(PART 479)


Occam's Razor has about as much to do with the JFK Assassination as the mating habits of pygmies.



The "Occam's" theory can apply to anything in life...even political assassinations. The principle espoused by William of Occam is a sound one, and is rooted in basic common sense (therefore, it's not going to be to the liking of conspiracy-loving kooks):

"Occam's razor: a scientific and philosophic rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities." -- Merriam-Webster OnLine Dictionary

Let's take the above Occam's principle and apply it to just one part of the JFK murder case -- the Single-Bullet Theory:

Is it reasonable to think that ONE bullet sliced through both John Kennedy and John Connally on Elm Street?

Or is it MORE reasonable to believe that THREE separate bullets entered the two victims on Elm (as almost all conspiracy theorists do believe, since those CTers want to believe that JFK's throat wound was caused by a bullet entering his neck from the front)....with those three bullets (just by chance) entering the two victims in just such a way so that a SINGLE-bullet theory could be postulated by the U.S. Government after the assassination? (Not to mention how all three of those bullets vanished off the planet immediately after the shooting as well [via the theory that has CE399 being a fake bullet that never touched any victim on Nov. 22, which is a theory endorsed by almost all CTers of the world].)

In other words....

Is it more reasonable to accept "the simplest of competing theories" (i.e., the SBT)?

Or is it more reasonable to believe that three (disappearing!) bullets really did the damage to JFK & JBC, instead of just the one bullet?

Food for Occam's thought.

David Von Pein
April 4, 2009