Bill Fite

I always like poll options when available. Thought it would be interesting to see what the top reasons for belief either way would be. If there's enough interest, I would be happy to put it together if this works. Feel free to nominate a reason or 2 in this thread. If there's no interest, well at least this tests the poll feature 😀

Meaning that there's a lot of other ways to wreck it also.... and the bullet hole location doesn't clear Oswald of having been 1 of the shooters. cheers.

I don't think so. It only helps to wreck the lone nut w only 3 shots from behind theory. Exactly -- but why even address LHO's guilt or innocence without starting by demonstrating either the impossibility or highly improbable likelihood of some unnamed single assassin causing all the known damage with 3 shots from the window in the TSBD in a discussion with others?

Often wondered if the mixing of the lone nut / conspiracy with the legal arguments concerning Oswald don't confuse the issues. Once it is demonstrated that the lone nut hypothesis is either impossible or highly improbable based on evidence & experiments that were run it has to be rejected. Discussing legal standards for admissible evidence against Oswald confuses the lone nut / conspiracy issue with legal arguments for his guilt or innocence. To me the evidence that is important is the evidence that negates the lone nut (whoever it might be) theory in a discussion concerning JFK's murder.

Doesn't 22% meet the criteria for inclusion in general election debates?

So then, something like - they were all sitting around a table and decided to kill JFK and then one of them asked 'How are we gonna justify this?' They all thought for a while and then one of them jumps up says - 'I've got it - RFK killed Marilyn'? Something like that? Say the plotters were the Cubans for example - the Bay of Pigs revenge wouldn't justify the murder but Marilyn's death would? Like that?

LOL Not cherry= picking at all - It's their war to win - did you miss that part? As you missed the Gen Maxwell Taylor memo in posts above?

Yes - in the Sep 2, 1963 interview w W Cronkite he cites the Domino Theory. It's also the same interview where JFK states that it's their war to win or lose - that the US can support through material, advisors and advice but it's their war.

So, if I understand correctly - The motive for JFK's murder was not: Joint Chiefs' opposition to a possible end of the Cold War A CIA coup based on above & JFK's reaching out to Castro Rogue CIA revenge Bay of Pigs revenge by Anti-Castro Cubans Right-wing action agains JFK's Civil Rights policies Right-wing Oil millionaires backing a plot to get a more pro-Oil Industry president LBJ plotting a coup to avoid prison A lone nut wanting to be 'famous' 2 or more lone nuts - only 1 wanting to be famous or some combination of the above or something else But the actual motive of the plotters was to avenge Marilyn Monroe's death which they assumed was brought about by RFK? And they believed that the best way to do this was to murder JFK? - not RFK & possibly Peter Lawford? Because it's less risky to murder the President? Who knew?

LOL

from: https://whowhatwhy.org/politics/government-integrity/jfk-ordered-full-withdrawal-vietnam-solid-evidence/ Evidence of JFK’s Decision to Withdraw from Vietnam The evidence is massive and categorical. It includes: * Robert McNamara’s instructions to the May 1963 SecDef Conference in Honolulu to develop the withdrawal plan. * A detailed account of the McNamara-Taylor mission to Vietnam that returned with the withdrawal plan, drafted in their absence in the Pentagon by a team under Kennedy’s direct control. * An audiotape of the discussion at the White House that led to the approval of NSAM 263 (National Security Action Memorandum), which implemented the plan; this audio was released by the Assassination Records Review Board at my request. * The precise instructions for withdrawal delivered by Maxwell Taylor, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to his fellow Chiefs on October 4, 1963, in a memorandum that remained classified until 1997. Taylor wrote: “On 2 October the President approved recommendations on military matters contained in the report of the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The following actions derived from these recommendations are directed: … all planning will be directed toward preparing RVN forces for the withdrawal of all US special assistance units and personnel by the end of calendar year 1965. The US Comprehensive Plan, Vietnam, will be revised to bring it into consonance with these objectives, and to reduce planned residual (post-1965) MAAG strengths to approximately pre-insurgency levels… Execute the plan to withdraw 1,000 US military personnel by the end of 1963…”

As long as it's testable any prediction that could falsify the Hypothesis works and could be tested. In some cases you won't have the evidence to reject so you continue w the same H. as for the 2 vs 4 inches "I was adding the shirt and jacket — so in this construction it’s “2+ inches below.” I should have said fold it twice so that there are 3 layers the original one (the shirt) then the 2 folds of the fabric to overlap.

Yeah - maybe going through all the steps will make it clearer and just using the alternative hypothesis that the hypothesis is incorrect: 1) Make an observation 2) Ask a question 3) Form a hypothesis = a testable explanation 4) Make a prediction based on (3) 5) Test the prediction 6) If the test falsifies (3) form a new hypothesis So about those bullet holes - one could approach it this way: (1) Observation: There are almost-round bullet holes on JFK's shirt and jacket 4+ inches below where they would have to be for the neck to throat wound path to be true. (2) What would explain (1)? (3) Hypothesis: The shirt and jacket bunched up. (4) Prediction: a sufficiently bunched up shirt & jacket would result in the observed round holes. (5) Test results (evidence): (an actual or thought experiment to test the H): * Take a sheet of paper * Fold it so that one spot is now over a location 4 inches higher than its original location * Draw a round 1 inch diameter hole on the paper & cut it out of the folded paper * Unfold the paper If the hole in the paper is an ellipse 5 inches long and 1 inch wide and not a circle-like hole in the jacket and shirt (6) New hypothesis: The shirt and jacket weren't bunched up. The bunched clothing hypothesis is rejected. Note - I don't have to prove the new hypothesis just reject what is not true.

It is after the hypothesis (H) of shots only coming from the rear is rejected. That becomes the new hypothesis. If you don't reject the H of shots only coming from the rear nothing has been accomplished as far as reducing the possible theories. The Alternate Hypothesis (AH) can easily be stated as the Hypothesis (or theory) is false. The scientific method is set up to reject the null hypothesis or theory based on evidence - not to prove it or reject the alternative hypothesis.

To prove that JFK was fired upon from more than 1 direction the hypothesis would simply be H: All shots fired at JFK were fired from the rear. Alt H: Shots were fired from other directions. The theory would go in the H (hypothesis) and would hold until rejected. You've also put evidence in both hypothesis. Assumptions and evidence are used to reject hypotheses.

Hi Marcus Personally, I think this should be approached another way by applying the scientific method: * State a hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis * Evaluate the evidence to see if you should reject the hypothesis * If you reject the hypothesis start again with the simplest hypothesis that agrees with all the evidence you looked at. The simplest, next hypothesis is the one with the fewest assumptions. So - Hypothesis - Someone acted alone, making all the shots in the JFK murder from the window on the TSBD. Alternative Hypothesis - There were more than 1 person involved / shots came from other locations. Personally I reject the hypothesis based on angles & trajectories, physics and experimental evidence. I haven't got to the second round yet with another hypothesis, sorry. But I have rejected the stated hypothesis and believe there was a conspiracy. In other words, start with disproving the lone nut hypothesis to your satisfaction then move on to the next explanation until you are satisfied or can't disprove it or find a simpler (less assumptions) explanation.

thanks for that info - wouldn't that mean that Ruth Paine would have had the rifle in her station wagon when she helped in the move to Dallas?

Good point. I seem to recall that there was a federal program at the time concerned with the ease of buying weapons by mail order. If that was the case, LHO could have been tasked with purchasing a weapon for that purpose and then that situation later turned against him by having it transported to the TSBD. I've always wondered how did LHO allegedly get the rifle in and out of the Paine garage for target practice, a shot at Walker & transport to the TSBD without Ruth Paine's knowledge.

A hypothetical scenario: If the conspirators had identified Oswald as an agent who infiltrated their organization - possibly informing and foiling the Chicago plot and/or the goings on at Lake Pontchartrain leading to the FBI raid - they may have framed him through the rifle purchase using his Post Office box without any knowledge from him. Their intent being just to point the finger of accusation at him - without any knowledge of the plot from LHO. Sort of an add-on to the murder. In that case, LHO would have no knowledge of what was really going on and the accusation of him being the lone assassin would have just been gravy.

Unless the plan was to make him look like a patsy through the purchase of the rifle. In that case if he was seen he would just look like one of the members of the team that committed the murder no matter how much he denied it. He could even be accused of letting the shooter(s) into the building. If he's not seen, or even if he is by someone that isn't believed getting change for the soda machine, well we know what happens in that case.

But only 1 hypothesis that fits the evidence is the simplest explanation, the one with the least assumptions. wrt the JFKA many people make the mistake of saying that LHO as the lone assassin satisfies Occam's razor. But it doesn't satisfy the second part - agrees with all the evidence.

iirc - that's the opposite of the way I learned the scientific method gather all the evidence available make a falsifiable hypothesis that fits all the evidence. if more than 1 pick the simplest explanation that fits all the evidence - the one with the least assumptions use (2) until proven false with new evidence - then reject hypothesis and go to (1)

I've read this - about the Marines buying millions of rounds of MC ammo that they had no use for - somewhere else before.

She says 6 times during her testimony that she can't identify the murderer then miraculously when she is given the suggestion that it was 'Number 2' she makes the ID. LOL