Do you know who killed Kennedy?

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Epistemology
  3. » Do you know who killed Kennedy?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

hue-man
 
Reply Mon 1 Feb, 2010 01:31 pm
This isn't a post about JFK conspiracy theories. This post is about the nature of knowledge in the case of JFK's assassination. It is officially claimed that Oswald killed Kennedy with his rifle from the Texas School Book Depository. Do the officials making this claim know that Oswald shot Kennedy or is strictly a matter of belief? They found Oswald's rifle on the sixth floor of the building. Ballistics tests prove that Oswald could have pulled off all three shots in the amount of time necessary. Everything implies that Oswald was more than likely to be the shooter, but wouldn't saying that we know Oswald killed Kennedy preclude that it couldn't have been done by anyone else? Is this a matter of belief or can it be positively verified?
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Mon 1 Feb, 2010 01:51 pm
@hue-man,
hue-man;124153 wrote:
This isn't a post about JFK conspiracy theories. This post is about the nature of knowledge in the case of JFK's assassination. It is officially claimed that Oswald killed Kennedy with his rifle from the Texas School Book Depository. Do the officials making this claim know that Oswald shot Kennedy or is strictly a matter of belief? They found Oswald's rifle on the sixth floor of the building. Ballistics tests prove that Oswald could have pulled off all three shots in the amount of time necessary. Everything implies that Oswald was more than likely to be the shooter, but wouldn't saying that we know Oswald killed Kennedy preclude that it couldn't have been done by anyone else? Is this a matter of belief or can it be positively verified?


What do you mean "positively verified"? Are you asking can we know with absolute certainty if Oswald killed Kennedy? No, but we can't be absolutely certain about anything. What does that matter though? As reasonable people, we have to go with the evidence. The evidence points to Oswald, and it's silly to doubt this theory supported by evidence simply because there may be a chance it is wrong. You need a better reason to doubt this theory, namely a better theory with more conclusive evidence.
 
hue-man
 
Reply Mon 1 Feb, 2010 02:02 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;124162 wrote:
What do you mean "positively verified"? Are you asking can we know with absolute certainty if Oswald killed Kennedy? No, but we can't be absolutely certain about anything. What does that matter though? As reasonable people, we have to go with the evidence. The evidence points to Oswald, and it's silly to doubt this theory supported by evidence simply because there may be a chance it is wrong. You need a better reason to doubt this theory, namely a better theory with more conclusive evidence.


I don't believe in absolute certainty but I believe in practical certainty. What I mean is can we be practically certain (i.e. know) that Oswald killed Kennedy? In other words, can this theory be logically refuted without resorting to infinite skepticism?
 
Deckard
 
Reply Mon 1 Feb, 2010 02:09 pm
@Zetherin,
It seems that this question could be generalized to any police investigation or court case. What are the criteria of evidence? What is reasonable doubt? I don't accept the official story but I'm not much of an JFK assassination buff but if I was that is how I would address this question.

Here's another mystery: We still don't know who killed Nicole Brown Simpson. How does OJ's innocence compare to Oswald's guilt?
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Mon 1 Feb, 2010 02:47 pm
@hue-man,
hue-man;124165 wrote:
I don't believe in absolute certainty but I believe in practical certainty. What I mean is can we be practically certain (i.e. know) that Oswald killed Kennedy?


That's right. We can be practically certain (I suppose you just mean very certain, while acknowledging that humans are fallible) that Oswald killed Kennedy.

Quote:

In other words, can this theory be logically refuted without resorting to infinite skepticism?


Yes, the person refuting would have to provide a good argument for believing that the evidence presented does not support the case. No need for infinite regression, or infinite skepticism as you call it (that skeptic, by the way, would be being unreasonable).
 
hue-man
 
Reply Mon 1 Feb, 2010 03:35 pm
@Deckard,
Deckard;124169 wrote:
We still don't know who killed Nicole Brown Simpson. How does OJ's innocence compare to Oswald's guilt?


That's a good question. I'm not sure if I can say that I know OJ killed Nicole Brown Simpson, but I believe he did. I think there's more evidence for the guilt of Oswald than for the guilt of O.J. Both questions seem to bowl down to logical probability.
 
Pyrrho
 
Reply Mon 1 Feb, 2010 05:57 pm
@hue-man,
hue-man;124165 wrote:
I don't believe in absolute certainty but I believe in practical certainty. What I mean is can we be practically certain (i.e. know) that Oswald killed Kennedy? In other words, can this theory be logically refuted without resorting to infinite skepticism?


It is well established that Oswald killed Kennedy. I saw an interesting show on PBS about it many years ago which examined the various popular conspiracy theories (I think it was Nova, which had a show about this in 1988 according to various web sites, but that makes it too old to be on Nova's web site, which only goes back to 1996). It is known beyond a reasonable doubt that Oswald killed Kennedy.

Though the Nova episode is too old to be online, there is other information which should be reliable that you can read about here:

frontline: who was lee harvey oswald? | PBS

You can read the transcript of the Frontline on Oswald at:

frontline: who was lee harvey oswald?: transcript | PBS
 
Krumple
 
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2010 07:22 am
@hue-man,
Well I am not a fan of conspiracy theories and instead of getting caught up in the story they create it points out something else to me. If the government didn't do so many secretive or under minded things people could trust the government more. So by their own behavior conspiracy theories thrive in that sort of environment.
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Fri 26 Feb, 2010 04:57 am
@hue-man,
hue-man;124153 wrote:
This isn't a post about JFK conspiracy theories. This post is about the nature of knowledge in the case of JFK's assassination. It is officially claimed that Oswald killed Kennedy with his rifle from the Texas School Book Depository. Do the officials making this claim know that Oswald shot Kennedy or is strictly a matter of belief? They found Oswald's rifle on the sixth floor of the building. Ballistics tests prove that Oswald could have pulled off all three shots in the amount of time necessary. Everything implies that Oswald was more than likely to be the shooter, but wouldn't saying that we know Oswald killed Kennedy preclude that it couldn't have been done by anyone else? Is this a matter of belief or can it be positively verified?
? Laughing

Thought ballistic evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt, that Oswald could never pulled off that murder.

1) the amount of shots in that short amount of time.

2) ballistics clearly shows that entry and exit wounds are from different angels not correnspondend with his elevated position.

3) a poor quality rifle couldn't have done the deed.

4) Oswald himself wasn't such skilled shooter.
 
Minimal
 
Reply Sat 27 Feb, 2010 07:10 pm
@hue-man,
hue-man;124153 wrote:
This isn't a post about JFK conspiracy theories. This post is about the nature of knowledge in the case of JFK's assassination. It is officially claimed that Oswald killed Kennedy with his rifle from the Texas School Book Depository. Do the officials making this claim know that Oswald shot Kennedy or is strictly a matter of belief? They found Oswald's rifle on the sixth floor of the building. Ballistics tests prove that Oswald could have pulled off all three shots in the amount of time necessary. Everything implies that Oswald was more than likely to be the shooter, but wouldn't saying that we know Oswald killed Kennedy preclude that it couldn't have been done by anyone else? Is this a matter of belief or can it be positively verified?


This is not stictly "a matter of belief" as tangible evidence supposedly supports the conclusion. A belief is defined as "any cognitive content defined to be true". That seems a tad too broad to be useful in this discussion.

From the position you are arguing from it appears you wish to state:


  1. We can only inductively prove something - that is correlation. There is no certainty but there is probable reasoning for asserting X. Deductive reasoning would assert certainty. Although the two complement and therefore there is a blurred line.
  2. You view knowledge from a falibilistic perspective, that is relating to falibilism - potentially everything could be incorrect/erroneous/mistaken. Nothing is "sacred" so to speak.


I can agree with healthy scepticism and proving high correlation (probability) without certainty, but "belief" is a very general word in this context of discussion.

- Minimal.
 
hue-man
 
Reply Sun 28 Feb, 2010 06:49 pm
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;132773 wrote:
? Laughing

Thought ballistic evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt, that Oswald could never pulled off that murder.

1) the amount of shots in that short amount of time.

2) ballistics clearly shows that entry and exit wounds are from different angels not correnspondend with his elevated position.

3) a poor quality rifle couldn't have done the deed.

4) Oswald himself wasn't such skilled shooter.


Actually there was a program on the discovery channel that disproved the claim that Ozwald couldn't have pulled off the assassination.
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Mon 1 Mar, 2010 02:22 am
@hue-man,
hue-man;133680 wrote:
Actually there was a program on the discovery channel that disproved the claim that Ozwald couldn't have pulled off the assassination.
Usually Dicovery Channel shows programs that are con and pro a major issue.

Unfortunaly the quality of the programs isn't always of high quality, nor very sientific.
 
William
 
Reply Mon 1 Mar, 2010 03:49 am
@hue-man,
There are many theories. "The Man Who Knew Too Much" is one. At this point in time it is reasonable to assume we will never know the truth about who killed this man and why. More importantly we perhaps shouldn't know. He was opposed to Viet Nam, wanted to end the Fed.. There are powers behind those that it could be inconceivable as to what "they" are capable of. For something to have the theories this event does means there are an enormous amounts of inconsistencies. Personally? I have my thoughts just as anyone else and I think Viet Nam was a "Wag the Dog" fiasco and his desire to eliminate the Fed had a lot to do with his demise. Viet Nam was to insure we remained dependent/enslaved by the Fed. In other words being dependent on it enabled us to fight that useless war. Much like what the depression accomplished in forcing us to engage in what was going on in Europe that led to WWII. There are many similarities in the two atrocities. My thoughts.

William
 
hue-man
 
Reply Mon 1 Mar, 2010 09:10 am
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;133958 wrote:
Usually Dicovery Channel shows programs that are con and pro a major issue.

Unfortunaly the quality of the programs isn't always of high quality, nor very sientific.


The program was actually of very high quality. The used forensic experts and reenacted the whole assassination.
 
Pyrrho
 
Reply Mon 1 Mar, 2010 09:21 am
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;132773 wrote:
? Laughing

Thought ballistic evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt, that Oswald could never pulled off that murder.

1) the amount of shots in that short amount of time.

2) ballistics clearly shows that entry and exit wounds are from different angels not correnspondend with his elevated position.

3) a poor quality rifle couldn't have done the deed.

4) Oswald himself wasn't such skilled shooter.


HexHammer;133958 wrote:
Usually Dicovery Channel shows programs that are con and pro a major issue.

Unfortunaly the quality of the programs isn't always of high quality, nor very sientific.


With your "Laughing" in your initial post, I thought you were joking, but you appear to be serious. You might want to look above, at post 7. There is little doubt that Oswald shot Kennedy. Why he did it, and whether anyone helped him prepare, are other matters, but there is no evidence that anyone else shot Kennedy. But, of course, those who are determined to believe in conspiracy theories are generally quite willing to ignore evidence, and to twist other evidence to fit with their imagination.
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Mon 1 Mar, 2010 12:15 pm
@Pyrrho,
Pyrrho;134082 wrote:
With your "Laughing" in your initial post, I thought you were joking, but you appear to be serious. You might want to look above, at post 7. There is little doubt that Oswald shot Kennedy. Why he did it, and whether anyone helped him prepare, are other matters, but there is no evidence that anyone else shot Kennedy. But, of course, those who are determined to believe in conspiracy theories are generally quite willing to ignore evidence, and to twist other evidence to fit with their imagination.
Then please disprove my claim, with all your "evidence".
 
Krumple
 
Reply Mon 1 Mar, 2010 02:16 pm
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;134147 wrote:
Then please disprove my claim, with all your "evidence".


I thought you were joking in your initial post as well... Oh man now you are calling him out on evidence? Are you serious? I'm laughing and reminded how certain posts make me feel ashamed to be classified as the same species as the poster.
 
Theaetetus
 
Reply Mon 1 Mar, 2010 03:33 pm
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;134147 wrote:
Then please disprove my claim, with all your "evidence".


In order for some one to "disprove" your claim, you should probably state an argument first, and then add some credible evidence. It is generally accepted as a fact that Oswald assassinated JFK. Thus, the ball is in your court to provide an argument why this is not the case.
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Mon 1 Mar, 2010 03:38 pm
@Theaetetus,
Theaetetus;134193 wrote:
In order for some one to "disprove" your claim, you should probably state an argument first, and then add some credible evidence.
I did? Go a page back.
 
Theaetetus
 
Reply Mon 1 Mar, 2010 04:15 pm
@hue-man,
That is not an argument. It is a series of statement of "facts." Your argument would attempt to persuade the reader by offering reasonable evidence that supports your argument, which then we would either accept or formulate a counterargument.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Epistemology
  3. » Do you know who killed Kennedy?
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 03/23/2019 at 05:25:10