JFK Assassination Forum

I mean...honestly...how do you begin to deal with this kind of mentality.

We epistemological types would note that the term "theory" is being tossed around rather loosely by, er, what we might charitably call non-epistemological types.

Since we are dealing with an historical event and a large body of evidence, the scientific definition is not inappropriate:

A theory is "a well-established framework built upon extensive evidence." It is the highest level of scientific understanding short of an observable, scientifically proven fact. The LN narrative is a theory. Certain key aspects of the theory are subject to testing and falsification and have been confirmed.

A hypothesis is "a testable prediction or explanation that is formulated as part of research or experimentation" but has not achieved the status of a theory. The very multiplicity of CT explanations for the JFKA and the extent to which they are debated, as well as the failure of any explanation to convincingly account for Dealey Plaza, shows that none has achieved the status of a theory.

Although Flat Earthers will insist the spherical earth is "just a theory" and thus stands on the same epistemological footing as the flat earth "theory," the fact is that the spherical earth is regarded as an observable, scientifically proven fact while the flat earth is regarded as an absurd myth - not even a hypothesis, let alone a theory.

At this point, to attempt to place any CT explanation on the same footing as the LN narrative, or to use terminology such as "just a theory" in regard to the LN narrative, is completely invalid. Dan has conceded that his LBJ-Byrd-Cason-Shelley scenario is pure speculation and cannot account for Oswald. In epistemological terms, it would be a "wild guess."

Everyone should read Thomas Kuhn's seminal The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and at least some basic works on epistemology. Epistemological ignorance really is at the root of much JFKA debate.

I am so impressed by such an articulate response.

There was a large hole along he entire upper right side of JFK's head. So yes that large hole extended into the rear portion of JFK's head but it was not limited to the back of his head. The Z-film shows us a large flap of skull hanging down the right side of JFK's head. Bill Newman said he thought his ear had been blown off. I was just covered up by that flap.

Despite what amateur sleuths would have us believe, the large blowout does not tell us where the shot came from. Determining the location of an entrance wound in the head is dirt simple for qualified forensic medical examiners. For starters, fracture lines radiate out from the point of entry. Those radiating lines extend from the entry point in the back of the head. There is also beveling that takes place when a missile passes through the wall of the skull. The beveling in the back of the head was inward, further evidence of a rear entry. Had the missile passed through the wall at the back of JFK's skull in a rearward direction, the beveling would be outward.

Don't you think it's time to put away these silly myths based on what amateurs have concluded the evidence indicates.

WC defenders ignore or summarily brush aside the fact that on November 16-17, five days before the assassination, David Ferrie spent the weekend with Mafia kingpin Carlos Marcello at Marcello's Churchill Farms estate. Supposedly, the two were discussing "defense strategy" for the final week of Marcello's deportation trial in federal court. However, strangely enough, Marcello’s attorneys were not there.. Humm. . . . Ferrie was no lawyer. It is very hard imagine what legal strategy Marcello and Ferrie could have discussed for two entire days; it is also hard to fathom how a weekend-long legal defense strategy meeting would not have included at least one of Marcello's attorneys. Dr. Richard Mahoney correctly and logically suspects that Marcello and Ferrie were finalizing some of the details of the planned assassination of JFK in Dallas (The Kennedy Brothers: The Rise and Fall of Jack and Bobby, 2017 edition, p. 386).