"What Happened to JFK--and Why it Matters Today"

[Charles Drago]

About the nature of knowledge, in its ordinary sense, knowledge is defined as warranted, true belief. Belief is what we take to be the case. When a belief is true, it is the case. Our only way to judge, however, is on the basis of evidence and logic to determine if the evidence is sufficient to warrant the belief, in which case it may be treated as "knowledge".

Agreed.

Knowledge claims in matters empirical--about the contents and events of the world and its history--are incapable of being known with certainty.

I certainly know that Custer died at Little Bighorn. Please define "certainty."

When we come to discussing aspects of the assassination, including the identities of those seen in photographs taken in the plaza, we are not going to be able to determine their identities with certainty.

This paragraph makes no sense.

This means that empirical knowledge is both fallible (it can still be false, even when we have ample proof that it is true) and tentative (since the discovery of new evidence or alternative hypotheses may require that we revise our conclusions), which are never beyond the possibility of empirical disproof. There is no way around this.

So Custer may not have died at Little Bighorn?

On the other hand, we may be able to rule some identifications out on the basis of known features of those who are involved. That appears to be the case here, when Jack has ruled out the identification of Mainman with Robert Adams on the basis of multiple differences in their features, including the shapes of their heads and distances between their brows.

So is Jack's disqualification of Adams as Mainman "beyond the possibility of empiracal disproof"? Or is it an "ampliative inference"?

Jack's work is empirical and could be mistaken, but I can find no reason to think that is the case.

So that we understand each other: You are NOT arguing: Mainman is not Adams, therefore Mainman is Conein. Am I correct in this assumption?

What those who would deny this inference need is a reasonable alternative explanation.

Agreed: Your Mainman is Conein hypothesis is preferable to the Mainman is Adams hypothesis. It is equally preferable to a Mainman is Mr. Ed hypothesis, isn't it?

It is always possible to hold out for more proof. If there are eight points of similarity in fingerprints, for example, you could hold out for eight more.

I'm assuming that eight points of similarity is the universally accepted standard used to identify fingerprints.

Are there similarly governing standards used to identify facial characteristics? If so, have you used them in a manner consistent with the scientific method to identify Mainman?

If there are major points of comparison between Mainman and Conein, you could hold out for more. But even those who knew him, such as Fletcher Prouty, have concluded that Mainman is Conein. And that they have said their identifications are not certain does not discount them. [emphasis added]

In citing Prouty you may be commiting the fallacy of argument from false authority. I am not all that quick to accept Prouty at his word.

If we are waiting for certainty in matters of this kind, we will be waiting forever. It is not possible for empirical conclusions to enjoy the kind of certainty that deductive arguments possess. We must therefore be very circumspect in dismissing conclusions on the ground that they are not certain. Certainty in cases of this kind is not possible.

Agreed. I simply ask, in relation to the quest to identify Mainman, if all avenues of scientific comparison have been exhausted? Have they? Or is what you're claiming nothing more or less than, "It sure looks like him to me"?

Before I address the possible identities of those at the Ambassador Hotel, I would like to know if there is any serious disagreement with anything I have said here. So far as I can tell, there is nothing wrong with what I have explained. So if there is a disagreement, I would like to know the nature of that disagreement.

Your presentation of baseline principles of logic is, I would concede, without flaw and typically eloquent in its detail and nuance.

My simple bottom line is this: I slowly moved toward the "Major Lopez" discussion/illustration with the hope that a former defender of the Lamp Post man as DSM hypothesis would change his/her mind. Our dear friend Jack has done just that.

What is your opinion on the DSM matter in light of the "Major Lopez" appearance?

This is fun, and I do hope to learn more from you, Jim. The way I figure it, I'm getting world-class tutelage on a 100% scholarship!