, this evidence is dismissed, regardless of how strong it is. On what basis is this evidence dismissed? Because Oswald must have killed Kennedy, evidence showing he didn’t kill Kennedy must be false.
Example 2: At a glance, Kennedy’s backward motion in the Zapruder film following the fatal head shot indicates the strong likelihood that this shot originated from the front. But due to the presence of a frontloaded narrative claiming all shots that hit Kennedy were fired from behind, it must be assumed that the shots did come from behind—unless it can be proven that in no possible world could the shot have come from behind.
Psychological gain projection — A narrative fallacy used in service of narrative frontloading in which speculative psychological gains are projected onto another person in an attempt to distort evidence, testimony, or reasoning that would otherwise clarify the behavior of that person as an actor in the case. It can also be used to discredit a researcher or commentator on the case without honestly examining their evidence and reasoning first.
Example 1: “Lee Harvey Oswald was a misfit who longed to be special. Killing Kennedy would satisfy this need for specialness, establishing secondary gains for Oswald in achieving the assassination. Now that his reasons for killing Kennedy are established, there is nothing left to determine other than the story of how he accomplished it.”
In the example above, speculation regarding Oswald’s motives are projected onto him before examining the evidence in the case. This establishes a frontloaded narrative that skews one’s perception of the evidence before it is even encountered.
Example 2: “Conspiracy theorists are motivated to invent elaborate plots in order to direct their frustrations and disappointments at an imagined powerful enemy in the shadows.”
Example 3: “Lone nut theorists are motivated to ignore evidence of conspiracy and collusion because they would feel disempowered and depressed by the prospect of the entrenched institutional corruption this would reveal.
In examples 2 and 3, a frontloaded narrative is established that creates a preemptive bias against evidence presented by the target of the projection. The secondary gains projected onto the target are speculative and intangible psychological gains rather than tangible secondary gains (identification of concrete material gains that can be used to evaluate credibility).
R
Reductio ad Absurdum — A classic reasoning and analysis tool that refutes a premise by showing that absurd conclusions must result from adoption of that premise (or formally that an absurdity results in the denial of a premise, supporting the truth of the counter-premise, or inverse of the premise in question). In the case of narrative reasoning, reductio ad absurdum is a counterpart to the elimination of impossibilities. Certain narrative frames lead to conclusions that are technically possible in the strictist sense of the term, but so utterly implausible and absurd they can effectively be dismissed as impossible.
Example: To argue that Lee Harvey Oswald could have been in the 6th floor window and taken shots at President Kennedy, one must argue that Oswald’s alibi, in which he saw Junior Jarman and Harold Norman walk past the 1st floor domino room (an event which took place around 7-8 minutes before Kennedy’s assassination) was a wild guess on Oswald’s part that happened to correspond to reality.
A second explanation is that Oswald was aware of Jarman and Norman’s location while he was waiting on the 6th floor through psychic powers or remote viewing capabilities.
The third explanation is that Oswald set up his sniper’s nest ahead of time, but casually waited in the 1st floor domino room until 5 minutes before Kennedy’s arrival, taking position just in time to complete the assassination.
All three of these explanations are absurd, and arguing for their possibility reduces one’s argument to an absurdity in turn. The premise that Oswald shot at Kennedy from the 6th floor window is thus rejected through reductio ad absurdum.
S
Secondary gains — Personal benefits made available through adherence to a frontloaded narrative, or the alteration or fabrication of evidence (by witnesses, law enforcement, or interested third parties). These benefits may include tangible gains such as wealth, access to opportunity, social propriety, or in extreme cases, preservation of life and limb. Some secondary gains provide psychological benefits, such as feelings of peace or security in one’s worldview, emotional relief, notoriety, or ideological promotion. If these psychological benefits also provide opportunity for concrete gains (e.g., increased notoriety can assist in book sales, and ideological promotion can provide social advancement) they can be considered tangible. Otherwise, their presumed benefit is speculative and intangible.
Splitting the Difference — A narrative fusion that incorporates contradictory conclusions or narrative elements from two sides of a narrative divide. This can be done in attempt to bridge the gap between the opposing perspectives, or to mollify proponents of an opposing perspective by conceding elements of the narrative uneccesary to the conclusion one wishes to advance. It can also be done under the faulty reasoning that holds the truth must always lie somewhere between any two widely held perspectives. Splitting the difference can also occur due to the desire to avoid arguing for a controversial or complex fact pattern, shifting one’s focus to fact patterns one would rather concentrate on.
Example: Multiple gunmen could have killed Kennedy even if the backyard photos showing Lee Harvey Oswald holding a rifle were authentic. The fraudulence of these photos is not even necessary in showing that Oswald was entirely innocent of Kennedy’s assassination. As a result, many Multiple Gunmen proponents simply concede the authenticity of the photos, leaving them free to focus on other parts of the case.
Example 2: Multiple gunmen could have killed Kennedy even if Oswald were one of these gunmen. As a result, many Multiple Gunmen proponents are willing to concede Oswald’s guilt so they won’t have to argue about this either, leaving them free to concentrate on the medical and ballistic evidence for multiple gunmen. In this case, evidence for Oswald’s innocence is ignored in hopes of strengthening a different argument. But if Oswald was not part of the plot to kill Kennedy, this results in falsely accusing an innocent man of killing the President for the sake of convenience—or for the sake of making one’s argument more palatable to people who are hesitant to fully break with the official narrative.
T
Tangible secondary gains — A type of secondary gain that is appropriate when considering the credibility of a witness or source. Adhering to a frontloaded narrative, providing false testimony, or engaging in evidence tampering can sometimes secure concrete or demonstrable benefits, such as wealth, opportunity, social advancement, or security. Consideration of tangible secondary gains is appropriate when evaluating evidence that lacks adequate corroboration or is contradicted by other evidence. Speculative projections of intangible psychological gains should not be employed in gauging credibility of information.
W
Whataboutism — A deflection tactic used to avoid scrutiny. When presented with evidence that is damaging to one’s argument, the evidence is avoided completely by saying “What about (insert distraction here)?” The distraction one deflects toward (if the tactic is performed well) is inevitably a cherry-picked piece of evidence one would rather talk about.
What about this low-hanging cherry? — This term refers to an arguing tactic that combines whataboutism with the low-hanging fruit of cherry-picked evidence. The holes in one’s own argument are avoided by distracting one’s opponent, and luring them into defending an evidentiary point they subscribe to that is difficult to defend.
Relendra’s series of Kennedy Assassination Articles
While it is outside the scope of this series of articles to provide footnotes or citations for much of the evidence presented here, I have compiled a resource guide to encourage readers to verify the facts of the case for themselves: a compendium of the books, websites, podcasts, films, and methods of research available in researching or learning about the Kennedy case, complete with links.
An intro to the discipline and benefits of understanding the assassination of John F. Kennedy—with reference to its utility and applicability in understanding power dynamics and narrative reasoning on the macro scale of history and global politics, now and then, as well as in one’s personal relationships and spiritual journey.
An introduction to three images that open the mind to the Kennedy Assassination—and a guide to the process of encountering the doors of perception and the keys that unlock them.
A deeper exploration of the path beyond the initial doorways of the Kennedy case through narrative frame comparison, guidance in the use of narrative reasoning tools, and identification of reasoning pitfalls and narrative fallacies. The backyard photos and the circumstances surrounding them are held to particular scrutiny. The case for seriously questioning the official narrative of the assassination is firmly established.
An exploration of the medical and ballistic evidence in the Kennedy Assassination, using narrative frame comparison to eliminate impossibilities in two competing narrative frames: Kennedy was assassinated by a single gunman, or Kennedy was assassinated by multiple gunmen.
In continuing the process of eliminating impossibilities through narrative frame comparison, the evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald is examined in detail. Through this examination, the exoneration of Oswald is established. Oswald did not fire any shots at Kennedy, nor did he participate in the assassination. Multiple gunmen fired at Kennedy, but Oswald was not one of them.
Two men, Ralph Yates and Buell Frazier, both testified to transporting Lee Harvey Oswald to the Texas School Book Depository—and that Oswald bore a package with him he described as containing curtain rods. In examining the reports of both men through narrative frame comparison, it can be established that Yates did transport a hitchhiker claiming to carry curtain rods, but it wasn’t Oswald; and Frazier did transport Oswald, but Oswald didn’t carry a curtain rods package. The intersection of these stories provides strong evidence that Oswald was framed for Kennedy’s Assassination prior to its occurrence and that members Dallas Police Department assisted in framing Oswald, possessing foreknowledge of the plot.
A glossary of terms to aid in the process of contextual narrative reasoning. Includes descriptions of narrative fallacies and narrative reasoning tools, with examples and application to the Kennedy assassination case.