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

[James H. Fetzer]

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."

That's a fairly astonishing claim, given your skepticism about even being able to identify those who were photographed in Dealey Plaza. Actually, you not only do not know with certainty that Custer died at Little Big Horn but that you are the biological offspring of your own parents. You might have been adopted, for example. You believe that based upon a variety of evidential indicators, such as your birth certificate, baby book, old photos and other indications that you are who you believe you are -- even though none of this can be known with certainty. For a current example, think about Obama's birth certificate -- a case in which there may be more reason for skepticim than most. We only know what day it is on the basis of reference to calendars, newspapers, television programs and all that, which -- taken together in their totality -- create a coherent set of evidential indicators that support specific beliefs about the date. But, when you stop to consider that this could be an elaborate charade to mislead you -- who knows why? -- you begin to realize that, even though there is every reason to believe it to be true (with a very high probability, if you like), it is still possible -- no matter how remotely -- that you might be the victim of an elaborate hoax. Just because you read it in the newspaper (watched it on television, and so forth) does not guarantee that it is true (think of "Three Shots Fired", images of a plane hitting the South Tower, and so on). None of these things can be known with 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.

Your remark is what makes no sense, given what you have said about their identification in the other post. There you were giving credence to the theory that they might have been in disguises -- even though there is no good reason to think so -- and that, if they were good disguises, we would not be able to detect them! That's a pretty skeptical position that leaves us in a complete state of uncertainty about their identity. So why are you now adopting the position that your own position -- that their identities cannot be known with certainty -- makes no sense?

So Custer may not have died at Little Bighorn?

Are you unfamiliar with the observation that history is a pack of lies that the living play on the dead? I believe that Custer died at Little Big Horn, but I most certainly would not claim to know that with certainty. As I am attempting to explain, in relation to events that occur during the history of the world, the best that we an do is to know them with high probability. Some still believe that Elvis lives or that JFK did not die in Dallas.

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

Falsification only requires establishing key differences in any one respect, while verification implies establishing similarity in every respect. It is only marginally ampliative to infer that they are not alike in certain respects when those respects can be established with -- in this case -- very high probability. The general features of their faces, their supranasal ridges and the directionality of their peaks indicate that they are not the same person -- assuming, of course, that their features have not been altered by the photographic process or otherwie distorted, which is why, even in this case, there is an ampliative dimension and the result is therefore not conclusive in the strict sense, even though it establishes the result beyond reasonable doubt insofar as there appears to be no reasonable alternative explanation

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

Yes, that is correct. I am arguing that the differences between Adams and Mainman are sufficient to disqualify Adams as Mainman -- not with certainty, but with high probability. But insofar as it is the case that the only alternative available is that Mainman is Conein, it is also reasonable to draw the additional inference that Mainman is Conein -- absent a reasonable alternative explanation. That is a second inference from the premise that Mainman is either Adams or Conein but Mainman is not Adams to the conclusion that Mainman is a Conein -- which, as before, cannot be established with certainty but where there appears to be no alternative reasonable 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?

Not just "equally", but overwhelmingly, since there seems to be no resemblance relationship between Mainman and Mr. Ed, unlike the case of Adams -- unless we notice that they are both animals, both mammals, and such. But Mr. Ed is even more obviously not Mainman.

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?

Actually, I made an educated guess, which we can pursue. Even the FBI exaggerates the certainty of its results: "Fingerprint Identification is the method of identification using the impressions made by the minute ridge formations or patterns found on the fingertips. No two persons have exactly the same arrangement of ridge patterns, and the patterns of any one individual remain unchanged throughout life. Fingerprints offer an infallible means of personal identification." Consider the case of those who create latex false-fingerprints, as we find portrayed in various motion pictures. They are not "infallible", but yield results that are highly probable. Infallibility is no more attainable in relation to fingerprints than certainty in identification is possible with regard to photographs. Since each of us has a different face, however -- with the exception of identical twins -- the greater the similarity in facial features, the greater the probability they are faces of the same person -- absent rather extraordinary circumstances, such as we encounter in "Face Off", where two characters actually have an exchange of their physical faces.

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.

No. You commit a blunder in logic. There are two kinds of appeals to authority, only one of which is fallacious. Appealing to Einstein in matter of physics is non-fallacious, since Einstein is an expert on physics. Appealing to Einstein on matters of religion, however, would be a fallacious appeal, since Einstein is not an expert on religion. Given that Fletcher Prouty had worked with and knew Lucien Conein, appealing to his opinion is non-fallacious -- just as appealing to Bradley Ayers or to Wayne Smith's opinions about the men at the Ambassador is non-fallacious, for that matter.

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"?

Well, it's more than that. Jack has found that the general features of Adams and of Mainman are not the same: where Adams has a long face, long chin, and left ear top-in, while Mainman has a square face, short chin, and left ear top-out. Conein, likewise, has a square face, short chin, and left ear top-out.

This already excludes Adams as Mainman with high probability. Jack has also established the hairline peaks do not match, since Adam's peak is an odd shape and does not point to his nose. Conein's peak points to his nose, but he seems to have more hair than Mainmain. Adams' left ear does not flare out at the top, but Mainman and Conein's left ears flare out.

He finds it unlikely that Mainman is Adams, but leaves it open whether or not Conein is Mainman. In addition, Jack reports that the suprarnasal ridge of Adams is about twice as wide as on Mainman and that his left ear is vertical, while Mainman has a left ear that flares out the the top. Adams has wide flaring nostrils, while Mainman does not.

All of this excludes Adams as Mainman with very high probability. It does not prove that Conein is Mainman, but the similarities are striking -- and even Fletcher Prouty thought Mainman was Conein. Absent an alternative explanation, the identification of Mainman as Conein appears to be highly likely, especially in the absence of an alternative explanation. But this is not a matter where we can establish conclusions with certainty!

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.

Well, do we agree up to this point? I believe that Lamppostman is David Sanchez Morales, but I am willing to postpone that discussion for another time. Would you now agree with my reasoning about Mainman as I have presented it here? That would give me confidence that we are making progress. We can take up the Ambassador and Lampost issues shortly.

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!

Well, I appreciate those kind sentiments. Let's see how you do on the exam!