11-05-2018, 12:51 AM
I think the question was, can we just use pure reasoning to decide whether Tippit was supposed to kill Oswald, (but things went wrong), or whether Oswald was supposed to be taken alive at the Texas Theater as part of the plan.
This led to whether it's possible to discern the plotters through the use of pure reason. I think that some people think that the "SPONSORS" can never be identified because there never will be any smoking gun or forensic evidence. Do the SPONSORS deserve the presumption of innocence? Can Oswald's and Tippit's actions be analyzed using Occam's Razor?
And this led to Occam's razor and whether the involvement of people like George HW Bush can be proven by inferences and the use of Occam's razor.
The basic question is whether the plot can be put together, (even up to the level of Prescott Bush) by purely circumstantial evidence and/or using Occam's razor and similar analysis?
That' my best shot. By the way, the hour-long summary of JFK's foreign policy by Jim Di Eugenio was very enlightening. Many thanks to those who took the trouble to make it available.
James Lateer
This led to whether it's possible to discern the plotters through the use of pure reason. I think that some people think that the "SPONSORS" can never be identified because there never will be any smoking gun or forensic evidence. Do the SPONSORS deserve the presumption of innocence? Can Oswald's and Tippit's actions be analyzed using Occam's Razor?
And this led to Occam's razor and whether the involvement of people like George HW Bush can be proven by inferences and the use of Occam's razor.
The basic question is whether the plot can be put together, (even up to the level of Prescott Bush) by purely circumstantial evidence and/or using Occam's razor and similar analysis?
That' my best shot. By the way, the hour-long summary of JFK's foreign policy by Jim Di Eugenio was very enlightening. Many thanks to those who took the trouble to make it available.
James Lateer