Single Bullet Theory

[Brown]

I don't necessarily disagree with you, Claus, but I should add one more point. Occam's Razor is more of a starting point than an ending point. Sometimes the more complex answer is indeed the correct one, and the simpler one is not.

My contention is that the multiple-shooter scenario is more complex than the single-shooter scenario, by far. That doesn't mean that the multiple-shooter scenario is necessarily wrong and that the single-shooter scenario is necessarily right; it merely means that the multiple shooter scenario requires a lot more evidence and explanation than has been offered.

You are quite right that when some folks are asked to explain some of the basics of their multiple-shooter scenario, they tend to obfuscate rather than clarify.

 

[Bikewer]

There was a lot of talk from witnesses about hearing shots from the direction of the "grassy knoll", which became famous subsequently.

As I recall, the plaza area is an acoustic nightmare, with numerous hard building surfaces for sound to bounce off of.

Even the acoustic sampling taken from the dispatcher-recording of a motorcycle officer's open mike were inconclusive as to number of shots for that reason.

Even in a relatively open area, it can be very difficult to locate a shooter by sound alone, as anyone with military experience (or hunting!) will attest.

 

[FreeChile]

Well, I'd say that proving the one bullet theory is possible is pretty important. After all, the conspiracy crowd has been telling us this "magic bullet" was impossilbe for years now. This is the second time I've seen it demonstrated (though the first time I've heard of it done with live ammo). Nova on PBS also showed that there was no need to resort to magic to explain the multiple wounds.
Actually, we'd be in "pseudoscience land" if we were to dismiss the one-bullet-theory based on the fact that it may be improbable (which, frankly, I don't agree with. I think it very probable that one bullet could do this). Improbable things happen every day, and it only had to happen once.

The reason why people frown at the whole magic bullet explanation is because, unlike you, they think it improbable and this gives rise to the conspiracy theories.

As far as probabilities are concerned, there should be no thinking involved. Events have probabilities. What I am asking is simply for the experiment to be conducted a significant number of times under realistic circumstances and for the results to be recorded and published. What percentage of the results acted in what way? Of course, both the believers and non-believers would have to agree as to what constitutes a hit and a miss.

And preferably, the testing should be double-blind.

Aren't these the basic things that we ask of the paranormal and pseudo-science community?

 

[Rob Lister]

What I am asking is simply for the experiment to be conducted a significant number of times under realistic circumstances and for the results to be recorded and published.

Feel free to conduct the experiments. No one is trying to stop you. If you think it is worthwhile, do it. If you don't have the resources to do it yourself then convince others that have the resources to do it. My bet is that nobody that is actually interested in "The Truth" cares enough to donate a single dime. I could be wrong though.

Looking forward to your results.

 

[Brown]

Even the acoustic sampling taken from the dispatcher-recording of a motorcycle officer's open mike were inconclusive as to number of shots for that reason.

"Inconclusive" is a polite way to put it. "Almost certainly worthless" would be more accurate.

Among other problems:
The recording fails to include several sounds that were known to have occured at the time of or shortly after the shooting;
The recording includes sounds that were known NOT to have occurred at the time of the shooting;
The original timing of the "shots" did not come close to the timing shown by the photographic evidence, so the timing of the "shots" was adjusted so that it would "fit"; and
The officer who supposedly made the recording was not where the acoustics evidence said he was, which is fatal to the validity of the evidence.

 

[joesixpack]

As far as probabilities are concerned, there should be no thinking involved. Events have probabilities. What I am asking is simply for the experiment to be conducted a significant number of times under realistic circumstances and for the results to be recorded and published. What percentage of the results acted in what way?

The problem with this argument is that it assumes that a high probability against an event occuring means that it probably didn't happen. That same logic would dictate that the winning lottery numbers didn't actually come up because after several hundred tries we couldn't get those same numbers to come up a second time.
And by realistic circumstances, do you mean on a moving vehicle? Even worse logic. If some nut case fired a high powered rifle into a crowd of people and more than one person were struck by the bullet, there is no way in hell you could re-create that bullet's path by trying to re-enact the crime. Would the unlikelyhood of repeating that particular set of bullet wounds mean that there may have been a second gun-man?

 

[FreeChile]

Feel free to conduct the experiments. No one is trying to stop you. If you think it is worthwhile, do it. If you don't have the resources to do it yourself then convince others that have the resources to do it. My bet is that nobody that is actually interested in "The Truth" cares enough to donate a single dime. I could be wrong though.

Looking forward to your results.

No thanks. I'm doing more than my share by pointing out an inconsistency. I have no inclination here other than the logic there.

The burden-of-proof is on those making statements one way or the other.

 

[FreeChile]

Originally posted by joesixpack
The problem with this argument is that it assumes that a high probability against an event occurring means that it probably didn't happen.

You present a distorted definition of probability here. Isn’t this the definition of “probable” (supported by evidence strong enough to establish presumption but not proof)? In any case, I don’t see how this is a problem. Could you be confusing probability with fact? A probability is a number between 0 and 1, and it is sometimes represented as a percentage. So you have made an assumption, not I.

That same logic would dictate that the winning lottery numbers didn't actually come up because after several hundred tries we couldn't get those same numbers to come up a second time.

Why did you change the sentence in this case? In your problem statement you said, “Probably didn’t” and in this one you said, “didn’t actually”?

The occurrence of a past event is not a probability. It is a fact—assuming there is a memory of it. Once you establish something as fact, you leave the realm of probabilities. You cannot even say it has a probability of 1. The rickochet bullet has not been established as fact. So it is subject to testing and statistical analysis.

What I can tell you about the lottery is the probability that a particular number will come out, given the permutations or combinations. And if we did not know if a particular number came out, we could calculate the probability that it did in the same fashion.

And by realistic circumstances, do you mean on a moving vehicle?

Good idea--something akin to what we do with dummies to crash test cars. This would be one way to present a more realistic case. Another way is for the gunman to move instead of the target. However, what constitutes a realistic circumstance would need to be negotiated by the debaters, or dictated by logic and arguments.

Even worse logic. If some nut case fired a high powered rifle into a crowd of people and more than one person were struck by the bullet, there is no way in hell you could re-create that bullet's path by trying to re-enact the crime.

If noone survived to tell the story and the videos or records cannot shed light into what happened, any guess is as good, until they are subjected to examination. To support some of the theories, you could rely on approximations.

Would the unlikelihood of repeating that particular set of bullet wounds mean that there may have been a second gun-man?

No. It also does not prove that the event happened any other way.

In the language of probabilities, these would be two independent events, which also happen to be two competing theories. After some statistical analysis of both, we can better choose the one that is most probable.

 

[grunion]

I don't mean to nit-pick, but that quote mentions nothing about "multiple gunmen", only conspiracy. They are not the same.
<snip>
Do you have it on good authority what the government commission's motives were?

Well, I can only go by the documentary evidence that is available to me over the Internet or other sources, but I'm sure there has been much written on the subject. I found this quote by Attorney General Nicolas Katzenback three days after the assassination, purportedly from a memo that led to the formation of the Warren Commission:
The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and that the evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial.

I'd also draw attention to the excellent article by Max Holland called "Making Sense Of The Assassination." In a compelling case against the conspiracy theorists in academia he paints a rather clear picture of the Cold War agenda at play in the founding and methods of the commission, especially with regard to the CIA coverup of evidence with regard to Oswald's motives.

I also read elsewhere that prior to the release of the Warren Commission Report, a Gallup poll found that 29 percent of Americans thought Oswald acted alone, while 52 percent believed in some kind of conspiracy. One might argue with the Gallup methodology but I think one would be incorrect to think that there wasn't widespread concern of a conspiracy in the days and weeks following the assassination. So do I have their motives on "good authority?" No, I do not believe in mind reading. But I believe the commission's motives can easily be construed to include what I mentioned. The fact that they relied largely on the FBI investigators' reports also lends some validity to charges of bias in the commission's findings. Unless you can convince me that the FBI was also unencumbered by Cold War agendas in their pursuit of the truth. Not bloody likely.

 

[joesixpack]

I don’t see how this is a problem. Could you be confusing probability with fact? A probability is a number between 0 and 1, and it is sometimes represented as a percentage. So you have made an assumption, not I.

FreeChili, I must be misunderstanding you completely here. It seems like you're suggesting that this "single bullet" theory should be (hypotheticaly) put to the test through multiple trials with a single gunman and a moving target to simmulate the conditions of the actual assasination. Through this we would be able to determine the likelyhood of this set of bullet wounds occuring with one shooter. This probability would then give us some idea how strong a case can be made either FOR or AGAINST the "lone gun-man" theory.

Am I understanding this correctly?

 

[Bikewer]

Perhaps my memory is foggy, but I believe this was done, and on more than one occasion. I seem to recall some Marine sharpshooters initially having difficulty, due to the extremely poor Carcano rifle that was provided, but that subsequent attempts were easily able to duplicate the 3 shots in the given time-frame.

 

[Garrette]

This site

does a nice job of explaining why the magic bullet was not magical after all while simultaneously pointing out what the conspiracy theorists usually do not tell you.