The Burden of Proof

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

JFK had a shallow back wound in soft tissue.  6.5mm FMJ rounds never leave shallow wounds in soft tissue.  The claim Oswald struck JFK with the rifle attributed to him is demonstrably False.

Unless the round was undercharged.

Landis has credibility, according to James Robenalt. 

Landis was indisputably at the scene. 

If Landis is correct...then how do we explain a Western Cartridge copper-jacketed slug, in almost undamaged condition, on top of the rear seat of the presidential limo?

 

 

[Cliff Varnell]

2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Unless the round was undercharged.

And JFK reacted to this undercharged round striking his back by holding his fists in front of his throat.  Maybe that’s what people do in your parallel universe, Ben.

[Bill Fite]

3 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Hypothesis: JFK was fired upon from at least two directions because the bullet holes in the back of his shirt and jacket are 4 inches below the bottom of the collars, and Dealey Plaza photos show a normal amount of visible shirt collar.  The clothing defects are too low to associate with the wound in his throat.

Alternative hypothesis:  To line up with the SBT trajectory, 2+” jacket and 2+” shirt elevated above the wound at the top of the back without pushing up on the jacket collar at the base of the neck.

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.

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Bill Fite said:

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.

Why isn’t the hypothesis a positive declaration of multiple directions?

1 hour ago, Bill Fite said:

The theory would go in the H (hypothesis) and would hold until rejected.

The claim that multiple inches of bunched shirt and jacket could occupy the same physical space as the jacket collar is prima facie untenable, no?

1 hour ago, Bill Fite said:

You've also put evidence in both hypothesis.

No, I cited evidence for my hypothesis and left the absurdity of the alternative to speak for itself.

1 hour ago, Bill Fite said:

 

  Assumptions and evidence are used to reject hypotheses.

We can reject the alternative because disparate physical objects can’t occupy the same physical space at the same time.

Edited October 24, 2023 by Cliff Varnell

[Benjamin Cole]

49 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

And JFK reacted to this undercharged round striking his back by holding his fists in front of his throat.  Maybe that’s what people do in your parallel universe, Ben.

I am unaware there is a prescribed, widely known reaction to an under-charged bullet that enters an inch or so into one's back. When wearing a back brace. 

 

[Bill Fite]

34 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Why isn’t the hypothesis a positive declaration of multiple directions?

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.

 

 

Edited October 24, 2023 by Bill Fite

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I am unaware there is a prescribed, widely known reaction to an under-charged bullet that enters an inch or so into one's back. When wearing a back brace. 

 

For all you know the Landis bullet was planted.

Secret Service agent Glen Bennett wrote a contemporaneous report which precludes a first shot back shot.

We’ve been over this already Ben.

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Bill Fite said:

It is after the hypothesis (H) of shots only coming from the rear is rejected.  

Okay.  The H requires 4”+ inches of shirt/jacket fabric to occupy the same physical space as the jacket collar — an untenable scenario.

[Bill Fite]

2 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Okay.  The H requires 4”+ inches of shirt/jacket fabric to occupy the same physical space as the jacket collar — an untenable scenario.

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.

 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Bill Fite said:

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.

I was adding the shirt and jacket — so in this construction it’s “2+ inches below.”  There is another crucial observation: the Dealey Plaza photos show a normal amount of shirt collar visible, indicating the jacket collar was in a normal position, the lower margin at the base of the neck C6/7.

1 hour ago, Bill Fite said:

(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.

 

That’ll work.  Although I find it more economic to point out the undisturbed jacket collar.

[Bill Fite]

40 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

I was adding the shirt and jacket — so in this construction it’s “2+ inches below.”  There is another crucial observation: the Dealey Plaza photos show a normal amount of shirt collar visible, indicating the jacket collar was in a normal position, the lower margin at the base of the neck C6/7.

That’ll work.  Although I find it more economic to point out the undisturbed jacket collar.

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.

Edited October 24, 2023 by Bill Fite
correction added