Interestingly, the Poll actually concluded that "among those with a post-graduate education, 71% believe others were involved in the assassination". So much for your Gallup Poll "evidence".
And here's the context of the quote, which Robert dishonestly omits:
The Gallup findings
clearly show a correlation between reported educational attainment and reported belief in an assassination conspiracy. I'm not sure what you hoped to gain by posting the edited quote. I have stipulated from my very first post on the subject that some significant number of people consistently poll in favor of belief that Oswald did not act alone. I don't understand why you're attempting to suggest otherwise, except possibly to engage in your signature straw-manning.
The question has always been whether
your particular arguments are convincing
*. It has never been whether some significant number of people express a superficially similar belief for reasons that have nothing to do with how well you present your case at JREF.
Educational attainment can be considered a proxy for many traits that affect whether someone is apt to believe in a conspiracy. Absent any specific data, we can only speculate. All we can say for sure is that overall the notion of a JFK conspiracy is predicated in general upon elements that become less convincing the more education one has received.
You have a chronic inability to reason properly between cause and effect. Here you can't see that there is a difference between what someone who's never heard of you believes, and what you specifically say in an obscure venue in alleged support of some similar belief. You don't get to pretend that your arguments here transparently represent the state of all JFK conspiracy thinking and are thus divorced from your personal failures. You made a similar error citing as "peer reviewers" two individuals who had never seen Jack White's work, but had simply reached congruent conclusions. You don't seem to understand that having arrived at a superficially similar conclusion is not the same as having validated some particular route toward it -- unless you can
also show that the route in question is the one that was followed. You always skip that step.
------
* And there seems to be considerable disagreement between you and the rest of the forum on what constitutes "your particular arguments." You seem to think "your arguments" are putatively objective references to eyewitness statements. The rest of the forum rightly think "your arguments" are your interpretation of those statements and the suggestion that they support your belief, often in the face of clear additional evidence to the contrary.
