Sherman Skolnick tells me that  he demonstrated quite an aptitude
for mathematics in his younger  days.   But,  since  he  attended
school  in  a  time  when sensitivity to challenges (e.g. opening
doors, climbing stairs,  etc.)  faced  by the "differently abled"
(Skolnick contracted polio at the age of 6) was low, his gift was
not nurtured as it should have been.  He was eventually forced to
discontinue his formal schooling.
I suspect that  many  so-called  "conspiracy theorists" have some
facility for, or derive some pleasure from, solving puzzles.   If
there   is  such  a  thing  as  mathematical  aptitude,  I'd  bet
conspiratologists would show statistically significant numbers in
that category.  That  is  what  most  or  all areas of conspiracy
research have in common:  an unsolved puzzle.  For  example,  the
facts  show  that  Lee  Harvey  Oswald  did  not  shoot President
Kennedy.  Yet the FBI and other alleged experts have continued to
sit on their hands, refusing  to "solve the puzzle" and insisting
that Oswald was the culprit and there was no conspiracy.  So,  to
those of mathematical and/or  puzzle  solving  inclinations,  the
natural thing is to begin turning the thing over in your mind.
That may be why some don't quite understand conspiracy theorists:
people   have   different  aptitudes:   some  are  more  language
oriented, others show  talent  in  the mathematical realm.  Those
skilled in language perhaps cannot fathom what fun there could be
in solving a puzzle.
The latest puzzle begins with Pierre Salinger claiming  that  TWA
Flight  800  was  brought  down by a U.S. Navy missile.  Then, of
course, the FBI and other  officials deny it happened.  One would
naturally expect that next, Pierre Salinger would be  interviewed
on,  say,  CNN's  Larry King show.  Instead, the guest is, of all
people, basketball player Magic Johnson.  (Huh?)
So  the puzzle is left hanging there, unsolved.  The unreconciled
dispute  has  disappeared  into   Limbo,  displaced  now  by  the
convenient  eruption  of  an  Army  sex  scandal.   And  so,  the
conspiratologists begin sifting through  the evidence, even while
FBI's Kallstrom pounds on the lectern in  a  temper  fit  deleted
from later broadcasts.
My  thanks  to  a  CN reader for putting me in touch with reports
from Paris Match magazine and for assisting me with the following
translation of  their  reportage.   The  following translation is
admittedly awkward.  I will forward  the  original  articles,  in
French, to those who request it.
  "You are invited to attend a function on Long Island," read
  the  invitation.   The  function was to be held at Docker's
  restaurant.  It was  that  evening  that  Linda Kabot began
  taking the photos.  And she was taking photos minutes later
  when an explosion occurred over the  ocean.   It  was  soon
  learned that TWA 800 had exploded in flight.
  Linda  Kabot  has  just brought back from the developer the
  pictures she took in the evening  of July 17.  She is about
  to put them aside but her husband,  who  watches  over  her
  shoulder,  intrigued  by  a  detail,  wants  to  study  the
  picture.   He  notices  a long, unusual object that crosses
  the sky.  Immediately making the connection with the Boeing
  catastrophe, the  couple  calls  the  FBI.   An hour later,
  police arrive and show great interest in the  photo.   They
  leave  with  the first positive and the negative.  Sometime
  later, helicopters will hover over the restaurant, probably
  to obtain ballistics data.   Anxious  to learn the experts'
  findings, the  Kabots  are  told,  "No  conclusion  can  be
  obtained  from  this photo."  As they insist on knowing the
  reason for the  intriguing  detail,  one expert tells them,
  "It could be a cigar thrown by  a  guest."   They  are  not
  The   cylinder   that  crosses  the  sky  appears,  in  its
  extremity, incandescent, which  may indicate the combustion
  from the propulsion system of a rocket.
  The hypothesis of a missile having destroyed TWA Flight 800
  was transmitted to Paris Match magazine by e-mail  about  a
  month    ago.     With   great   support   from   technical
  demonstrations, our mysterious  correspondent, supposedly a
  captain of a Boeing 747, explained the tragedy to  us  with
  an  astonishing  verisimilitude.  We did not immediately go
  with the story, because  a  journalist's role requires that
  we verify the sources.  The transmission of an  e-mail,  as
  it was in this case, gave us no guaranty of reliability.