Você está na página 1de 5

5/7/2015 Applying the Rules of Logic and Probability to the Assassination

Rules of Logic and Probability

Thinking About Conspiracy

The Kennedy assassination is nothing if not a huge intellectual puzzle. Anybody


who wants to solve that puzzle would be well-advised to use the intellectual tools
that have been tried and proven. Unfortunately, conspiracy books often ignore basic
rules of logic and build an edifice of speculation. Yet they can be quite convincing.

Just how do they convince their readers? And how would sound intellectual inquiry
proceed?

Wildly Improbable Coincidences?


Conspiracy books regale their readers with "coincidences" that, the authors imply,
could not really be coincidences at all, but must be the result of some sinister machinations. Are the
"improbable coincidences" that are supposed to be sinister really so improbable and do they really suggest
something sinister?

Too Many Mistaken Witnesses?

Conspiracy books specialize in marshalling eyewitness testimony that supports conspiracy theories. They
parade past readers witnesses who thought the shots in Dealey Plaza came from the Grassy Knoll. They
discuss witnesses who saw Lee Oswald in the company of supposedly sinister people like David Ferrie or
David Atlee Phillips. They recount the testimony of witnesses like Roger Craig who told of all kinds of
sinister events in Dealey Plaza in the wake of the assassination. They can produce a lot of witnesses like
this.

The conspiracy books then ask, rhetorically, "could all of these witnesses have been wrong?"

Just how many witnesses would one expect to be wrong in a very large and very complicated case like
this one?

All Those Sinister Connections?

Conspiracy books specialize in tracing "connections" between people and groups. They can connect just
about everybody they think to be sinister to just about everybody else that they consider sinister. Just how
many "connections" would we be able to find if nothing at all sinister was going on among all these
people? Do the "connections" that conspiracists have uncovered suggest conspiracy, or just the normal
operation of the laws of probability?

How Big a Conspiracy?

Conspiracists seem to like big conspiracies. Such conspiracies allow the theorist to explain away all the
evidence against Lee Oswald. After all, all the witnesses and investigators who produced such evidence
can be branded liars. And big conspiracies are satisfying because they can include all the groups one
happens to dislike.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/logic.htm 1/5
5/7/2015 Applying the Rules of Logic and Probability to the Assassination

But do these theories pass muster as sound historical logic?

Opinions Are Not Evidence


Conspiracy books often quote people with high positions in the U.S. government, right up to and
including President Johnson, who believed there was a conspiracy. Surely these people are "in the know,"
and if they believe in a conspiracy there must have been one, right?

What Scenario Does the Evidence Imply?

In sorting through a huge mass of documents and testimony, the honest researcher is constantly faced
with questions like "is this witness telling the truth?" and "does this incident suggest something sinister
going on?" To evaluate the evidence, one has to ask some critical questions, like "if this witness is telling
the truth, what does it mean?" and "if this incident is really sinister, what does it imply?"

In other words: think scenario.

Quite often, witness testimony can be discarded simply because, if what the witness says is true, it implies
some absurd theory of how conspirators acted.

Double Trouble
One should try to make one's theories fit the data, and one should try to fit all
the data, without selectively ignoring inconvenient things. But it's also the case
that one should not concoct a more elaborate theory to fit data that are erroneous. What happens when
one produces a theory to explain witnesses who happen to be mistaken, documents that contain errors,
and things you just think you see in photographs? You end up with two of everything.

The Truth is in the Documents?

Conspiracists are convinced that the truth is not merely "out there," they are convinced it's in the
documents the massive body of testimony, reports, letters, memoranda and so on that both government
agencies and private investigators have built up over 40 years.

But if one can find a lot of truth in the documents, one can find a huge amount of falsehood too. How
does one sort out the truth and the mistakes, lies, errors, distortions and just plain wacky stuff? Very few
people have looked at more documents than veteran researcher Paul Hoch. In 1993 he spoke at the
Second Annual Midwest Symposium on Assassination Politics in Chicago and shared what nearly three
decades of experience had taught him about reading the primary sources.

Jim Fetzer: Getting it All Wrong

The fellow at right is Prof. James Fetzer, Distinguished McKnight University Professor at the University
of Minnesota, Duluth. Notwithstanding the fact that the Duluth campus should not be confused with the
Tier 1 research university in Minneapolis, this is still a quite respectable academic credential. But where
conspiracies are concerned, Fetzer has some rather odd beliefs.

For example, he recently appeared on "Black Op Radio" to discuss the assassination and related topics.
The following URL will take you to his interview.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/logic.htm 2/5
5/7/2015 Applying the Rules of Logic and Probability to the Assassination

http://www.blackopradio.com/black91a.ram

At about 10:00 into the clip, you can hear Fetzer say that there is
an "awful lot of evidence that throws the whole moon landing
scenario into doubt." That's right, Fetzer thinks whether NASA
landed men on the moon is an open question. The problem with
such theories is obvious, as Fox News columnist Rand Simberg
has pointed out:

Of course, the hardest part of the theory to buy is that


NASA, an organization of thousands of people in a
position to know, and its contractors, were all paid off, or
threatened into never talking about how the lunar landings
were staged. If NASA could actually pull that off, it would
be a greater achievement than landing people on the moon.
This would be one of the biggest stories of the century, but
we're asked to believe that in a government that leaks to the
press like a shotgunned sieve, not only is no one talking, but also that all of the astronauts are
lying as well. None of them will break ranks.

Yet Fetzer touts the "evidence" for a moon landing hoax apparently without even thinking about this
problem.

How Many Shooters in Dealey Plaza


While lone assassin theorists think there was one shooter in Dealey Plaza, and conspiracists usually up
that number to two or three, Fetzer outdoes them all. At about 15:40 in the clip above, he explains that:

. . . we actually know that eight, nine, or ten shots were fired in Dealey Plaza from what appear to have
been six different locations.

How do we "know" this? In Murder in Dealey Plaza Fetzer quotes a photoanalyst in the CIA's National
Photographic Interpretation Center who saw the Zapruder film several times on the weekend of the
assassination. According to Fetzer, he "reported that . . . he had concluded that JFK was hit 6 or 8 times
from at least three directions" (p. 10). How Fetzer upped the ante to eight or ten shots from six locations
is unclear, but he appears to have outdone even Jim Garrison, whose scenario eventually included shots
from five locations.

How any conspiracy would expect that it could have shooters at six different locations and not have a
least one in a location other than the Depository discovered is something Fetzer doesn't bother to explain.

Terrorist Attacks

Fetzer doesn't do any better when he talks about the 9/11 terrorist attacks. He doesn't believe that
American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757, actually hit the Pentagon! Rather, a cruise missle did. Fetzer
discusses this issue at about 17:00 into the audio clip above. He even has an entire page of links to
support his view.

What actually happened to Flight 77 is something Fetzer doesn't explain. And how there just happened to
be five passengers aboard who had terrorist links is also something he doesn't bother to explain, although
one wouldn't be suprised if he claimed that those links were all trumped up. As in the moon landing case,
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/logic.htm 3/5
5/7/2015 Applying the Rules of Logic and Probability to the Assassination

Fetzer doesn't seem deterred by the sheer number of people who would have to be involved in a
"Pentagon attack" conspiracy. He seems to somehow believe that the government can keep any number
quiet.

What about his views on the Kennedy assassination? He's a conspiracist, of course, and endorses the
notion that the Zapruder film was somehow faked, forged, or tampered with. What of all the evidence
against Oswald? In his book Murder in Dealey Plaza he dismisses it by claiming:

A research group . . . has discovered that JFK autopsy X-rays have been fabricated, autopsy
photographs have been distorted or destroyed, the brain seen in official diagrams and
photographs belonged to someone other than JFK, the autopsy report was a sham, and a great
deal of the photographic record, including the Zapruder film of the assassination, has been
edited by means of sophisticated techniques (p. ix).

Just who all had a role in this massive plot? Fetzer is not shy about naming names.

The fabrication of the X-rays, the substitution of someone else's brain, revision of the
autopsy, photographic fakery, and the destruction and alteration of other crucial evidence
including the Presidential Lincoln limousine . . . was carried out by specific individuals who
have specific names, including the autopsy physicians, James J. Humes and J. Thorton
Boswell; John Ebersole, the officer in charge of radiology; Secret Service agents Roy
Kellerman and William Greer, who were in charge of the limousine at the time of the
assassination; and the President's personal physician, Admiral George G. Burkley, among
others; but also unwitting employees of other governmental agencies, including two at the
National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC), Homer McMahon and Bennett Hunter,
who had a film of the crime in their hands the weekend it occurred.

Others at the Pentagon, the CIA, and the FBI may bear greater or lesser degrees of
responsibility for the alteration and destruction of evidence. . . . Others, whose specific
names and specific roles are explained and explored in various of the studies that follow,
however, obviously assumed leading roles in managing the evidence whose alteration and
destruction was ingeniously contrived. If one where to ask why officers of the Navy, agents
of the Secret Service, and other persons associated with the FBI and the CIA should have
assumed such roles, the answer is all too obvious (p. x).

Saying something is "obvious" is a handy way to avoid explaining it, and especially handy if your
explanation wouldn't sound too convincing.

Fetzer then sums up by asserting that all his claims have been solidly proven.

The complicity of medical officers of the United States Navy, agents of the Secret Service,
the President's personal physician, and other representatives of the Pentagon, the FBI, and the
CIA provides powerful evidence that can serve as a premise in the appraisal of alternative
theories about the assassination of JFK (p. 13).

The fact that Fetzer has to posit such a huge conspiracy to suppress, forge and tamper with evidence is an
implicit admission that the case against Oswald is massive. If the Zapruder film shows the back of
Kennedy's head intact (while conspiracists insist that the back was blown out, indicating a shot from the
Grassy Knoll), it must have been tampered with. If the limousine showed only bullet strikes from behind .
. . well, it must have been hit from the front too or they wouldn't have renovated it. If the autopsy photos
and X-rays show Kennedy was hit twice from behind, well then of course they were forged also.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/logic.htm 4/5
5/7/2015 Applying the Rules of Logic and Probability to the Assassination

Any theory must reject some evidence. Lone assassin theorists, for example, reject the testimony of many
witnesses as "mistaken." The question is: how plausible is a particular refusal to accept evidence? Where
witnesses are concerned, the scientific evidence shows that their testimony is unreliable. Further, lone
assassin theorists often reject particular witnesses when they find the majority of witnesses on the other
side of the issue as is the case of the "earwitnesses" in Dealey Plaza. In other cases, they reject witness
testimony when it contradicts photographic evidence as in the case of the claim that a Mauser and not
Oswald's rifle was found on the sixth floor of the Depository, or the claim that the back of Kennedy's
head was blown out.

But just how plausible is it to believe that a conspiracy the size of Fetzer's could function successfully and
keep its work secret for four decades? Americans should ask themselves, "is our government really that
competent, and if so, why haven't we noticed before now?"

Return to Kennedy Assassination Home Page

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/logic.htm 5/5