Bill Fite

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

Hi David - The quote itself was from Dr Young's letter in the article. So maybe he mistook the Queen Mary as the JFK limo since in the letter he previously seems to have made that mistake: "I requested two of our corpsmen who were assigned to our White House medical unit, to go to the Executive Office Building where the Secret Service had placed the “Queen Mary,” [sic] the open convertible in which President Kennedy had been shot, for bone fragments."

or 1 falls out of the back wound and 1 falls from the skull wound or wounds.

And there's another bullet found in the car according to Navy Dr James Young: https://whowhatwhy.org/politics/government-integrity/navy-doctor-bullet-found-jfks-limousine-never-reported/ from Dr. Young's letter to then president G Ford:

Hi - the last day on Arte was yesterday. The main idea of the 'dynasty' was that family dynasties last for only 3 generations. So from JFK / RFK siblings back 2 generations to their grandparents. The 4th generation isn't part of it and goes off in their own directions. The Bush family was brought up as another example. So the documentary follows those 3 generations - primarily focusing on the last set of siblings. It was pretty interesting and covered a lot of history that I didn't know. JFK's first trip to Ireland to the family house & was really quite informative about Eunice and her contributions to handicap rights and the special olympics. Had quite a lot of info about the sisters and their lives.

I just watched The Kennedy Dynasty on Arte. The credits say that it is a German documentary from 2023. I found it a very interesting 90 minutes. Here's the link, if anyone is interested, to it on Arte.tv (the Franco German cultural channel). Unfortunately, this is the last day it's available and if you are in the US you will probably need a VPN connection to watch it. It is in English by the way. https://www.arte.tv/en/videos/112560-000-A/the-kennedy-dynasty/ It covers the 3 generations from JFK's grandparents to his siblings. Interestingly, it's not JFK who is given most credit for lasting changes in the end.

It's that improbable part that is the key. It's interesting when you start to think about it this way. Lone assassin theorists look at each event that would occur in isolation then claim that the event discussed - no matter how improbable is possible without looking at the probability of the event. If you start with the single assassin assumption and then put together the string of probabilities - some estimated experimentally & some estimated subjectively if experimental evidence isn't available - you get an estimate of the probability of a lone gunman. The probabilities for each event that has to occur for the lone gunman hypothesis not to be rejected are multiplied together if they are independent events to get the final probability estimate. To test the hypothesis of a lone assassin you would set it up as a test of the null hypothesis that a lone assassin murdered JFK against the alternative hypothesis that 2 or more were involved. The probability estimate is then used to see if you have enough evidence to reject the null hypo. So starting with the head wound under discussion - assuming atypical as a 1 in 10 chance - the probability of a lone gunman in 0.1. 100 MC rounds were fired into goat carcasses & cadaver wrist bones all were more significantly deformed than the magic bullet. So, 1 in 100 would be a conservative probability estimate for this event. p(lone gunman) = 0.1 * 0.01 = 0.001 Add in a subjective probability for gunman going down steps in TSBD w/o detection on stairs by other employees of 0.5 -- 50 50 chance. p(lone gunman) = 0.001 * 0.5 = 0.0005 Add in the probability of the shooter getting off the 3 shots in the allotted time and hitting the target from the CBS recreation of 2 out of 13. p(lone gunman) = 0.0005 * 2 / 13 = 0.0000769 or about 1 in 13,000. etc... Which would lead to a rejection of the null hypothesis of a lone gunman for most. There is, of course, some evidence that by itself would disprove the lone gunman hypothesis if accepted. If one is discussing this with a LN supporter, it would be interesting to get their subjective probabilities for a list of independent events that would have to happen for the hypothesis test and compute the probability which can also be thought of as an estimate for their belief in the LN theory. Apologies for the aside.

Thanks - but doesn't the exit on the torso being far lower than on the face sheet actually provide more evidence that the assumption / hypothesis of a lone gunman on the 6th floor TSBD being false? If the height of the window, distance, and position of the target are close to being correct an exit wound in the chest area falsifies that assumption. Or am I missing something?

What was at fault in the setup? Seems like the Aussies and the Discovery Channel would have checked, double checked and triple checked. But - still it would be better to assume a lone assassin in the TSBD window and then use experimental recreations of all the events that would have had to happened. I think filmed experiments would be more effective than articles or mock trials. I think it would be an easy assumption / hypothesis to reject.

Shouldn't it be "the simplest explanation that agrees with all the evidence is preferable to one that is more complex."?

I think that mock trials and articles only go so far. To create momentum a TV special with experiments & measurements showing the impossibilities / extremely low probabilities of some of the WC evidence would work better. For example - the 'Beyond the Magic Bullet' program on the Discovery channel illustrated the impossibility of the magic bullet shot exiting the throat. Others that could be used include: * NAA tests on paraffin from the cheeks of subjects who fired the MC rifle or an MC and comparing those results with LHO's paraffin NAA test. * Firing 100 rounds of MC ammunition through goat carcasses or the like, then measure the deformities and compare to CE 399. * etc. Also - I don't think the approach should be to prove a conspiracy but rather to reject the hypothesis that the JFK's murder was the work of a lone assassin. (Scientific method). Anyway, my 2$ worth (used to be 2 cents... but inflation.)