Principles of Applied Epistemology (APPLIED EPISTEMOLOGY)

[Mick Harper]

AE's view of Conspiracy Theories is that since thus far none have turned out to be true -- from a statistical sample of zillions -- it is only wise and proper to reject them all without further ado. Nonetheless AE is intensely interested in them for wider sociological and psychological reasons.

One would have thought that the grandaddy of them all, the Kennedy Assassination, would have few legs left by now but not so. A very interesting docco from Channel Five aired last night, view it here:
http://www.channel5.com/shows/jfks-secret-killer-the-evidence
which I found rather convincing [it is important while rejecting all conspiracy theories to be borne along by them].

I won't spoil it immediately in case anyone wants to watch it for themselves but will take up the significance in due course.

[Hatty]

The programme's repeated this Saturday (Channel 5, 20:00) for those who like me couldn't get the link to work.

[Ishmael]

I heard about this weeks ago and my first thought was -- not only that it is true -- but that it explains why the conspiracy theories exist!

I remind you that an AE rule of thumb (one of yours) has it that conspiracy theories cluster around careful ignorals -- or about any place where the official story does not actually align with the facts. Therefore, the very existence of conspiracy theories suggests that the truth remains elusive.

And in this case, I suspect the truth itself was known to early investigators, who chose to cover it up. They covered it up because it made a tragic event all the more horrible. Why cause more pain to others? But that cover-up fed all of the subsequent speculation.

There may be another AE reason for the cover-up as well. But we must give others opportunity to learn the nature of the theory before discussing it further.

[Brian Ambrose]

Thanks for posting this, it's (more) interesting confirmation of a cover up but this documentary's conclusion is completely unbelievable. It fails to address something that we can see with our own eyes: the shot that killed JFK came from the front.

[Mick Harper]

Ooh, grassy knoll. How last millennium.

[Brian Ambrose]

I see what you did there Mick.

Actually, there are at least two things for the eyes to notice about the shot which killed JFK. First, the direction he moves and hence the direction of the bullet - that's one for the six year olds. The second is the direction Jackie moves to retrieve a piece of John's skull. From what direction must the energy have come from to cause bits of his head to end up on the boot?

[Grant]

There is an official explanation for the movement of his head. First, his head and body may have snapped back as a neurological reaction to the bullet. Second, apparently if you fire a rifle bullet at, say, a melon, the juice inside shoots out of the exit hole and this propels the melon backwards.
I must admit, I've always found these explanations struggle against a viewing of the Zapruder film. It seems so obvious that the bullet came from the front, but sometimes the obvious is wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kq1PbgeBoQ4

[Mick Harper]

I stand second to none in my contempt for American piggery but many of them are over six years old. Surely one of them would have noticed that the evidence of where the bullet came from is so clear cut that a conspiracy cover-up to suggest the exact opposite would stand little chance of acceptance.

Obviously they were not to know at the time that any conclusion would have been disbelieved on a routine basis given the nature of the event.

[Ishmael]

[Mick Harper]

There is a well known phrase in Britain "Cock-up or conspiracy?" meaning that when things go seriously awry, the two possibilites are always that somebody made a beeg mistake or something more sinister is going on. In Britain the phrase is always uttered when the assumption is that it is a cock-up, and that only fuitcakes (and Americans) would think 'conspiracy'. (I don't think Americans have the phrase cock-up in their lexicon, at least not in this context.)

The reason I liked this latest Kennedy Assassination Theory [that the actual death-blow was delivered accidentally by a Secret Agent personnel in the car following when reacting to Oswald's two shots] is that this seems to be the first time that cock-up has been followed by conspiracy. Can you imagine the difference in the whole timbre of mourning and the significance given to the event if it had been acknoweldged that Lee Harvey just knicked the president and it was his bodyguard that actually blew the back off the presidential head?

But the second strong point to the theory is that it addresses the key problem of all conspiracy theories which is how come nobody's come along in the intervening years and claimed their million pounds for spilling the beans. If it were genuinely a Secret Service blooper then it might be safely kept in house.

However the chief obstacle to acceptance (and typically not addressed by the programme-makers) is that the chances of a random shot from an accidentally discharged firearm hitting the brain of a nearby president is one in several billion.

[Ishmael]

[Brian Ambrose]

Agreed Mick, but I'd go further than that. We're asked to believe that an experienced elite bodyguard would stand up with a high powered loaded weapon (high enough to clear the windscreen of the car and so completely visible), and aim it, not just at the president's car, but at the president himself, and then flip off the safety catch. That is incredible, but hey, the incredible has happened before. Where it becomes ridiculous is what is supposed to happen next. The other agents, hearing the loud explosion of the gun think, ah, nobody will have noticed that, or videoed it, we're sure to be able to get away with pretending it didn't happen. Heck, we'll go right out on a limb and risk our jobs for a trigger happy bozo who we hardly know.

As for the direction of the fatal bullet, Kennedy's movement is clear enough. But if you really need an expert to tell you the obvious, there's one here:

http://www.mashpedia.com/videoplayer.php?q=wZgDZMiVAT0

[Brian Ambrose]

Can I add that not a single witness reported a gunshot coming from the following car. On the other hand, many witnesses (58 I think it was) heard a shot coming from the area to the right/ahead of Kennedy's car. As an example, on the same day there was an interview of a young family on television who can be clearly seen in photographs and video (lying down, terrified), who were very close - the fatal shot happened right in front of them. The father said the shot 'seemed' to come from behind him (that is, from the 'grassy knoll'). The 'seemed' is intriguing - clearly, he had either heard of, or been told, the official line, which was established very early on.

Any explanation of the evidence must also take into account the high percentage of eye witness testimonies which flatly contradict the official story.

[Mick Harper]

Does anybody know who this Brian Ambrose is?

[Ishmael]