Whose predictions have come true?
16 April 2000

    One of the classical ways of evaluating a scientific theory is to see whether it correctly predicts other things that are true or eventually discovered to be true. Difficult or improbable predictions count far more than easy predictions do. A well-known example of a difficult prediction was Einstein's that light waves are bent by massive objects like stars. When this deflection was first observed, it represented a triumph for the theory of relativity. All theories, which are generalizations or extensions from known areas into unknown, predict things. It is very instructive to compare the levels of prediction by the various "theories" in the JFK case.
    But first a word about the meaning of "theory."  Science reserves "theory" for an idea that has survived initial levels of testing and has emerged as a serious contender for "truth." The idea begins as a mere hypothesis, often one among many that seek to explain a set of observations. The hypothesis must beat out the others and be accepted as the "working hypothesis." Then it must be tested as rigorously as possible, maybe many times, and refined repeatedly. Only after the working hypothesis has passed all known tests is it accorded the elevated status of "theory."
    Viewed in this light, there is only one theory in the JFK assassination—the idea of a lone gunman. Not only has this explanation been tested severely, repeatedly, and continuously over the last 36 years, but it has survived that ordeal handily. (Here we define "surviving" operationally, as remaining consistent with all the validated physical evidence—the "strong" evidence that we make so much of in this course.) No such thing can be said for the conspiracy theories, however. Not one of them has survived the same test, for not one is consistent with the same physical evidence that nonconspiracy is. At best, the conspiracies that have been proposed are first-generation hypotheses, or just "hypotheses" for short. They failed to make the cut in that first round that nonconspiracy passed with ease. So we should never speak of the "Cuban theory," for example, or the  "Mafia theory"—they are the "Cuban hypothesis" and the "Mafia hypothesis" that coexist with the "nonconspiracy theory."
   Let us compare the major predictions of each conspiracy hypothesis with those of the nonconspiracy theory and see how they do. Generically, each conspiracy hypothesis predicts that evidence will be found (sooner or later) to "prove" it true (strictly speaking, evidence that will support the hypothesis). Since only one explanation for the assassination can be true, the conspiracy hypotheses are also implicitly predicting that all other explanations will be found to be inconsistent with the evidence, i.e., that they will be falsified. As we have seen abundantly, the evidence for both these predictions must be physical and validated in order for "proof" and "disproof" to have any meaning. So the conspiracy hypotheses predict that they will ultimately be supported by strong physical evidence and that the other explanations will be falsified in the same way.
    How do the conspiracy hypotheses do? The answer is very similar to the one for the question as to why, 36 years and multiple investigations after the assassination, none of the many conspiracy hypotheses has edged out the others. None has emerged because none of them have evidence enough to beat out the others, which is a polite way of saying that none are consistent with the physical evidence. So with respect to the first prediction, not one of the conspiracy hypotheses has yet found the necessary physical evidence to support itself. Worse, most of these hypotheses are inconsistent with some of the physical evidence. In other words, the conspiracy hypotheses fail their first predictive test. With respect to their second prediction, that all the other explanations will be falsified by physical evidence, the conspiracy hypotheses fail as well, for the major reason that the nonconspiracy theory is consistent with all physical evidence. Thus the conspiracy hypotheses fail both their predictive tests.
    How does the nonconspiracy theory do? It passes both tests. Its prediction that it will be supported by all physical evidence is borne out in abundance. Similarly, its prediction that the conspiracy hypotheses will either not be supported or will be falsified outright has also come true. To make matters stronger, note that this situation has held for the last 36 years—from the moment that the physical evidence was in, which was virtually within 24 hours of the assassination, nonconspiracy was predicting correctly and conspiracy was predicting incorrectly. Nothing about these predictions has changed in 36 years. Now, 36 years is not the end of time, but it is effectively very close to it, given that in that period there have been two huge governmental investigations and a few smaller ones, one massive release of documents, and the continuous intensive efforts of hundreds to thousands of committed citizens. Every day that passes, the probability declines that anything significant remains to be found. The handwriting on the wall is becoming ever clearer, but will the people ever see it?