Okay. I've wanted to post this for a long time. I wasn't sure if this was the right place to do it, as this is supposed to be devoted for Astronomy. However, here goes.

The JFK Assassination - Could there be a Conspiracy Involved?

I say yes, the possibility of a conspiracy is definitely there. However, I'm going to use this as (hopefully a GOOD) example of the varying types of argument. Now, I don't have a lot of proof to up and give, and I'm not really interested in going into every single little detail, but bear with me nonetheless.

There are to me, three different types of "claims".

The first is speculative. You speculate, without having any evidence. For instance: I say that JFK was not only killed, he was killed by aliens. There is no proof for this, however, so this is rather silly speculation. However, if I also say that every Republican was in on it, then it's just as silly of speculation - there's no evidence of it, and it's too generic and wide-sweeping of a statement for any evidence of the physical crime to even imply it.

The second is a Theory. There is evidence behind it, but it doesn't necessarily "prove" it conclusively. For instance: JFK was killed not just by Oswald, but also the Mafia and/or FBI. There is evidence that this is a possibility - J. Edgar Hoover was someone that had his position for way too long, and was documented to have abused it several times. Also, JFK was big on ticking off the Mafia, and the Mafia is a huge conspiracy group (they went under the nose of law enforcement for a long time, until those few police officers happened to stumble upon them). There is also some physical evidence that implies that there may have been multiple shooters.

The third is conclusive fact. <Edit> I would say that Kennedy being shot by a firearm to be conclusive fact. (Earlier I said that I would consider Kennedy being shot by Oswald to be fact - but, instead, this would be more befitting)

Now, take all this and apply it to other things.

Then, you have to view the various types of CLAIMS.

A claim is a statement of fact. Let's say there was a theft in my school, and I suspect the janitor...

Should I say, "The janitor is guilty", straight out? I sure as heck hope not! I may very well accuse an innocent man of an action without having any evidence. So if I said that I thought he was guilty, that's speculation.

If I said that I KNEW he was guilty... well, either I'm lying or deluding myself, to put it rudely. To put it less rudely, I'm making a /claim/. I'm claiming a fact based on nothing.

Add in some evidence that points the way, and it becomes a theory. Even as a theory, however, a claim of fact is usually false. You CAN be right, of course - there is a truth in there somewhere. However, just because a man has opportunity or motive doesn't immediately make him 100% guilty and ensure that he committed the act.

Bah, I hope this was coherent and/or correct. If not, I'll just delete the post if I can.

(Edited some content)

__________________
"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right." -- Thomas Paine

Being intelligent is not a felony. But most societies evaluate it as at least a misdemeanor. -- Heinlein

Creationists make it sound as though a "theory" is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. -- Isaac Asimov

Remember, though, in both science and law, there is no fact. In science, things are never "proven"; in law, they're considered proven "beyond a reasonable doubt," which is not intended to be beyond all doubt. (For the record, I think Oswald would definitely have been convicted if he lived, and I think that would have been the right thing.)

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Lonewulf, you might find Kenneth Rahn's page quite interesting. He has a couple of sections devoted to what you mention, including this.

Gillian, you're right. What I SHOULD have said is that it was a fact that Kennedy was shot. There have to be facts, though, in science - the sun rises and sets, that's a fact. Computers turn on when you push the little button, that's a fact. And if it doesn't turn on, there's a problem.

See what I mean? What exactly do you mean by no facts in science?

Thanks for the link, Wolverine. Good to see you weasel-like creatures that are known for visciousness are good for something! (That was a joke on you name, not an insult ) I saved it to favorites and will give it a look-through in a bit.

My post was very much basically an attempt to try to show a lot of the "conspiracy theorists" that come onto here the difference between speculation and claim. A lot of the more annoying types that come here seem to think that if they speculate without fact, that makes it fact based on the fact it was speculated.

__________________
"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right." -- Thomas Paine

Being intelligent is not a felony. But most societies evaluate it as at least a misdemeanor. -- Heinlein

Creationists make it sound as though a "theory" is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. -- Isaac Asimov

Anyone know if Oswalds handgun was definitely
connected to the officer Tippit tragedy? My
old copy of Mark Lanes Rush to Judgement
indicated not. I thought I was going to get a
definite answer to something but no. Ballistics
is supposed to be solid evidence!

Give me a revolver and a file, let me shoot, file, shoot file, etc. You will get different results everytime.

Well, for one thing, the sun doesn't rise and set every day; the Earth revolves around the sun so that the sun appears to rise and set.

In science, there are data. However, nothing is proven, so nothing is considered truly "fact" as most people think of it. It is entirely possible that things will show all our theories wrong. The more data we collect, and the more we refine those theories using that data, the less likely it is that we are wrong, but nothing is truly proven.

(Oh, and yes, the gun Oswald used was connected ballistically to the Tippit shooting. See http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm for more information than you really want about the evidence against Oswald.)

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

The JFK Assassination - Could there be a Conspiracy Involved?

" ----- I say yes, The third is conclusive fact. I would use "Oswald killed Kennedy", but this MAY just still fall under a very strong theory. Nonetheless, it seems to me that the physical evidence all points to Oswald being there, and pulling the trigger -----"-

Common sense demands that Oswald was, as he himself declared, "A Patsy!".

First off, the cached rifle was not good enough to hit the target at that distance.
Secondly, Someone was shooting from the knoll, and what about the bullet on the stretcher?
Thirdly, Oswald was put away to close the case.
Fourthly and lastly, collusion was everywhere evident even where accredited investigators were employed. - I rest my case.

See here for more (emphasis mine):

Not a very good case, composed mostly of unsubstantiated conspiracy theories.

To get back to the original subject, I think you've provided a good example of one of the first two descriptions.

__________________
"I'm as accurate as any psychic. And I'm a cartoon!" -- Squidward

"Arrrgh, the laws of physics be a harsh mistress!" -- Bender

I disagree. It would be most sensible to examine all available evidence on the matter rather than parroting Oswald's own words or the claims of conspiracy theorists. The sum of the best available evidence indicates LHO was the perpetrator.

That's incorrect. See here.

See here and here.

I strongly disagree.

According to whom, and based upon what evidence? It'd be prudent to present a much more cogent case before attempting to rest upon the threadbare assertions presented above.

The Discovery Channel tested Oswald's shot. Luckiest shot in the history of ballistics? Oh, quite possibly, though I suspect the late, lamented Colonel Sedgwick would disagree. However, they managed to reproduce it several times. Using the exact type of gun as Oswald, at the exact distance as Oswald and the exact angle of Oswald. They also recreated the so-called "magic bullet," and yes, it came out looking relatively unscathed.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Well, this has presented quite a bit of interesting facts.

It seems odd to me to claim that data aren't facts, though. I mean, yes, the earth rotates in a way that makes it seem like the sun rises and falls (semantics! Bah!), but nonetheless, isn't that still a "fact" as we know it? It isn't quite a theory. I mean, it might be possible that something might come along and change it, yes - such as a large celestial body hitting our planet and changing the orbit/rotation. Nonetheless, that just means that it's a theory that we'll be keeping this rotation/revolution for a while, but it doesn't change the fact that the earth does indeed rotate in a way that makes sunset/sunrise occur.

Anyways, that's just a nitpick of mine. As for the whole JFK thing, I'm starting to lean more towards lack of conspiracy.

(By the way, read quite a bit of that link you showed me, Wolverine. I liked it, but there's WAY too much to read x.x Gave me a bit of a headache sometimes trying to digest it. Thanks again, though)

__________________
"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right." -- Thomas Paine

Being intelligent is not a felony. But most societies evaluate it as at least a misdemeanor. -- Heinlein

Creationists make it sound as though a "theory" is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. -- Isaac Asimov

A couple of things to chew on. I remember an old CBS real crime program called TOP COPS IIRC. In one episode, a woman was accused of murder. She said that an assailant had shot her husband--the bullet passing through a window.

Shards of glass were found outside the window, on the grass. Cops initially suspected that she had shot her husband from inside, and the bullet travelled through him and hit the window, breaking it inside out.

They were wrong.

One cop shot at a replaced window at a certain angle, and the glass jumped right in his face--even though he was outside.

In the show MONSTER: A PORTRAIT OF STALIN IN BLOOD, we saw the excecutioner behind a prisoner standing in the near end of his own grave that he had just dug. The idea was that the bullet would hit him and he would just fall over like a wooden plank. He arced back from a muscle spasm and the gunmen all but dropped his pistol to catch the corpse as it collapsed about the knees. He pushed with all his might and he still fell into a ball.

The killer actually had to get in the grave with his victim to stretch him out.

Execution is a hard job comrade!

So things don't always work they way you'd think. If the 'other' gunman had been on the Grassy Knoll the exit wound would have been the other side of JFKs head.

I do seem to remember the Cronkite narrated NOVA special that spoke about the dictabell (dictabelt?) and it showed possible paths that lined up if the figures were sitting a certain way. One possible path led to the base of and to one side of the Schoolbook Depository--where no conspiracy theorist had ever made a claim.

If there was a second gunman--he'd have been there.

Look, you really don't need a magic bullet. With the way folks sat, a straight path looks snake-y if you replicate the scene with ramrod straight Buster dummies sitting in too good a posture. If I am bent over, a bullet shot down into me will look different if you plot the same path thru a sitting dummy. It will look like a midget shot from below and behind and the bullet 'rose' up.

Same here.

They also filled a skull full of gel and it lept backwards when hit.

Anyone who plays pool knows that you can hit a ball and make it go anywhere you want it by putting enough english into it.

Dictabelt. It was a recording device on the belt of Dallas police officers. Supposedly, the Dictabelt on the belt of one of the officers in the motorcade was stuck on and recorded the whole thing, which supposedly proved that there were four shots.

However, for a whole huge list of reasons, it didn't.

As for the lining up, sure, if you assume that everyone was sitting straight up and in a straight line facing straight ahead, the path of the bullet had all sorts of weird twists in it. However, if you assume that everyone is sitting the way the Zapruder film shows them sitting, the only thing straight is the path of the bullet.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Thanks Wolverine, that ties up with what I read.
Its all a case of truth being stranger than
fiction sometimes. I sometimes wonder if Dallas
policemen have to move on people with metal
detectors and trowels looking for bullets down
from the picket fence!

Actually it's really not strange. Oswald's revolver was also originally equipped with a 5" barrel which was shortened to 2¼", most likely for ease of concealment. While this combination of factors made a conventional ballistic fingerprint unattainable, the test results were consistent with what would be expected from such a revolver. This minor issue amounts to a red herring, as multiple eyewitnesses were present at the incident and positively identified Oswald as Tippit's killer.

Y'know, talking about how the bullet hit JFK and how JFK jerked forward, this brings up some Bad Movie Physics.

In almost any movie (and according to many individual's "common sense"), a bullet hits a man, and the man flies back. This is especially overdone in things like the movie Sin City (Probably emulating the comic book, and was supposed to be very "pulp" in the first place, so I don't really care in that case). There are many movies where, say, a little 9mm pistol causes a man to fly back into a windowpane, or in some cases, a pool of water.

There's a problem with this: It just doesn't happen in real life! Gun physics are entirely different IRL than in many hollywood movies. In most cases of movement, it has to do with muscle spasms and twitches of pain. In fact, one man used a physics equation to determine the miles per hour movement of a man that would be shot with a Desert Eagle (I'm not sure if it's with it loaded with a .44 or .50 AE round, though, he doesn't specify the round used).

If anyone's interested in the actual work done, I'll try to look at it (it's somewhere in the comic Casey and Andy), but the end result was about .1-.2 MPH, I believe.

I bring this up 'cause a friend of mine is a big guns enthusiast, and we've had rather interesting discussions involving such things.

__________________
"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right." -- Thomas Paine

Being intelligent is not a felony. But most societies evaluate it as at least a misdemeanor. -- Heinlein

Creationists make it sound as though a "theory" is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. -- Isaac Asimov

The MythBusters tested it a while back. Lo and behold, their dead pig just kind of fell down.

Fans complained. No! Surely the test was flawed, and the pig ought to've flown back!

So. They retested on the first episode of the new season. Result? Their crash test dummy just kind of fell down. They cheerfully explained Newtonian physics that proved it impossible.

I'm sure they'll still get com