Jim needs to discuss the evolution of an idea...

[Jack White]

I am not academically qualified to discuss the evolution of an idea. Jim is, and I ask that he

discuss this, as it relates to the misunderstanding younger researchers (and even some

older ones) have about CONSPIRACY THEORIES.

Many here have no notion how to approach study of an idea from recognition of it till

it becomes a known fact. They do not know the difference between a theory and

a settled theory. They mistakenly call proven facts "theories".

We need a list of SETTLED THEORIES AND FACTS in the JFK case so we do not keep

repeating them endlessly.

Jim...please do this and cite examples. I have seen you do it before in your cognitive

studies, but do not know where to access it.

Thanks.

Jack

[Peter McGuire]

I am not academically qualified to discuss the evolution of an idea. Jim is, and I ask that he

discuss this, as it relates to the misunderstanding younger researchers (and even some

older ones) have about CONSPIRACY THEORIES.

Many here have no notion how to approach study of an idea from recognition of it till

it becomes a known fact. They do not know the difference between a theory and

a settled theory. They mistakenly call proven facts "theories".

We need a list of SETTLED THEORIES AND FACTS in the JFK case so we do not keep

repeating them endlessly.

Jim...please do this and cite examples. I have seen you do it before in your cognitive

studies, but do not know where to access it.

Thanks.

Jack

Good point Jack and I hope to hear from Dr. Fetzer.

Gary Mack likes to do this. "That is your theory".

No, Gary that is my fact, I would reply.

[Jack White]

I do not think Jim ever replied to this.

Jack

I am not academically qualified to discuss the evolution of an idea. Jim is, and I ask that he

discuss this, as it relates to the misunderstanding younger researchers (and even some

older ones) have about CONSPIRACY THEORIES.

Many here have no notion how to approach study of an idea from recognition of it till

it becomes a known fact. They do not know the difference between a theory and

a settled theory. They mistakenly call proven facts "theories".

We need a list of SETTLED THEORIES AND FACTS in the JFK case so we do not keep

repeating them endlessly.

Jim...please do this and cite examples. I have seen you do it before in your cognitive

studies, but do not know where to access it.

Thanks.

Jack

[John Dolva]

Good idea, Jack. It also helps to understand academia in different countries. What constitutes a hypothesis in oz seems to be a theory in the us etc. I think establishing common ground on this and perhaps summarising it in a standing thread could be helpful. The idea of a list of what is known is a good one too, but I suspect will always be a contentious issue.

[Bernie Laverick]

Good idea, Jack. It also helps to understand academia in different countries. What constitutes a hypothesis in oz seems to be a theory in the us etc. I think establishing common ground on this and perhaps summarising it in a standing thread could be helpful. The idea of a list of what is known is a good one too, but I suspect will always be a contentious issue.

I agree, for instance we talk of the theory of evolution even though we can see it is clearly a FACT. And where does the word theorum fit into this? Richard Dawkins wrote an excellent chapter on all this: I will consult it and post his analysis.

[Dean Hagerman]

I agree, for instance we talk of the theory of evolution even though we can see it is clearly a FACT.

Bernie I agree with you on alot of things, but what you just said I agree with more then anything

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Thanks for the suggestion, Jack. The term "fact" tends to be used as a synonym for true

assertion or for an assertion whose truth has been verified, where claims that have been

"verified" cannot be false. Unfortunately, the standards for verification are very high and

require verification in turn, where replicability serves that function in science. If claims

are verifiable when their truth can be determined on the basis of observation, measure-

ment, and experiment, then the objectivity of science consists in the consideration that

different students with different backgrounds and personal histories are nevertheless in

the position to reach agreement about "facts" as verified claims by repeating the obser-

vations, measurements, and experiments that support them. Most claims in science and

without, however, have content that goes beyond what can be established by verification.

Take the Oswald "backyard" photographs, for example. Those who believe that they are

authentic might make that claim on the basis of resemblance relations between the man

in the photograph and Lee Harvey Oswald, the appearance of the Mannlicher-Carcano he

is holding, the gun belt he is wearing and the communist newspapers in his right hand.

They might claim, on that basis, to have "verified" that Oswald was the "lone assassin".

Of course, that goes beyond the evidence, since even if the backyard photographs were

authentic, it would not provide Oswald had used the carbine to shoot JFK or that he had

used the revolover to shot Officer Tippit. But it would be viewed as evidence supporting

the hypothesis that Oswald was indeed a "lone nut" who assassinated JFK, as it has been.

When we take a closer look, however, we discover that the chin is a block chin and does

not resemble Oswald's more pointed chin with a cleft. There is an insert line between the

chin and the lower lip, which suggests that his face may have been inserted on top of a

photo of someone else. The tips of the fingers of his right hand are cut off and, when

the newspapers are used as an "internal ruler", the man in the photo is too short to be

Lee Oswald or else the papers were introduced into the photo too large to be authentic.

And when you compare the images in (what turn out to be) four different versions of the

photograph, the features of the face remain exactly the same across four poses taken at

different times, which is a photographic impossibility, as you well know and as Jim Marrs

and I reminded the world in "The Dartmouth JFK-Photo Fiasco", found here and elsewhere:

http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2009/11/dartmouth-jfk-photo-fiasco.html

So is it a fact that the backyard photographs incriminate Lee Oswald as the lone assassin?

When they are subjected to evaluation for their authenticity, it turns out that they have been

fabricated for the apparent purpose of implicating Lee Oswald as the lone assassin. Given

these discoveries, the photo that was used to implicate him in the crime turns out to offer

evidence that he was framed, which strongly supports the inference that he was innocent

of the crime and actually the "patsy" he described himself as being. In fact, of course, we

know he also said, when shown one of them, that it was his face pasted on someone else's

body, which turns out to be true. But that did not diminish the usefulness of the photo to

incriminate him by its publication on the cover of LIFE magazine in a spectacular example

of disinformation. And it obviously should not have been necessary to frame a guilty man.

So the existence of one or more "backyard photographs" is a fact, but the authenticity of

their content is not. Indeed, since anyone can replicate the proofs that I have enumerated

which demonstrate the photo(s) are fake, it is also a fact that they are fabrications, which,

in turn, supports the inference that he was probably innocent and was actually the patsy

he described himself as being. When you consider that the Mannicher-Carcano is not a

high-velocity weapon and cannot have fired the bullets that killed JFK and that Lee was

not even on the 6th floor when the shooting took place, it becomes increasingly unlikely

that he was even a shooter, much less a "lone assassin", as I and many others before me

have explained in many places, in my case especially including in MURDER IN DEALEY

PLAZA and, more recently, in "Dealey Plaza Revisited: What Happened to JFK?", which

can be downloaded as a pdf from this location: http://www.und.edu/instruct/jfkconference/

The backyard photos are a nice illustration of the hazards of claiming to have established

"facts" that support Oswald's guilt, for example, since anyone who sincerely believes that

one or more of them is authentic would be in the position of citing them and even inviting

others to view them as "replications" of their opinions about them. But not all opinions are

on a par, where those that are supported by more evidence from varied sources and which

are based upon all the available evidence come closer to satisfying the standards of science

than those that do not. One of the favored techniques of those who want to maintain false

beliefs in the mind of the public is to cite only evidence favorable to their side, as this case

so well exemplifies. One of these photos was published on the cover of LIFE and did serve

the function of inducing the false belief that Oswald was probably the assassin, because it

wrapped together in a single package the weapon alleged to have been used to kill JFK and

the revolver alleged to have been used to shoot Tippit with indications he was a communist!

Those who have a more sophisticated understanding of these matters might infer that this

was a nice example of "overreaching" by trying to accomplish too much using a single photo.

But there are many Americans even today who do not understand that this was a staged event,

which, when properly understood, supports his innocence rather than his guilt. Moreover, by

the selective use of evidence, "lone nutters" have continued to perpetuate the myth that Lee

was guilty by suppressing the fact that his weapon cannot have fired the bullets that killed

the President and that he was not even on the 6th floor when it happened, a circumstance

that is confirmed by Marrion Baker's encounter with him in the lunchroom within 90 seconds

of the shooting, where Roy Truly explained that he was an employee who belonged there, as

they both affirmed in their statements, which described Lee as acting normally, not agitated,

perspiring, or short of breath, as he would have been had he rushed there from the 6th floor.

Serious research that satisfies scientific standards must be based on all the available relevant

evidence, where "evidence" includes both physical and testimonial and qualifies as "relevant"

when their presence or absence/truth or falsity makes a difference to the truth or falsity of

the hypothesis under consideration, such as, in this case, the guilt or innocence of Oswald.

The measure of "making a difference" in scientific contexts, is affecting the likelihood of the

hypothesis, where the likelihood of an hypothesis h, given evidence e, is determined by the

probability of evidence e, if hypothesis h were true. In other words, treat the hypothesis as

the possible cause of the evidence as its effect if that cause were responsible for bringing it

about. When a possible cause has a higher likelihood than an alternative, then it provides a

preferable explanation, because those effects have a higher probability if it were the cause.

Police in the performance of their duties (when they are being conducted properly and not

for the sake of implicating someone of a crime they did not actually commit) employ the

same standards. In considering the possible causes of the death of a victim, for example,

they prefer the hypotheses that have had a higher probability of bringing about the effects

displayed by the corpse. Bruising around the throat and absence of bullet holes and knife

wounds, for example, is inconsistent with having been shot or stabbed, where strangulation

has the higher likelihood and qualifies as the preferable hypothesis, even it if should turn out

during the medical examination that the victim's death was actually brought about by the

use of poison. But that of course assumes that the autopsy was conducted properly, too,

which was manifestly not the case with JFK, where the body was subjected to several kinds

of alteration and photographs and X-rays were taken and themselves subject to alteration.

Perhaps the most important consideration about scientific inquiries is that an early stage

requires elucidating all the alternative hypotheses that might possibly explain the evidence

to avoid premature closure and where the authenticity of the evidence--in cases like JFK

and 9/11--may require investigation. The manipulation or fabrication of the "evidence"

affords the most direct method for affecting the outcome of any inquiry, which is why it has

to be scrutinized with exceptional attention when it makes an important difference to the

investigation. This is the second of the four stages of PUZZLEMENT, SPECULATION,

ADAPTATION, and EXPLANATION, where, if one or another hypothesis is left out of

consideration on the basis that it is "absurd", "impossible", or "too far fetched", which

are disclaimers that require proof, then even a properly conducted inquiry may come up

short, precisely because the true hypothesis was improperly excluded at the beginning.

A more elaborate explanation of the role of probabilities and likelihoods may be found

in the first few sections of "Thinking about 'Conspiracy Theories': 9/11 and JFK", where

i have elaborated upon these points with illustrations. The most important distinction I

have not addressed here, but do discuss there, include (i) the distinction between the

concepts of probabilities as relative frequencies and as causal propensities, (ii) the use

of likelihoods to determine preferability relations between alternative explanations (on

which I say more), and (iii) the tentative and fallible character of acceptance-as-true in

scientific contexts, where the discovery of new alternative explanations or new evidence

may eventually lead to the acceptance of hypotheses previously rejected, the rejection of

hypotheses previously rejected, and a redistribution of those left in suspense. For those

who want further elaboration, take a look at http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/fetzerexpandedx.htm

Let me know if you would like me to expand on these points. Common fallacies that are

used in these contexts include special pleading (by only citing the evidence favorable to

your side), the straw man (by attacking exaggerated versions of a position and thereby

imply you have defeated the original), and of course the ad hominem (by attempting to

discredit an argument by attacking its source). We seen these techniques employed on

this forum time and time again. Indeed, as a nice example, even the "magic bullet" has

been resurrected now and then, even though the available relevant evidence refutes it.

Consider "Reasoning about Assassinations", http://www.assassinationscience.com/ReasoningAboutAssassinations.pdf as

an illustration. Simply by determining where the bullet that struck JFK in the back hit,

we can establish the existence of a conspiracy since, if the bullet did not exit his throat,

the wound to the throat and the wounds to Connally have to be explained on the basis

of other shots and other shooters, which implies one. Endeavors to mislead the public

nevertheless continue unabated, where we can expect new efforts via the mass media.

I am not academically qualified to discuss the evolution of an idea. Jim is, and I ask that he

discuss this, as it relates to the misunderstanding younger researchers (and even some

older ones) have about CONSPIRACY THEORIES.

Many here have no notion how to approach study of an idea from recognition of it till

it becomes a known fact. They do not know the difference between a theory and

a settled theory. They mistakenly call proven facts "theories".

We need a list of SETTLED THEORIES AND FACTS in the JFK case so we do not keep

repeating them endlessly.

Jim...please do this and cite examples. I have seen you do it before in your cognitive

studies, but do not know where to access it.

Thanks.

Jack

Edited August 18, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Given what I have just written, I find it fascinating that this article has just shown up in my mailbox. I have noticed that it is the subject of another thread. The copy I was sent includes a link to http://assassinationscience.com, but that may have been an "add on", since I don't see it in the original. Because it relates to the issues I have been discussing, I think it belongs here as well. I have added what you find on his home page. I will see if I can arrange for Don Adams to be featured on "The Real Deal".

http://www.kwgn.com/news/wjw-news-don-adams-president-kennedy-assassination-story,0,3644102.story

Former FBI Agent Says Oswald Didn't Kill Kennedy

AKRON, Ohio - A retired FBI Agent from Summit County is making claims regarding the assassination of President John F. Kennedy that go beyond conspiracy theories.

Don Adams speaks clearly and concisely when describing the events of November 22, 1963, the day President Kennedy was killed, and he doesn't waiver from his position that Lee Harvey Oswald did not kill President John F. Kennedy in Dallas.

"It is a fact," says Adams, and he says he has the FBI documents to prove it.

At his home in Akron, Ohio, Adams is surrounded by thousands of reports and records from the National Archives and Records Administration. His name appears on many of the papers, but he says other reports have been doctored, or are missing, "Everything I had done is gone. It's all gone," Adams said.

The Army veteran joined the FBI after serving in the Korean war. He trained in Washington, D.C., and Quantico, Virginia, and was assigned to an FBI field office in Thomasville, Georgia.

One of Adams first assignments was investigating an extreme right radical, with connections to the States Rights Party and KKK named Joseph Adams Milteer. "He was reportedly one of most violent men in the country," said Adams.

One week after completing the investigation, President Kennedy was gunned down in Dallas.

Agent Adams located Milteer in Quintan, Georgia on November 27, 1963, but according to Adams, the Senior Agent in charge would not allow a proper interrogation.

"I said, 'Boss wait a minute, we have an opportunity to elicit tremendous information from him' and he replied '5 questions and nothing more'."

Years later, while searching the archives Adams learned that Milteer had threatened to kill President Kennedy November 9, 1963, just weeks before the assassination, and that FBI agents had allegedly lied about his whereabouts immediately following threat.

In a tape recording Adams played for Fox 8 News, Milteer tells an informant the best way to get the president, "is from an office building with a high powered rifle."

The informant asks if they are really going to kill President Kennedy and on the tape recording Milteer responds, "Oh yes. It's in the works."

Adams wonders why the FBI and Secret Service permitted the President to travel to Dallas with that knowledge.

"[They] should have stopped the President from traveling instantly." said Adams.

And an FBI record states that after the assassination, "a jubilant" Milteer bragged to the informant, "You thought I was kidding when I said he would be killed from a window with a high powered rifle."

Adams questions why Milteer appears in a photograph near President Kennedy's limousine before the shooting, but was never mentioned in the Warren Commission Report.

Adams suspects Milteer was definitely involved in President Kennedy's death, but he says Oswald absolutely was not.

In 1964 Adams was transferred to Dallas, Texas. He watched the now famous Zapruder film and chased leads connected to Kennedy's death.

The Warren Commission report said three bullets were fired from behind the president, but Adams claims there were clearly 11 shots fired, including a frontal shot that struck President Kennedy's neck.

Adams claims that he mentioned his findings to Senior FBI Agents, and was told by one unnamed agent, "Don be careful what you say and how you say it."

Adams says witnesses at the Book Depository saw Oswald in the break room drinking a Coke at the exact time of the shooting.

According to Adams, even if Oswald was on the building's sixth floor, Adams informed Senior FBI Agents that Oswald could not have possibly fired three shots in seven-and-a-half seconds, from a bolt action rifle so precisely while looking through a scope. Adams alleges he was again warned to keep quiet.

"I said, 'I'm gonna tell you right now guys, no way in the world he fire those shots' and boy I was really cautioned then." said Adams.

Adams has hundreds of other facts and papers that he says prove the Warren Commission's report was erronious.

The 80-year-old is currently putting the papers into a book and he has also produced a documentary style DVD, which is being sold on his website.

Adams says he is not seeking fame and fortune, rather truth and justice. He wants another commission established to re-investigate what really happened in Dallas before all of the agents and witnesses are gone.

"When we die off, no one will talk about these things." said Adams, "I hope the truth gets told whatever it is."

http://www.fox8.com/news/wjw-news-don-adams-president-kennedy-assassination-story,0,6504699.story

The Kennedy Assassination

http://adamsjfk.com/

Assassination Science

http://www.assassinationscience.com/

HOME PAGE:

Almost 50 years have gone by since President John Fitzgerald Kennedy was killed in Dallas, Texas, on Nov. 22, 1963. Yet, we are no closer to solving this murder today than we were back then.

We are beginning to elicit the truth, but that truth is being revealed in bits and pieces:

We KNOW that there were warnings that the President would be killed.

We KNOW that Lee Harvey Oswald did not shoot the President.

We KNOW that Oswald and Jack Ruby were associates.

We KNOW that the President was shot twice from the front.

We KNOW that there was no single “pristine” bullet that hit both the President and Texas Gov. John Connally.

We KNOW that a number of shots were fired from various positions around the Texas Book Depository.

We KNOW that four telephone calls were made to the Dallas Police, the FBI and to others in the early morning hours of Nov. 24, 1963, warning that Oswald would be killed when he was transferred to the County Jail.

We KNOW that lies were told to confuse the public and to hide the truth.

These few sentences may shock the average person who only read the headlines, who never dug into the details, who believed the Warren Commission Report. Many more facts have been uncovered in my research and are contained in my writings. Those facts will paint a different picture than what we have been led to believe happened.

There are very few people in the United States who have ever heard the name JOSEPH ADAMS MILTEER. Yet, on instructions of the FBI, Milteer’s name and documents detailing his ties to the Kennedy assassination were ordered to be stored in the National Archives and forgotten. Why?

Investigative information concerning Milteer was deliberately misplaced, destroyed or attributed to other persons. Why?

A comprehensive report written by FBI Special Agent Donald A. Adams was "hacked apart" and now does not exist in the National Archives, where most all papers concerning the Kennedy Assassination are stored. Why?

Only the one interview of Milteer by Special Agents Don Adams and Ken Williams exists in the archives. Why?

Where are all of the other documents prepared by Agent Adams? And why are they nowhere to be found?

The answers to those questions and many others are available now on two DVDs and will be examined in a soon-to-be-published book, “From an Office Building with a High-Powered Rifle,” by Donald A. Adams.

There are still so many unanswered questions and glaring inconsistencies about the Kennedy assassination.

After almost 50 years, isn’t it time for the truth to be known?

WTAM Interviews with Mike Trivisonno and Don Adams on JFK

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Message for all writers to guestbook. To receive a response from me it's necessary for the writer to provide an e-mail address or a home address or telephone number included in your writings so that I can respond. Thanks Don Adams

Don Adams Webmaster

Jody Miller Editor

Valerie Adams Art Creater

The Kennedy Assassination: E-mail asci86@neo.rr.com

Content copyright 2010

Edited August 18, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[François Carlier]

I am not academically qualified to discuss the evolution of an idea. Jim is, and I ask that he

discuss this, as it relates to the misunderstanding younger researchers (and even some

older ones) have about CONSPIRACY THEORIES.

Many here have no notion how to approach study of an idea from recognition of it till

it becomes a known fact. They do not know the difference between a theory and

a settled theory. They mistakenly call proven facts "theories".

We need a list of SETTLED THEORIES AND FACTS in the JFK case so we do not keep

repeating them endlessly.

Jim...please do this and cite examples. I have seen you do it before in your cognitive

studies, but do not know where to access it.

Thanks.

Jack

Well, it's very easy.

All you have uttered these past years are useless, nonsensical, ludicrous theories that deserve to go directly to the trash !

Now, let's deal with the rest...

/F.C./

[Dean Hagerman]

I am not academically qualified to discuss the evolution of an idea. Jim is, and I ask that he

discuss this, as it relates to the misunderstanding younger researchers (and even some

older ones) have about CONSPIRACY THEORIES.

Many here have no notion how to approach study of an idea from recognition of it till

it becomes a known fact. They do not know the difference between a theory and

a settled theory. They mistakenly call proven facts "theories".

We need a list of SETTLED THEORIES AND FACTS in the JFK case so we do not keep

repeating them endlessly.

Jim...please do this and cite examples. I have seen you do it before in your cognitive

studies, but do not know where to access it.

Thanks.

Jack

Well, it's very easy.

All you have uttered these past years are useless, nonsensical, ludicrous theories that deserve to go directly to the trash !

Now, let's deal with the rest...

/F.C./

Frank is so weak

/D.H./