The Power of the Physical Framework
2 March 2000

    Another way to understand the great importance of the suite of strong evidence (physical evidence plus expert interpretation) in the JFK assassination is to consider it to form a "framework" against which all new ideas and evidence may to be judged. Since each piece of  strong evidence begins with a piece of  physical evidence, we can call this construct the "framework of physical evidence." The power of the physical framework is that it provides a scale against which new ideas (such as the ubiquitous "theories") can be judged:

    1. Any idea that is part of the framework is accepted provisionally.
    2. Any idea inconsistent with the framework is unacceptable, i.e., must be rejected.
    3. Any idea not part of the framework but consistent with it is potentially acceptable if supported by strong evidence. Without strong evidence, the idea is strictly speculative.

Thus ideas about the assassination fall into three categories:

    a. "Acceptable" if supported by strong evidence. Synonym is "retainable."
    b. " Unacceptable" if in conflict with strong evidence. Synonym is "rejectable."
    c. "Speculative" if consistent with strong evidence but not directly supported by it. Synonyms are "uncertain" and "undecided.".

Provided that we accept that truth is conjectural (provisional), these labels equate to the familiar "true," "false," and "uncertain." Their legal equivalents are "guilty," "innocent," and "not guilty." [A defendant is charged with a crime. The charge is found to be true (defendant "guilty") or not found to be true (defendant "not guilty"). The law does not find charges to be false (defendant "innocent")].
    It is important to label ideas properly at the beginning of any discussion in order to prevent them from taking on greater legitimacy than they deserve while being discussed. This inadvertent promotion happens often in discussions of the JFK assassination.

The physical framework
    Here is a short version of the physical framework of the JFK assassination:

    1. A maximum of three shots can be proven.
    2. Only two shots hit, both from Oswald's rifle (and the rear).
    3. The first hit passed through both men's bodies (the single-bullet theory).
    4. The second hit entered JFK's head from the rear and exited through the right read half of his head.
    5. Directly or indirectly, the second bullet created JFK's forward and backward motions.
    6. Within minutes after JFK was shot, Oswald left the Depository. Forty-five minutes later, he shot Officer J.D. Tippit in Oak Cliff, near where Oswald roomed.
    7. Two days later, Jack Ruby shot Oswald 75 minutes after Oswald was supposed to have been transferred to the County Jail and four minutes after Ruby left the Western Union office.

Examples of using the physical framework
    Some concrete examples will clarify how to use the physical framework:

    1. Any number of shots beyond three is speculative. Any explanation of the assassination that involves more than three shots becomes speculative on these grounds alone.
    2. More than two shots hitting is unacceptable. Any explanation that includes this idea becomes unacceptable and must be rejected even if everything else about it is acceptable.
    3. A frontal shot hitting is unacceptable. Any explanation with this idea is unacceptable and must be rejected.
    4. Any conspiracy is speculative. Any explanation of the assassination that involves conspiracy is therefore speculative on these grounds alone.
    5. A second or third shooter is speculative. Any explanation that involves multiple shooters is speculative if the additional shooters missed or unacceptable if any of them hit.

    Thus, the great power of the physical evidence is that it forbids ideas in conflict with the physical evidence and allows ideas that do not conflict with it. By contrast, ideas not based on physical evidence forbid almost nothing, i.e., allow almost everything. The property of forbidding is very important because it determines the testability of an idea, which in turn hinges on its forbidding, or its "falsifiability." An idea that cannot be falsified (found to be in conflict with evidence known to be true) is nearly worthless because evidence agreeing with the idea may not be linked to it at all, i.e., may come from some entirely different cause. The way to truly test an idea is to (a) identify some piece of evidence that if found, would invalidate the idea in question, and (b) search for that evidence. If the evidence is found, the ideal is invalidated and must be modified or discarded. If the evidence is not found, the idea remains alive (is retained).
    Consider our physical framework in the light of falsifiability. The framework forbids that any proof of  a frontal shot will ever be found—a very strong statement indeed! (This is equivalent to predicting that no one will ever find proof of a front shot.) On the face of it, this prediction is highly unlikely. But the unlikely prediction has come true—for 36 years, no one has been able to prove that there was a frontal shot or even to find any reasonable evidence for it. 
    The physical framework also forbids there from being more than two shots that hit the men. That is equivalent to predicting that no one will ever prove that additional shots hit. And again, no one in the last 36 years has found any strong evidence of a third or a fourth shot hitting the men—another highly unlikely prediction come true.
    Now consider what the physical framework allows but does not necessarily predict. The framework allows evidence for conspiracy to be found, provided that it does not conflict with any of the physical evidence in the framework. For example, the framework would allow Oswald to be part of a conspiracy provided that it did not involve a frontal shot, a shooter who left any trace of himself. a shooter from the rear who hit with a bullet from a different rifle, or a sponsor who paid Oswald any significant amount of money. Given all the above, does it surprise you that no such conspiracy has been found in 36 years, even after all that huge amount of effort expended by thousands of JFK researchers poring through millions of pages of documents? It shouldn't.
    In summary, the strong physical framework for the JFK assassination, established 36 years ago and hardly altered since then, forbids all sorts of important mattes of conspiracy, none of which have been found, and allows other aspects of conspiracy, none of which have been found, either. The passing of time does matter here, for the more time that passes without the serious and sustained research of JFK conspiracists turning up the slightest strong evidence for even a low-level conspiracy, the less likely it becomes that such conspiracies ever existed. Thus the working hypothesis of nonconspiracy established 36 years ago still stands. Anyone who does not accept this simple historical fact is denying reality.
    Does this mean that conspiracy will never be found? Absolutely not. Does this mean that any realistic chance of finding conspiracy is fading away with each year? Absolutely so.
    Should those who believe in conspiracy continue their efforts to find it? Only if they truly understand the reality and significance of the preceding paragraphs.