Author Archives: Garry Rodgers

About Garry Rodgers

After three decades as a Royal Canadian Mounted Police homicide detective and British Columbia coroner, International Best Selling author and blogger Garry Rodgers has an expertise in death and the craft of writing on it. Now retired, he wants to provoke your thoughts about death and help authors give life to their words.

AMERICA’S APOCALYPTIC ARMAGGEDON — THE YELLOWSTONE VOLCANIC CALDERA

Every year, more than 3 million tourists visit Yellowstone National Park which covers 3,472 square miles in Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho. Wildlife abounds, and the sheer, breathtaking natural beauty is beyond compare. But as camera-armed seniors photograph mudpots, fumaroles, and their grandkids rabbit-earing each other with Old Faithful in the backdrop, most are oblivious to standing on top of an active supermassive volcanic caldera—1,204 square miles in size—that’s set to blow with possibly more explosive power than all the atomic weapons in the US nuclear arsenal combined.

This won’t be the first volcanic rodeo for Yellowstone. It’s performed three times in the past. One eruption was the second largest in geological history that made the 1980 Mount St. Helens blast in Washington State seem meeker than a microbe’s fart.

There’s no question Yellowstone will boom once again. It’s just a matter of when. And when it does, it’ll be America’s Apocalyptic Armageddon—probably killing 10 million people in no time flat and slowly suffocating the rest of the country with lung-searing ash.

But before we go all Doomsday on this, let’s visit Yellowstone Park, meet its resident volcano, and decide what to make out of all this fear.

Yellowstone’s region has had human inhabitants for 10,000 years. Indigenous people hunted game, gathered plants, quarried obsidian for tools, and used the thermal vents for religious and medicinal purposes. Today, the National Park Service recognizes 27 tribes as holding traditional titles.

The first Europeans were hardy explorers, trappers, and hunters who brought back to the east fantastic tales of extraordinary sights—kaleidoscope colors of whirling hot pools that hissed while they bubbled, spouting geysers that marked time with the clock, and the ground too hot to step on without thick-soled boots. The Establishment, at the time, cast doubt on these claims and sent official expeditions to Yellowstone to see for themselves.

Sure enough, these claims were true. On March 1, 1872, United States President Ulysses S. Grant signed into law the first American National Park. Yellowstone. The land was preserved in its natural form forever. Since then, 63 more U.S. national parks have been created covering 52.2 million pristine acres.

Yellowstone is the largest hydrothermal ecosystem on Earth. It has over 10,000 unique thermal features, one of which is Old Faithful. Yellowstone also has the largest concentration of wildlife in America including a shaggy old bison herd that’s thrived there since prehistoric times.

At the heart of Yellowstone’s ecology, or should it be said its belly, is a massive magma chamber. Magma is the scientific term for molten rock that’s hot beyond comprehension. It’s the stuff that heats the geysers, whirls the pools, and boils the mud.

Here’s a quote from the U.S. Geological Survey Department:

Yellowstone is underlain by two magma bodies. The shallower one is composed of rhyolite (a high-silica rock type) and stretches from 5 km to about 17 km (3 to 10 mi) beneath the surface and is about 90 km (55 mi) long and about 40 km (25 mi) wide. The chamber is mostly solid, with only about 5-15% melt. The deeper reservoir is composed of basalt (a low-silica rock type) and extends from 20 to 50 km (12 to 30 mi) beneath the surface. Even though the deeper chamber is about 4.5 times larger than the shallow chamber, it contains only about 2% melt.

The method that scientists use to discern this information is similar to medical CT scans that bounce X-rays through the human body to make three-dimensional pictures of internal tissue. In an analogous manner, a method called seismic tomography uses hundreds to thousands of earthquakes recorded by dozens of stations to measure the speed of seismic waves through the Earth–data that allow geophysicists to make three-dimensional pictures of structures beneath the surface. Scientists compare these seismic velocities and infer the composition by comparing them with average, thermally undisturbed values.

And here’s more information from the Yellowstone National Park Service:

Magma (molten rock from below the earth’s crust) is close to the surface in the greater Yellowstone area. This shallow body of magma is caused by heat convection in the mantle. Plumes of magma rise through the mantle, melting rocks in the crust, and creating magma reservoirs of partially molten, partially solid rock.

Mantle plumes transport heat from deep in the mantle to the crust and create what we call “hot spot” volcanism. Hot spots leave a trail of volcanic activity as tectonic plates drift over them. As the North American Plate drifted westward over the last 16.5 million years, the hot spot that now resides under the greater Yellowstone area left a swath of volcanic deposits across Idaho’s Snake River Plain.

Heat from the mantle plume has melted rocks in the crust and created two magma chambers of partially molten, partially solid rock near Yellowstone’s surface. Heat from the shallowest magma chamber caused an area of the crust above it to expand and rise. Stress on the overlying crust resulted in increased earthquake activity along newly formed faults.

Eventually, these faults reached the magma chamber and magma oozed through the cracks. Escaping magma released pressure within the chamber, which also allowed volcanic gasses to escape and expand explosively in a massive volcanic eruption. The eruption spewed copious volcanic ash and gas into the atmosphere and produced fast, super-hot debris flows (pyroclastic flows) over the existing landscape. As the underground magma chamber emptied, the ground above it collapsed and created the first of Yellowstone’s three calderas.

This eruption 2.1 million years ago—among the largest volcanic eruptions known to man—coated 5,790 square miles with ash, as far away as Missouri. The total volcanic material ejected is estimated to have been 6,000 times the volume of material ejected during the 1980 eruption of Mt. St. Helens, in Washington.

A second significant, though smaller, volcanic eruption occurred within the western edge of the first caldera approximately 1.3 million years ago. The third and most recent massive volcanic eruption 631,000 years ago created the present 30- by 45-mile-wide Yellowstone Caldera. Since then, 80 smaller eruptions have occurred. Approximately 174,000 years ago, one of these created what is now the West Thumb of Yellowstone Lake.

During and after these explosive eruptions huge lava flows of viscous rhyolitic lava and less voluminous basalt lava flows partially filled the caldera floor and surrounding terrain. The youngest of these lava flows is the 70,000-year-old Pitchstone rhyolite flow in the southwest corner of Yellowstone National Park.

Since the last of three caldera-forming eruptions, pressure from the shallow magma body has formed two resurgent domes inside the Yellowstone Caldera. Magma may be as little as 3–8 miles beneath Sour Creek Dome and 8–12 miles beneath Mallard Lake Dome, and both domes inflate and subside as the volume of magma or hydrothermal fluids changes beneath them. The entire caldera floor lifts up or subsides, too, but not as much as the two domes.

In the past century, the net inflation has tilted the caldera floor toward the south. As a result, Yellowstone Lake’s southern shores have subsided and trees now stand in water, and the north end of the lake has risen into a sandy beach at Fishing Bridge.

Recent Activity

Remarkable ground deformation has been documented along the central axis of the caldera between Old Faithful and White Lake in Pelican Valley in historic time. Surveys of suspected ground deformation began in 1975 using vertical-motion surveys of benchmarks in the ground. By 1985 the surveys documented unprecedented uplift of the entire caldera in excess of a meter (3 ft).

Later GPS measurements revealed that the caldera went into an episode of subsidence (sinking) until 2005 when the caldera returned to an episode of extreme uplift. The largest vertical movement was recorded at the White Lake GPS station, inside the caldera’s eastern rim, where the total uplift from 2004 to 2010 was about 27 centimeters (10.6 in).

The rate of rise slowed in 2008 and the caldera began to subside again during the first half of 2010. The uplift is believed to be caused by the movement of deep hydrothermal fluids or molten rock into the shallow crustal magma system at a depth of about 10 km beneath the surface. A caldera may undergo episodes of uplift and subsidence for thousands of years without erupting.

Notably, changes in uplift and subsidence have been correlated with increases of earthquake activity. Lateral discharge of these fluids away from the caldera, and the accompanying earthquakes, subsidence, and uplift relieves pressure and could act as a natural pressure release valve balancing magma recharge and keeping Yellowstone safe from volcanic eruptions.

That was informative. But what the National Park Service and the Geological Survey quotes don’t address is how they measure the size of a volcanic blast. It’s called the Volcanic Explosivity Index (VEI). While we’re quoting, here’s another quote:

The volcanic explosivity index (VEI) is a relative measure of the explosiveness of volcanic eruptions. It was devised by Christopher G. Newhall of the United States Geological Survey and Stephen Self in 1982.

Volume of products, eruption cloud height, and qualitative observations (using terms ranging from “gentle” to “mega-colossal”) are used to determine the explosivity value. The scale is open-ended with the largest eruptions in history given a magnitude of 8. A value of 0 is given for non-explosive eruptions, defined as less than 10,000 m3 (350,000 cu ft) of tephra ejected; and 8 representing a mega-colossal explosive eruption that can eject 1.0×1012 m3 (240 cubic miles) of tephra and have a cloud column height of over 20 km (66,000 ft). The scale is logarithmic, with each interval on the scale representing a tenfold increase in observed ejecta criteria, with the exception of between VEI-0, VEI-1 and VEI-2.

Classification

With indices running from 0 to 8, the VEI associated with an eruption is dependent on how much volcanic material is thrown out, to what height, and how long the eruption lasts. The scale is logarithmic from VEI-2 and up; an increase of 1 index indicates an eruption that is 10 times as powerful. As such, there is a discontinuity in the definition of the VEI between indices 1 and 2. The lower border of the volume of ejecta jumps by a factor of one hundred, from 10,000 to 1,000,000 m3 (350,000 to 35,310,000 cu ft), while the factor is ten between all higher indices. In the following table, the frequency of each VEI indicates the approximate frequency of new eruptions of that VEI or higher.

About 40 eruptions of VEI-8 magnitude within the last 132 million years (Mya) have been identified, of which 30 occurred in the past 36 million years. Considering the estimated frequency is on the order of once in 50,000 years,[3] there are likely many such eruptions in the last 132 Mya that are not yet known. Based on incomplete statistics, other authors assume that at least 60 VEI-8 eruptions have been identified The most recent is Lake Taupō’s Oruanui eruption, more than 27,000 years ago, which means that there have not been any Holocene eruptions with a VEI of 8.

There have been at least 10 eruptions of VEI-7 in the last 11,700 years. There are also 58 Plinian eruptions, and 13 caldera-forming eruptions, of large, but unknown magnitudes. By 2010, the Global Volcanism Program of the Smithsonian Institution had cataloged the assignment of a VEI for 7,742 volcanic eruptions that occurred during the Holocene (the last 11,700 years) which account for about 75% of the total known eruptions during the Holocene. Of these 7,742 eruptions, about 49% have a VEI of 2 or lower, and 90% have a VEI of 3 or lower.

Limitations

Under the VEI, ash, lava, lava bombs, and ignimbrite are all treated alike. Density and vesicularity (gas bubbling) of the volcanic products in question is not taken into account. In contrast, the DRE (dense-rock equivalent) is sometimes calculated to give the actual amount of magma erupted. Another weakness of the VEI is that it does not take into account the power output of an eruption, which makes the VEI extremely difficult to determine with prehistoric or unobserved eruptions.

Although VEI is quite suitable for classifying the explosive magnitude of eruptions, the index is not as significant as sulfur dioxide emissions in quantifying their atmospheric and climatic impact.

Now let’s look at supermassive volcanos from around the world and their VEI ratings.

  • Hunga Ha’apai — Tonga, 2022 VEI 5.7
  • Huaynaputina — Peru, 1600 VEI 6
  • Krakatoa — Indonesia, 1883 VEI 6
  • Santa Maria — Guatemala, 1902 VEI 6
  • Novarupta — Alaska, 1912 VEI 6
  • Pinatuba — Philippines, 1991 VEI 6
  • Ambrym Island, Vanuatu, AD50 VEI 6+
  • Ilopango — El Salvador, AD431 VEI 6+
  • Mount Thera — Greece, BC1610 VEI 7
  • Changbaishan — China AD1000 VEI 7
  • Mount Tambora — Indonesia 1815 VEI 7
  • Yellowstone — USA BC2.1Ma VEI 8

So, the potential of a Level 8 eruption if Yellowstone loses its stuff? What would that look like from a realistic point? The release of energy and matter from a magna pile big enough to fill 11 Grand Canyons, according to the U.S. Geological Survey?

Well, the best source to describe that is the USGS itself. And they did so in an extensive report along with a detailed hazard response plan. Extrapolating from these and other credible sources, the most likely outfall from a VEI 8 explosion is this:

The blast would emit over 4,800 cubic miles (20,000 cubic kilometers) of ash and glass shards. A radius of 700 miles would be covered with three feet of debris. That would include Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Utah, and parts of southwest Canada. Cities like Denver, Spokane, Salt Lake City, Boise, Billings, Cheyenne, and Rapid City would be obliterated. Approximately 10 million people would be dead, with millions more perishing in the wake.

The 100,000-foot-high ash cloud would move primarily eastward with the prevailing winds, eventually reaching the Beltway and as far south as Miami. Commercial air traffic over North America would stop and, shortly, so would most airspace in the world. Road and rail transport in the continental United States would grind to a halt, and the supply chain would be crippled beyond belief. Food and fuel sources would be scarce, and the next round of crops wouldn’t have a chance as meaningful photosynthesis would be blocked by the ash which could take years—perhaps a decade or more—to filter out.

Medical aid would be nearly impossible for the millions and millions exposed to volcanic ash which forms a cement-like coat on the inside of the lungs. The global climate could cool by 12 degrees leaving almost all Americans in an apocalyptic freeze. It’s a scenario almost too horrid to envision.

Yellowstone is certain to erupt again. It’s just a matter of time. When? Folks at the USGS don’t think it’s anywhere in the foreseeable future. It was 800,000 years between the first and second explosions, then another 636,000 years to the third. And it’s been 664,000 years since Yellowstone’s last big sneeze and today, doing the math, that’s an average eruption every 718,000 years. So, we have another 54,000 years yet to go till we’re on target.

Still, 54 millennia don’t keep some from getting excited and their stories from going viral. In early 2014, one of Yellowstone’s seismic monitors called B944 went haywire and began broadcasting erroneous, actually crazy, data on a public viewer. It got picked up by a website called End Times Forecaster that calculated through Biblical algorithms and the Friday Crescent Moon Death Day Cycle that Armageddon would strike on March 28, 2014. Using the Batman Map Strike Zone (don’t ask) they pinpointed the epicenter of destruction right smack dab in the middle of Yellowstone Lake.

Now this may sound like a load of tinfoil crapped on a parent’s-basement-dweller’s head by a diarrhetic seagull, but don’t laugh. On March 30, 2014, a 4.8 magnitude earthquake—its epicenter at Yellowstone Lake—shook the entire park. It was the largest Yellowstone quake in the previous 34 years.

So, setting aside feeds from the Bunker Report and, instead, relying on solid USGS scientific data, I’d say it’s perfectly safe to take the grandkids on a Yellowstone vacation next summer. You won’t have to sacrifice them to appease the angry volcano. Just make sure they don’t pet the fluffy cows.

THE JFK ASSASSINATION—SIXTY YEARS LATER

Sixty years ago, on November 22nd, 1963, United States President John Fitzgerald Kennedy was shot dead while riding in his open limousine through Dallas, Texas. Within hours, Lee Harvey Oswald was captured and charged with President Kennedy’s murder. Oswald was never tried as he, too, was murdered—in the basement of the Dallas City Police building of all places. Officially, Oswald was the lone gunman. However, to this day, many people don’t believe that and are convinced there was a conspiracy to assassinate JFK.

Over my fifty years of being a serious student of the JFK Assassination, I‘ve dissected the investigation with a lot of folks. Some were sensible. Some were delusional. But the number-one person (in my opinion) who has the most in-depth knowledge of the Kennedy Assassination case facts is Scott Maudsley. Scott is here today for a discussion on the JFK file, so sit back and follow our thread. You might find it revealing.

Garry — Nice having you captive in the Dyingwords shack, Scott. We’ve been online and onphone friends for a long time, and it’s fitting you’re here for a JFK Assassination talk seeing as the 60th anniversary is upon us. To start, tell us about yourself and why does Jack Kennedy’s murder still captivate people’s interest?

Scott — Thanks for having me Garry. You flatter me. I’d say you are more knowledgeable about this case then I.

I’m 39 years old and a Toronto native. I have an honors BA in international development studies and currently work in security. I have a lifelong interest in history and politics and have been studying the JFK assassination since I was a child.

My chest is adorned with two large tattoos. One depicts the Titanic at the moment of collision with the iceberg, and the other depicts President Kennedy’s motorcade at the moment of the first shot. These are the events I’ve have spent my entire life studying.

Someone once said trauma is the closest thing we as humans have to time travel. Because when we think of traumatic events in our life, part of us is still trapped in that moment and always will be. We can often recall these moments in vivid detail.

I think moments in history, like the sinking of the Titanic or the assassination of JFK, endure in our collective minds because they’re an example of shared trauma that everyone experienced in the same way at the same moment.

Everyone who was alive to experience these events can recall exactly where they were and what they were doing when they first heard the news. Because it was so traumatic.

Garry — Intriguing perspective, Scott. I was seven years old when JFK was killed, and I remember the moment like yesterday. You weren’t born then, and it affects you today. But both of us weren’t a gleam in our grandparents’ eyes when the Titanic sank. How do these impersonal moments become imbedded in our inquisitive psyche?

Scott — It’s the cultural echoes of those events that stay with us. The idea of the unthinkable happening. These events can serve as a warning from history to not get too comfortable because life can change in sudden and unexpected ways.

So profound were the cultural echoes of both the Titanic and JFK assassination that they are still with us today, generations later. The discussion of the JFK case endures because of the supposed elements of mystery. People like a good whodunit.

Garry — Memento Mori.

Scott — Lol! Yes, exactly. I once read a book entitled The Dark Side of Camelot. In it, the author interviewed a woman who had a relationship with Kennedy. She said the lesson of the story of his life is that a person can live a privileged life and still meet an unexpected end.

John Jacob Astor was one of the richest men in the world. But none of that mattered when the ship he was on hit an iceberg in the middle of the night.

(Memento Mori – Tulip: Life, Skull: Death, Hourglass: Time)

Garry — Goes to show you… kings or billionaires… they’re all mortal and can leave this life at any time. Okay, let’s get into the case facts. If you had to present your evidence to prove your belief that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in murdering John Fitzgerald Kennedy, what would your irrefutable points be?

Scott — I would simply point to Oswald being at the scene of the crime, lack of alibi for the time of the shooting, an eyewitness seeing him shoot, and the weapon used in the shooting belonging to him.

Garry — For you and me who have seriously researched this case, it’s no mystery. The evidence that Oswald acted alone is overwhelming when you weigh the credible information. That and the fact there’s absolutely no credible evidence to indicate anyone else was involved. As they say, non events leave no evidence. But to so many people, the JFK case is still a whodunit. Why is that?

Scott — I think people see what they want to see and believe what they want to believe. If this case is still unsolved, in their minds, then there’s something more to be investigated and understood. There are still guilty people to be punished.

But, the truth is this case was solved within the first 48 hours of it occurring, as most murders are.

That does not satisfy some people. The killer was quickly caught and killed himself so in this way justice was denied and people never really got to have closure insofar as the concept of closure is a real thing that actually exists.

Garry — Yes, closure. For some, this case will never be closed because, deep down, they don’t want it to be closed. I think it’s very hard for some to accept that the All-American Boogeyman—the lowly, lone nut from a tall building with a cheap rifle—a crazy who took his gun to work and shot his boss—killed the highest person in the land. A king cannot be struck down by a peasant.

And as for the simplicity of the case, here’s a quote from Chief Justice Earl Warren, head of the Warren Commission investigating the Kennedy Assassination, “I have no hesitation in saying that had it not been for the prominence of the victim, the case against Oswald could have been tried in two or three days with little likelihood of any but one result.” Moving on, let’s talk about the forensic evidence—the body and the ballistics. How strong do you believe the scientific evidence is?

Scott — The thing about the JFK case is that everything is in dispute, and nothing is universally accepted by all sides. I believe the scientific and ballistic evidence is very strong. The fact that the projectiles recovered match the firearm recovered is very strong confirming evidence.

Garry — Playing the Devil’s Advocate, Scott, can you make a case that supports the conspiracy theory crowd? How is this thinking justified?

Scott — I’ve found that conspiracy theorists, or CTs for short, often are simply not familiar with the facts of the case, or they get these facts through secondary sources that distort what the primary source actually says. It’s from these flawed or incorrect interpretations that conspiracy theories arise.

One issue would be the failed attempt to probe the back wound during the autopsy. CTs point to that as being proof that the back wound was shallow and that the projectile did not fully transit JFK’s body, which is incorrect.

Garry — Let’s talk about the autopsy. In murder cases, the body is considered the best evidence. Setting aside David Lifton’s book Best Evidence where he proposed the ridiculous theory that Kennedy’s body was surgically altered prior to the Bethesda postmortem to reverse the proof of the shot directions (support a Grassy Knoll shooter), there are some issues with the autopsy that led to later interpretation problems.

Regarding the back wound, probing was difficult due to the narrow 6.5 mm passageway that closed up—caused by rigor mortis and stiffening of the strap muscles. Also, they failed to identify the throat exit wound which had mostly been obliterated by the tracheotomy incision made during life saving efforts. Plus, the pathologists used two movable reference points as markers to locate the back’s entrance wound. Other than that, do you think the autopsy was accurate or was it in “bungled” as some say?

Scott — It was for sure accurate, but the science of forensic pathology has undergone a lot of evolution in the last 60 years so it’s not as accurate as modern people expect it to be. The so-called CSI effect.

None of the doctors who performed the autopsy were unqualified or incompetent in any way.

It’s interesting to note that while later investigations into the medical evidence might have been critical of the conduct of the autopsy, none of them disagreed with the fundamental conclusions. That the President was killed as a result of 2 projectiles both fired from above and behind.

Garry — I’ll go a step further, having a lot of experience in firearms. So many CTs don’t accept that all shots were fired from the rear. Especially the head shot so famously distorted from Oliver Stone’s movie JFK where Kevin Costner’s character repeatedly drills home “proof” of the fatal shot being fired from the front. “Back and to the left. Back and to the left. Back and to the left.”

The infamous Frame 313 in the Zapruder film is a classic example of Newtonian physics in play — “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.” It’s 100 % proof the fatal head shot was fired from Kennedy’s rear.

One time at an Emergency Response Team practice (I was the team’s trained marksman, sharpshooter, sniper, or whatever label you want to stick on my gunslinging back.), the guys got into a debate over the Kennedy fatal bullet direction. I went and got some melons and placed them 265 feet downrange which is the distance from Lee Harvey Oswald’s muzzle to JFK’s head when it exploded. I then shot the melons with a 5.56 and a 7.62. On every occasion when the melon exploded, the debris blew backward toward the bullet’s discharge point. Not forward.

Another thing regarding the brain matter blowing back and to the left which is so blatant in Zapruder 313 and 314. The limousine was moving forward at 11 mph into a 25-mph headwind. That’s a combined air movement force of a 36-mph frontal wind. It’s no wonder the mess went rearward and into that poor motorcycle cop’s face who was back and to the left.

Scott — Yes. There are many factors that led to the backwards motion of the head after the final shot. But it’s not because the shot originated from the front as most people suspect when viewing the Zapruder film.

Garry — I’ll bring up another elephant in the CT room. The police Dictabelt recording that allegedly proves four shots were fired, not three. What’s this all about? Go into detail here as this is what the 1978 House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) review shamefully hung their hat on when they wrongfully concluded that JFK “was probably assassinated as the result of a conspiracy”.

Scott — So what happened, there was a police motorcycle parked at the Dallas Trade Mart (Kennedy’s destination) with a stuck microphone which was constantly recording. The motorcycle backfired, and this was interpreted as a gunshot. Something important to note is the quality of the audio in this recording is not great. The original audio was recorded using a simple blunt stylist and a rotating wax drum.

The HSCA report totally supported the conclusions of the original investigations, but at the 11th hour this audio evidence and an incorrect interpretation of it (the backfire recorded on a separate channel) was inserted into the final version of the report saying that the audio evidence indicated a possible 4th shot and thus a probable conspiracy.

However, the HSCA report also concluded that this possible 4th shot failed to hit anything or anyone. So right away this caused a stir, and the issue was taken up by the National Academy of Sciences in the United States.

Their investigation concluded that what had been interpreted as a gunshot on the audio recording had actually been recorded after the shooting and therefore could not have actually been gunfire.

In 2013, Professor Larry J. Sabato, Ph.D. commissioned a study on the Dictabelt recording using more modern analytical techniques. The report concluded that the recording did not contain sounds of the assassination gunfire and that it would be of “doubtful utility” as evidence to prove or disprove a conspiracy.

The presence of background noise of an idling engine and doppler shifting of the sound of sirens passing the microphone made during the recording prove the motorcycle with the stuck microphone was actually stationary at the Trade Mart (when the recording was made).

So, the audio evidence is nothing more then a red herring. One that got a lot of people excited but unfortunately proved of no evidentiary value.

Garry — Okay, so it’s conclusive that three shots were fired, not four. All from the 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano rifle that, conclusively, Oswald owned and used that day from the 6th floor window of the Dallas School Book Depository building. Go through each of them and describe what happened to the bullets.

Scott — The first shot was a little early. Oswald might have seen the branch of a tree creeping into his sight profile and fired early. This shot missed and we are not entirely sure what happened to it exactly.

One eyewitness later reported seeing a spark on the road behind the President’s limo as it passed. He thought that someone had thrown a firecracker at the parade, but I believe that what he saw was the projectile hitting the pavement and either disintegrating on impact or ricocheting somewhere and was never to be recovered.

The second shot was the much-vaunted magic bullet, or Commission Exhibit (CE) 399, so called because of its relatively undamaged appearance. This projectile hit JFK in the upper back and passed through his neck without making any bony contact.

Once out in the open air, the projectile began to tumble and when it went into Governor Connally it was flying sideways.

Once it passed through the governor’s chest breaking ribs and collapsing a lung, it exited out, still tumbling, and passed though his wrist breaking the radius bone and ended up in his thigh, just having enough energy to break the skin and embed in a shallow wound from which it later fell out and was recovered from a stretcher in Parkland hospital.

The 3rd shot hit JFK in the back of his head and exited out the top of the head above the right eye. This projectile hit a chrome strip above the windshield and possibly the windshield itself before breaking into a nose and tail section which were recovered from the floor of the front passenger seat of the vehicle.

Garry — I think one of, if not THE, most misunderstood issues in the JFK Assassination is the “Magic” bullet (CE399). Most folks can’t accept that this bullet passed through the mass of two men and came out in a fired but “pristine” condition. There’s no question it was fired from Oswald’s rifle which was found stashed on the 6th floor, but the CT stance is that bullet had to be planted at the Dallas hospital. I’ve spent a lot of time researching this issue, and a few years ago I published a detailed explanation for how CE399 behaved to end up in this semi-intact and somewhat flattened state. For any readers who are interested in the mechanics, here’s a photo of my notes and the link to my post:

https://dyingwords.net/the-magic-bullet-in-the-jfk-assassination/

As for the missing bullet—the first shot—I also did a piece proposing that it hit the metal arm of a traffic light and was deflected. Here’s the notes and web link to that post.

https://dyingwords.net/missing-bullet-jfk-assassination/

Now having done some shameless self-promotion, let’s talk about the timing involved in the shot sequences. Another misconception is that all three shots were fired within six seconds, and there is no possible way anyone could accurately operate a bolt-action rifle like the Carcano in that amount of time. You have an identical rifle. What’s your take on the shot timing? Is this possible?

Scott — The original report gave some time frames for the total amount of time available for Oswald to have fired the shots based on which of the 3 shots was the one that missed. If, as we believe, it was the first shot that missed, then the time frame for the shooting extends to 8 to 12 seconds.

But even the low-end estimate of 6.5 seconds is still totally possible. I have let people shoot my rifle which is an exact copy of Oswald’s and with no experience with it, they have been able to get off 3 shots in about six seconds.

Garry — So this “can’t be done in six seconds” theory from CT books like Six Seconds in Dallas is rubbish?

Scott — Right. It’s nonsense.

Accuracy and experience with the rifle matter. But it is physically possible to fire 3 shots in that time frame.  There are videos on YouTube of people doing it and I have personally seen people do it on my rifle.

Garry — At one point in my JFK deep dive, I extrapolated information from reference points documented in a legal survey done of Dealy Plaza for the Warren Commission and correlated them to frames in the Zapruder film. Here’s a photo of the notes along with what I worked out:

The first shot was fired at (Time) T-0:00, and it was 1:62 seconds before the Zapruder film started. The second shot hit JFK in the back at Zapruder Film Frame 223. Its impact was at T-6:54 or 6.54 seconds after the first shot was fired. The head shot struck at Zapruder Frame 312 and explodes at 313. It was at  T-11.42 or 11.42 seconds after the initial shot’s discharge. That’s a lot of time to fire what works out to be two shots, not including the first one.

Respectively, the distances from Oswald’s barrel to the back shot at Z-223 was 189 feet, and from the barrel to the head shot at Z-312 was 265 feet. For someone shooting a rifle from a rest station, as Oswald had built in the “Sniper’s Nest”,’ that’s not very far or difficult at all. Also, the limousine was moving directly away from Oswald’s sight picture at shots 2 & 3, whereas during the first shot (the one I believe hit the traffic light arm) the limo was moving across Oswald’s sight picture from his left to his right.

I calculated that distance to be between 75 and 80 feet. It was a tough shot where Oswald was looking sharply down and moving sideways, aiming at a close-in, mobile target. Even if the bullet wasn’t deflected, it might have simply missed and struck the pavement. But, I doubt that, as the limo with JFK in it was a huge platform and Oswald would have to have been way, way off his shot picture to miss this target—which he sure wasn’t in the following shots.

The second shot had a bit of vision issue from the tree branches, but the third was wide open making Kennedy a sitting duck.

Moving on from the ballistics and other forensics, let’s talk about Oswald’s escape from the Book Depository and his capture at the Texas Theatre. Walk the audience through what happened.

Scott — Oswald left the Sniper’s Nest on the 6th floor and descended the stairs to the 2nd floor. There he encountered the building manager and a police officer. The manager identified Oswald as an employee, the police officer dismissed him, and Oswald left the building through the front door, possibly giving directions to a pay phone to an AP reporter.

From there, he walked up the street to a bus that was stopped in traffic. He pounded on the door to get in, however, the bus was caught in traffic with the roads closed for the parade and was not moving. So, Oswald took a transfer and left. In an ironic turn of events, an old landlady of his was on the same bus and recognized him.

After leaving the bus, he walked a couple of blocks and got into a cab back to his rooming house. There he got his revolver and began walking. We don’t know where he was going or if he even had an intended destination.

He encountered Officer JD Tippit at a four-way intersection in a residential area, had a brief interaction with him, and then shot and killed the officer. Multiple eyewitnesses saw him either shoot the officer or being in the immediate aftermath with the gun still in his hands.

He gets away from the scene of the shooting but is spotted by an attentive shoe store worker who sees him duck into the store’s vestibule when some police cars go by. This worker follows him down the street where he sees Oswald duck into a movie theater without paying and he tells the movie theater attendant to call the police.

The police arrive and with the help of the shoe store worker identify and approach Oswald. He says, “This is it” and punches the officer closest to him. He also goes into his pocket and pulls out the revolver, but the arresting officer was quick and got his hand on it before Oswald had a chance to shoot.

Garry — If we think the evidence proving Oswald murdered President Kennedy is strong, the facts in the Officer JD Tippit case are airtight. Like eyewitnesses seeing him shoot Tippit, and then being caught with the murder weapon in his hand minutes later? Even if Oswald survived and beat the JFK murder charge, he certainly would have been convicted and sentenced to death for Tippit’s slaying.

Which brings me to Oswald not surviving. Jack Ruby? Like you couldn’t make someone like Ruby up. How in the hell did Ruby align with Oswald? Was this an incredible coincidence? What happened surrounding Jack Ruby being able to shoot and kill Lee Harvey Oswald?

Scott — Jack Ruby was a local Dallas nightclub owner along with his sister who came from a family with a history of mental illness and institutionalization. His nickname was “Sparky” because of his short temper and willingness to get violent at the drop of a hat.

Ruby was on friendly terms with the local police who often frequented his clubs, and this friendliness offered him greater access to public figures. He spent the weekend hanging around police headquarters and even got close to Oswald on several occasions.

On Sunday, November 24th, Oswald was supposed to be transferred early in the morning but continued questioning by detectives and his own desire to change clothes delayed this until later in the morning.

One of Ruby’s employees called him, waking him up to ask for money. Oswald was already supposed to have been transferred to a more secure jail by then.

Jack Ruby got up, took his dogs, and went downtown to a Western Union office. There he waited in line and sent the employee some money before leaving and driving about a block to police headquarters where he saw a crowd gathered.

When a police officer stepped into the road to stop traffic to allow a vehicle to exit, Ruby slipped down the ramp undetected and shot Oswald when he walked out a few moments later.

Garry — So the contact between Ruby and Oswald was absolute fluke timing? Fate?

Scott — Yes. Something that could only happen in real life.

Garry — A lot has been made of Ruby being an underworld agent hired to take Oswald out, to silence him. And a lot has been made of Oswald being some sort of secret operative for a foreign government, given his travels to Russia and Mexico as well as his promotion of Cuba. What’s your understanding of this? Can you put Oswald’s past into some sort of sensible clarity?

Scott — Well, neither one of those things is true. Ruby might have rubbed shoulders with some underworld figures during his time in Chicago or simply by virtue of his owning a business that is active at night.

Garry — Ruby wasn’t a mob hitman.

Scott — No he wasn’t.

Oswald saw himself as a political person and sought to be politically active at least in his own way, so he would not hesitate to initiate contact with various government entities, but that was him acting on his own, he was never working for anyone and there is no proof of that claim whatsoever.

He saw himself as a political revolutionary of sorts.  At a time when those ideas were gaining popularity in various parts of the world.

Garry — I think just an overview of Oswald is that he was a total loser. He had nothing that anyone would want—no secret, clandestine, or sinister entity needing him as fodder or setting him up as “a patsy” as he was quoted saying when he was paraded before the TV cameras at Dallas PD HQ. Never mind being so psychologically unstable. Like, who would recruit this guy?

Scott — Exactly. He was not a good candidate for intelligence work. Too emotional and unstable. He was completely unreliable and self-centered.

Garry — We’re wrapping up here, Scott. One thing I want to cover is the original United States Government investigation documented in the Report of the (President Johnson’s) Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy chaired by Chief Justice Earl Warren, commonly known as the Warren Report. How accurate do you think it is? Has it stood the test of time?

Scott — Yes. 100%. Nothing in real life is ever perfect and although later investigations may have criticisms to make, all of them fundamentally get behind the conclusions of the Warren Report.

This case was solved long ago.

Really, it was solved within a couple of hours by the Dallas police.

Garry — Lone nut. Tall building. Cheap rifle. Opportunity chance of a lifetime. How was it that Kennedy and Oswald met in Dealy Plaza? Like the strands of fate?

Scott — To bring it full circle and invoke the memory of the Titanic again, someone once commented about the mix of ice and steel.

About all of the little factors that had to align in a certain way in order for those two things to be in the exact same place at the exact same time.

I think the JFK assassination is something similar, the mix of factors that had to align a certain way in order to produce an event like this.

Oswald was a malcontent. He was alienated from those around him and society to a more general extent.

He failed to get people to recognize his value as he saw it.

He failed to get others to see him as he saw himself.

His wife’s friend got him the interview for the job.

The job was hiring for multiple locations, he could have been hired for a location that was not on the parade route.

The parade route was selected because of the location of the luncheon. Which itself could have been held at a different location and thus would have had a different parade route.

It was raining that morning, it could have kept raining.

The mix of ice and steel.

Garry — Ice and steel. Great metaphor, Scott. There’s been countless books, articles, documentaries, blogs, pods, and whatever done about the Kennedy Assassination. Most are poorly reported and badly researched pieces of crap that promote any number of false conspiracy theories, some with incredibly stupid conclusions. I’ve read a lot of stuff, and I have five recommendations for anyone who really wants to know the facts—the truth—in the JFK murder case:

  1. The Warren Report
  2. Reclaiming History by Vincent Bugliosi
  3. The JFK Myths by Larry Sturdivan
  4. Case Closed by Gerald Posner
  5. The Death of a President by William Manchester

One important point in our JFK Assassination discussion is motive. Now, I have no idea what Oswald’s motivation was, and motivation is not an element needed to prove for a murder conviction. But, it’s important to cover or speculate upon for the average reader who would be left wondering “Why”.

Me? I think Oswald’s motive was something like Alfred said to Batman about The Joker in The Dark Knight, “Some men just want to watch the world burn.” What do you believe Oswald’s motive was for killing John F. Kennedy?

Scott — It’s always going to be difficult to assess a person’s individual motives for why they do anything.  Oftentimes, they themselves don’t even really know.

Lee Oswald, in my opinion, was a violent person. He was violent as a child, in the Marine Corps, and in his marriage.

He attempted to make a place in history by doing something revolutionary and moving to the Soviet Union, but when he became disappointed in that he attempted to get into Cuba. When he failed at that, he attempted to assassinate a local right-wing political figure, and when he failed at that he plotted to assassinate Kennedy when he found out he’d have the ability to.

The night before he went to the house that his wife and children were staying in where his rifle was stored. He proposed the idea of getting a place in the city with his wife and children, but she resisted these advances much to her later regret. Unable to reconcile with his wife he took his rifle to work and performed that revolutionary act that got him the attention and recognition he always wanted.

So, it was a mix of personal, social, and psychological factors.

As all actions are.

Garry — Lastly, if we can tie this bundle up, what’s the legacy of the Kennedy Assassination? Why is this still important after sixty years?

Scott — You know, as I prepare for my 4th and final trip to Dallas next week, I’ve found myself asking the exact same question. I definitely think there’s a generational aspect to it. At 39, I’m often the youngest person at events in Dallas.

It’s a shared memory and a shared trauma. When the Oliver Stone movie came out, it was a revival moment and led to a resurgence of interest in the case. That’s how I personally came to have my interest, but even that was decades ago now.

The conspiracy theorist side of it is at least partly responsible for keeping the story alive. So, we could never have had the interest we do were it not for the conspiracy theorists who keep people interested as the years go by.

Had there never been a controversy about the case, it would have faded from memory long ago.

They go hand in hand. One could not exist without the other.

Garry — Great chatting with you, Scott. Safe trip my friend.

THE MAGIC OF SUPERLINEAR RETURNS

This is not a regular, bi-weekly Dyingwords post. It’s a special edition, and it’s an essay written by Paul Graham in October 2023 who shared it Farnam Street which is a critical thinking site I’ve followed for a long time. The topic is about superlinear returns, a concept of compounding growth. I feel it’s so important for long-term personal development to understand what superlinear returns are and how you can work this “magic” to your full advantage. Here’s Mr. Graham explaining superlinear returns.

One of the most important things I didn’t understand about the world when I was a child is the degree to which the returns for performance are superlinear.

Teachers and coaches implicitly told us the returns were linear. “You get out,” I heard a thousand times, “what you put in.” They meant well, but this is rarely true. If your product is only half as good as your competitor’s, you don’t get half as many customers. You get no customers, and you go out of business.

It’s obviously true that the returns for performance are superlinear in business. Some think this is a flaw of capitalism, and that if we changed the rules it would stop being true. But superlinear returns for performance are a feature of the world, not an artifact of rules we’ve invented. We see the same pattern in fame, power, military victories, knowledge, and even benefit to humanity. In all of these, the rich get richer. [Note 1]

You can’t understand the world without understanding the concept of superlinear returns. And if you’re ambitious you definitely should, because this will be the wave you surf on.

It may seem as if there are a lot of different situations with superlinear returns, but as far as I can tell they reduce to two fundamental causes: exponential growth and thresholds.

The most obvious case of superlinear returns is when you’re working on something that grows exponentially. For example, growing bacterial cultures. When they grow at all, they grow exponentially. But they’re tricky to grow. Which means the difference in outcome between someone who’s adept at it and someone who’s not is very great. Startups can also grow exponentially, and we see the same pattern there. Some manage to achieve high growth rates. Most don’t. And as a result you get qualitatively different outcomes: the companies with high growth rates tend to become immensely valuable, while the ones with lower growth rates may not even survive.

Y Combinator encourages founders to focus on growth rate rather than absolute numbers. It prevents them from being discouraged early on, when the absolute numbers are still low. It also helps them decide what to focus on: you can use growth rate as a compass to tell you how to evolve the company. But the main advantage is that by focusing on growth rate you tend to get something that grows exponentially.

YC doesn’t explicitly tell founders that with growth rate “you get out what you put in,” but it’s not far from the truth. And if growth rate were proportional to performance, then the reward for performance p over time t would be proportional to pt.

Even after decades of thinking about this, I find that sentence startling.

Whenever how well you do depends on how well you’ve done, you’ll get exponential growth. But neither our DNA nor our customs prepare us for it. No one finds exponential growth natural; every child is surprised, the first time they hear it, by the story of the man who asks the king for a single grain of rice the first day and double the amount each successive day.

What we don’t understand naturally we develop customs to deal with, but we don’t have many customs about exponential growth either, because there have been so few instances of it in human history. In principle herding should have been one: the more animals you had, the more offspring they’d have. But in practice grazing land was the limiting factor, and there was no plan for growing that exponentially.

Or more precisely, no generally applicable plan. There was a way to grow one’s territory exponentially: by conquest. The more territory you control, the more powerful your army becomes, and the easier it is to conquer new territory. This is why history is full of empires. But so few people created or ran empires that their experiences didn’t affect customs very much. The emperor was a remote and terrifying figure, not a source of lessons one could use in one’s own life.

The most common case of exponential growth in preindustrial times was probably scholarship. The more you know, the easier it is to learn new things. The result, then as now, was that some people were startlingly more knowledgeable than the rest about certain topics. But this didn’t affect customs much either. Although empires of ideas can overlap and there can thus be far more emperors, in preindustrial times this type of empire had little practical effect. [Note 2]

That has changed in the last few centuries. Now the emperors of ideas can design bombs that defeat the emperors of territory. But this phenomenon is still so new that we haven’t fully assimilated it. Few even of the participants realize they’re benefitting from exponential growth or ask what they can learn from other instances of it.

The other source of superlinear returns is embodied in the expression “winner take all.” In a sports match the relationship between performance and return is a step function: the winning team gets one win whether they do much better or just slightly better. [Note 3]

The source of the step function is not competition per se, however. It’s that there are thresholds in the outcome. You don’t need competition to get those. There can be thresholds in situations where you’re the only participant, like proving a theorem or hitting a target

It’s remarkable how often a situation with one source of superlinear returns also has the other. Crossing thresholds leads to exponential growth: the winning side in a battle usually suffers less damage, which makes them more likely to win in the future. And exponential growth helps you cross thresholds: in a market with network effects, a company that grows fast enough can shut out potential competitors.

Fame is an interesting example of a phenomenon that combines both sources of superlinear returns. Fame grows exponentially because existing fans bring you new ones. But the fundamental reason it’s so concentrated is thresholds: there’s only so much room on the A-list in the average person’s head.

The most important case combining both sources of superlinear returns may be learning. Knowledge grows exponentially, but there are also thresholds in it. Learning to ride a bicycle, for example. Some of these thresholds are akin to machine tools: once you learn to read, you’re able to learn anything else much faster. But the most important thresholds of all are those representing new discoveries. Knowledge seems to be fractal in the sense that if you push hard at the boundary of one area of knowledge, you sometimes discover a whole new field. And if you do, you get first crack at all the new discoveries to be made in it. Newton did this, and so did Durer and Darwin.

Are there general rules for finding situations with superlinear returns? The most obvious one is to seek work that compounds.

There are two ways work can compound. It can compound directly, in the sense that doing well in one cycle causes you to do better in the next. That happens for example when you’re building infrastructure, or growing an audience or brand. Or work can compound by teaching you, since learning compounds. This second case is an interesting one because you may feel you’re doing badly as it’s happening. You may be failing to achieve your immediate goal. But if you’re learning a lot, then you’re getting exponential growth nonetheless.

This is one reason Silicon Valley is so tolerant of failure. People in Silicon Valley aren’t blindly tolerant of failure. They’ll only continue to bet on you if you’re learning from your failures. But if you are, you are in fact a good bet: maybe your company didn’t grow the way you wanted, but you yourself have, and that should yield results eventually.

Indeed, the forms of exponential growth that don’t consist of learning are so often intermixed with it that we should probably treat this as the rule rather than the exception. Which yields another heuristic: always be learning. If you’re not learning, you’re probably not on a path that leads to superlinear returns.

But don’t overoptimize what you’re learning. Don’t limit yourself to learning things that are already known to be valuable. You’re learning; you don’t know for sure yet what’s going to be valuable, and if you’re too strict you’ll lop off the outliers.

What about step functions? Are there also useful heuristics of the form “seek thresholds” or “seek competition?” Here the situation is trickier. The existence of a threshold doesn’t guarantee the game will be worth playing. If you play a round of Russian roulette, you’ll be in a situation with a threshold, certainly, but in the best case you’re no better off. “Seek competition” is similarly useless; what if the prize isn’t worth competing for? Sufficiently fast exponential growth guarantees both the shape and magnitude of the return curve — because something that grows fast enough will grow big even if it’s trivially small at first — but thresholds only guarantee the shape. [Note 4]

A principle for taking advantage of thresholds has to include a test to ensure the game is worth playing. Here’s one that does: if you come across something that’s mediocre yet still popular, it could be a good idea to replace it. For example, if a company makes a product that people dislike yet still buy, then presumably they’d buy a better alternative if you made one. [Note 5]

It would be great if there were a way to find promising intellectual thresholds. Is there a way to tell which questions have whole new fields beyond them? I doubt we could ever predict this with certainty, but the prize is so valuable that it would be useful to have predictors that were even a little better than random, and there’s hope of finding those. We can to some degree predict when a research problem isn’t likely to lead to new discoveries: when it seems legit but boring. Whereas the kind that do lead to new discoveries tend to seem very mystifying, but perhaps unimportant. (If they were mystifying and obviously important, they’d be famous open questions with lots of people already working on them.) So one heuristic here is to be driven by curiosity rather than careerism — to give free rein to your curiosity instead of working on what you’re supposed to.

The prospect of superlinear returns for performance is an exciting one for the ambitious. And there’s good news in this department: this territory is expanding in both directions. There are more types of work in which you can get superlinear returns, and the returns themselves are growing.

There are two reasons for this, though they’re so closely intertwined that they’re more like one and a half: progress in technology, and the decreasing importance of organizations.

Fifty years ago it used to be much more necessary to be part of an organization to work on ambitious projects. It was the only way to get the resources you needed, the only way to have colleagues, and the only way to get distribution. So in 1970 your prestige was in most cases the prestige of the organization you belonged to. And prestige was an accurate predictor, because if you weren’t part of an organization, you weren’t likely to achieve much. There were a handful of exceptions, most notably artists and writers, who worked alone using inexpensive tools and had their own brands. But even they were at the mercy of organizations for reaching audiences. [Note 6]

A world dominated by organizations damped variation in the returns for performance. But this world has eroded significantly just in my lifetime. Now a lot more people can have the freedom that artists and writers had in the 20th century. There are lots of ambitious projects that don’t require much initial funding, and lots of new ways to learn, make money, find colleagues, and reach audiences.

There’s still plenty of the old world left, but the rate of change has been dramatic by historical standards. Especially considering what’s at stake. It’s hard to imagine a more fundamental change than one in the returns for performance.

Without the damping effect of institutions, there will be more variation in outcomes. Which doesn’t imply everyone will be better off: people who do well will do even better, but those who do badly will do worse. That’s an important point to bear in mind. Exposing oneself to superlinear returns is not for everyone. Most people will be better off as part of the pool. So who should shoot for superlinear returns? Ambitious people of two types: those who know they’re so good that they’ll be net ahead in a world with higher variation, and those, particularly the young, who can afford to risk trying it to find out. [Note 7]

The switch away from institutions won’t simply be an exodus of their current inhabitants. Many of the new winners will be people they’d never have let in. So the resulting democratization of opportunity will be both greater and more authentic than any tame intramural version the institutions themselves might have cooked up. Not everyone is happy about this great unlocking of ambition. It threatens some vested interests and contradicts some ideologies. [Note 8]

But if you’re an ambitious individual it’s good news for you. How should you take advantage of it?

The most obvious way to take advantage of superlinear returns for performance is by doing exceptionally good work. At the far end of the curve, incremental effort is a bargain. All the more so because there’s less competition at the far end — and not just for the obvious reason that it’s hard to do something exceptionally well, but also because people find the prospect so intimidating that few even try. Which means it’s not just a bargain to do exceptional work, but a bargain even to try to.

There are many variables that affect how good your work is, and if you want to be an outlier you need to get nearly all of them right. For example, to do something exceptionally well, you have to be interested in it. Mere diligence is not enough. So in a world with superlinear returns, it’s even more valuable to know what you’re interested in, and to find ways to work on it. [Note 9]

It will also be important to choose work that suits your circumstances. For example, if there’s a kind of work that inherently requires a huge expenditure of time and energy, it will be increasingly valuable to do it when you’re young and don’t yet have children.

There’s a surprising amount of technique to doing great work. It’s not just a matter of trying hard. I’m going to take a shot giving a recipe in one paragraph.

Choose work you have a natural aptitude for and a deep interest in. Develop a habit of working on your own projects; it doesn’t matter what they are so long as you find them excitingly ambitious. Work as hard as you can without burning out, and this will eventually bring you to one of the frontiers of knowledge. These look smooth from a distance, but up close they’re full of gaps. Notice and explore such gaps, and if you’re lucky one will expand into a whole new field. Take as much risk as you can afford; if you’re not failing occasionally you’re probably being too conservative. Seek out the best colleagues. Develop good taste and learn from the best examples. Be honest, especially with yourself. Exercise and eat and sleep well and avoid the more dangerous drugs. When in doubt, follow your curiosity. It never lies, and it knows more than you do about what’s worth paying attention to. [Note10]

And there is of course one other thing you need: to be lucky. Luck is always a factor, but it’s even more of a factor when you’re working on your own rather than as part of an organization. And though there are some valid aphorisms about luck being where preparedness meets opportunity and so on, there’s also a component of true chance that you can’t do anything about. The solution is to take multiple shots. Which is another reason to start taking risks early.

The best example of a field with superlinear returns is probably science. It has exponential growth, in the form of learning, combined with thresholds at the extreme edge of performance — literally at the limits of knowledge.

The result has been a level of inequality in scientific discovery that makes the wealth inequality of even the most stratified societies seem mild by comparison. Newton’s discoveries were arguably greater than all his contemporaries’ combined. [Note 11]

This point may seem obvious, but it might be just as well to spell it out. Superlinear returns imply inequality. The steeper the return curve, the greater the variation in outcomes.

In fact, the correlation between superlinear returns and inequality is so strong that it yields another heuristic for finding work of this type: look for fields where a few big winners outperform everyone else. A kind of work where everyone does about the same is unlikely to be one with superlinear returns.

What are fields where a few big winners outperform everyone else? Here are some obvious ones: sports, politics, art, music, acting, directing, writing, math, science, starting companies, and investing. In sports the phenomenon is due to externally imposed thresholds; you only need to be a few percent faster to win every race. In politics, power grows much as it did in the days of emperors. And in some of the other fields (including politics) success is driven largely by fame, which has its own source of superlinear growth. But when we exclude sports and politics and the effects of fame, a remarkable pattern emerges: the remaining list is exactly the same as the list of fields where you have to be independent-minded to succeed — where your ideas have to be not just correct, but novel as well. [Note 12]

This is obviously the case in science. You can’t publish papers saying things that other people have already said. But it’s just as true in investing, for example. It’s only useful to believe that a company will do well if most other investors don’t; if everyone else thinks the company will do well, then its stock price will already reflect that, and there’s no room to make money.

What else can we learn from these fields? In all of them you have to put in the initial effort. Superlinear returns seem small at first. At this rate, you find yourself thinking, I’ll never get anywhere. But because the reward curve rises so steeply at the far end, it’s worth taking extraordinary measures to get there.

In the startup world, the name for this principle is “do things that don’t scale.” If you pay a ridiculous amount of attention to your tiny initial set of customers, ideally you’ll kick off exponential growth by word of mouth. But this same principle applies to anything that grows exponentially. Learning, for example. When you first start learning something, you feel lost. But it’s worth making the initial effort to get a toehold, because the more you learn, the easier it will get.

There’s another more subtle lesson in the list of fields with superlinear returns: not to equate work with a job. For most of the 20th century the two were identical for nearly everyone, and as a result we’ve inherited a custom that equates productivity with having a job. Even now to most people the phrase “your work” means their job. But to a writer or artist or scientist it means whatever they’re currently studying or creating. For someone like that, their work is something they carry with them from job to job, if they have jobs at all. It may be done for an employer, but it’s part of their portfolio.

It’s an intimidating prospect to enter a field where a few big winners outperform everyone else. Some people do this deliberately, but you don’t need to. If you have sufficient natural ability and you follow your curiosity sufficiently far, you’ll end up in one. Your curiosity won’t let you be interested in boring questions, and interesting questions tend to create fields with superlinear returns if they’re not already part of one.

The territory of superlinear returns is by no means static. Indeed, the most extreme returns come from expanding it. So while both ambition and curiosity can get you into this territory, curiosity may be the more powerful of the two. Ambition tends to make you climb existing peaks, but if you stick close enough to an interesting enough question, it may grow into a mountain beneath you.

Notes

There’s a limit to how sharply you can distinguish between effort, performance, and return, because they’re not sharply distinguished in fact. What counts as return to one person might be performance to another. But though the borders of these concepts are blurry, they’re not meaningless. I’ve tried to write about them as precisely as I could without crossing into error.

[1] Evolution itself is probably the most pervasive example of superlinear returns for performance. But this is hard for us to empathize with because we’re not the recipients; we’re the returns.

[2] Knowledge did of course have a practical effect before the Industrial Revolution. The development of agriculture changed human life completely. But this kind of change was the result of broad, gradual improvements in technique, not the discoveries of a few exceptionally learned people.

[3] It’s not mathematically correct to describe a step function as superlinear, but a step function starting from zero works like a superlinear function when it describes the reward curve for effort by a rational actor. If it starts at zero then the part before the step is below any linearly increasing return, and the part after the step must be above the necessary return at that point or no one would bother.

[4] Seeking competition could be a good heuristic in the sense that some people find it motivating. It’s also somewhat of a guide to promising problems, because it’s a sign that other people find them promising. But it’s a very imperfect sign: often there’s a clamoring crowd chasing some problem, and they all end up being trumped by someone quietly working on another one.

[5] Not always, though. You have to be careful with this rule. When something is popular despite being mediocre, there’s often a hidden reason why. Perhaps monopoly or regulation make it hard to compete. Perhaps customers have bad taste or have broken procedures for deciding what to buy. There are huge swathes of mediocre things that exist for such reasons.

[6] In my twenties I wanted to be an artist and even went to art school to study painting. Mostly because I liked art, but a nontrivial part of my motivation came from the fact that artists seemed least at the mercy of organizations.

[7] In principle everyone is getting superlinear returns. Learning compounds, and everyone learns in the course of their life. But in practice few push this kind of everyday learning to the point where the return curve gets really steep.

[8] It’s unclear exactly what advocates of “equity” mean by it. They seem to disagree among themselves. But whatever they mean is probably at odds with a world in which institutions have less power to control outcomes, and a handful of outliers do much better than everyone else. It may seem like bad luck for this concept that it arose at just the moment when the world was shifting in the opposite direction, but I don’t think this was a coincidence. I think one reason it arose now is because its adherents feel threatened by rapidly increasing variation in performance.

[9] Corollary: Parents who pressure their kids to work on something prestigious, like medicine, even though they have no interest in it, will be hosing them even more than they have in the past.

[10] The original version of this paragraph was the first draft of “How to Do Great Work.” As soon as I wrote it I realized it was a more important topic than superlinear returns, so I paused the present essay to expand this paragraph into its own. Practically nothing remains of the original version, because after I finished “How to Do Great Work” I rewrote it based on that.

[11] Before the Industrial Revolution, people who got rich usually did it like emperors: capturing some resource made them more powerful and enabled them to capture more. Now it can be done like a scientist, by discovering or building something uniquely valuable. Most people who get rich use a mix of the old and the new ways, but in the most advanced economies the ratio has shifted dramatically toward discovery just in the last half century.

[12] It’s not surprising that conventional-minded people would dislike inequality if independent-mindedness is one of the biggest drivers of it. But it’s not simply that they don’t want anyone to have what they can’t. The conventional-minded literally can’t imagine what it’s like to have novel ideas. So the whole phenomenon of great variation in performance seems unnatural to them, and when they encounter it they assume it must be due to cheating or to some malign external influence.

(With due credit and sincere appreciation to Paul Graham. His original essay can be read here.)