[Ben Holmes]

There's a certain troll over on the Amazon forums who constantly refuses to talk about the evidence, but frequently refers to a mysterious “methodology” that critics need to use. (Meanwhile, refusing to define this “methodology”.)

So it's time to post a SPECIFIC “methodology” that can be used to learn about this case.

Today, I can create an experiment and test the hypothesis that water boils at 212 degrees Fahrenheit, and look at the effect on the boiling point of altitude above sea level.

And that experiment would be repeatable by anyone wishing to judge the credibility of my hypothesis and it's findings.

But this isn't possible when dealing with historical events. We have no time machine, and cannot go back in time to gather any more information than we currently have, nor can we manipulate any variables and conduct experiments to establish cause and effect.

What historians do is gather the evidence they can, make judgments about the credibility and reliability of that evidence, then they present an argument defining the best explanation that fits that evidence.

One example that's been given is to observe the fact that the grass is wet.

Now, one explanation would be that it recently rained. Such an explanation might well be true, but we need more facts before we can confidently assert that the grass is wet because of rain.

Let's further propose the fact that the sidewalk a few feet away from the grass was dry. From our experience, we know that rain would not fall within such a strict boundary – so the explanation of rain fails as the best explanation...

The explanation that would best fit those two facts would be a lawn sprinkler system. And even though there's no flow of water currently – and no way to go back in time to view just what made the grass wet, and no witnesses who saw the grass in the process of getting wet... the inference of a working lawn sprinkler system fits the evidence far better than a rainstorm.

So the methodology is clear... we gather the facts, weigh them to determine reliability and credibility, then propose a theory that best fits those facts.

So let's list some facts that no believer is credibly capable of denying:

• Eyewitnesses reported shooting from two different directions, the Grassy Knoll, and the TSBD.
  
  
• Police reacted to both locations within a minute or so of the shooting.
  
  
• Doctors just hours later reported that an entry wound was seen on JFK's throat.
  
  
• Dozens of medical witnesses, as well as the Autopsy Report; place the large and presumably exit wound on the back of JFK's head

We have two explanations that vie to explain those facts:

1. That JFK was shot by Lee Harvey Oswald alone.
   
2. That JFK was shot by multiple gunmen.

Now, which of these two explanations best fits those facts?

Clearly, and with howls of rage from WCR Supporters, the facts are clearly explained by the hypothesis of multiple shooters.

The list of evidence that fits this second hypothesis, that there were multiple shooters, is extensive and long – and many believers know the list as well as critics do – so there's no sense in listing them all.

But the question for believers is – what methodology did you use to determine that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone shooter?

And what's the evidence for that?