I cannot test the hypothesis or hypotheses until it or they are developed. I would have to say I do not start the testing process until there is a hypothesis to test.

Remember, we are being told by many different sources that the investigator must not only test the hypothesis believe to have caused the incident must must develop and test hypotheses for all other potential causes. No matter where the evidence points me as to the cause I must be able to say I considered all other possible hypotheses and this is how they were proven to be false. So one by one I am eliminating the other hypotheses. Now if I started that there were 10 potential hypotheses for the cause of the fire and one by one they are eliminated this is the process of elimination I am talking about. If at the end of the testing process I have more that one hypothesis that has not been prove to be false then I do not have a valid conclusion. How did they say it in the Highlander movie, “There can be only one.” Every problem-solving act we undertake during a day is using the process of elimination in our thought process.

The Scientific Method is a process of elimination method for solving problems. The title for this specific method is the Scientific Method. The core process used by this method is the developing, testing, and elimination of hypotheses.

Falsification is a process to determine the status of the hypothesis. Elimination is what takes place after it has been determined to be false.

You are describing the "falsification" process in the testing of hypotheses and not a process of elimination.

I think 921 is very specific when stating, “The testing process needs to be continued until all feasible hypotheses have been tested and one is determined to be uniquely consistent with the facts and with the principles of science.” I find nowhere in 921 or any other scientific text that allows the individual to reach a valid conclusion if there are more than one hypothesis that cannot be proven to be false.

I would need to disagree here with you when you indicate that there is no place for the most reliable in any finding. Either you know something are you do not. What you are suggesting is that there are other hypotheses that are also correct, but you just think that based on the facts your conclusion is more correct. Now I may not be correct of this, but 921 states, “The investigator should document the facts that support the cause determination to the exclusion of all other reasonable causes.” This does not sound to me as if 921 is agreeing to their being multiple valid hypothesis with the investigator choosing the one he thinks is best.

Again, the process of elimination is the elimination of all hypotheses through test. Can one consider testing a falsification process? I guess one could. The main process is you start with 10 and through testing one by one they are eliminated. The elimination is a result of the testing or falsification process. I think we are starting to hair pick the wording to suit our needs when there is no difference. Is not the falsification process a testing process? To answer your question direct, no, the process of elimination is not the same as falsification.

Maybe someone on the 921 committee can address your comment better as to the being multiple hypotheses valid at the same time. To me if you have more than on, then you do not know the cause.

As to you comment, “Now your "disproving" a hypothesis because there is no evidence to support it. That is not in keeping with the SM and 921.” I must disagree. If there are no bullet holes in a person is not the lack of these types of injuries positive evidence the person was not shot. Same with there being no electrical components. If there is none there is that not evidence it was not a fire caused by an electrical failure. If my hypothesis was the person was shot then I disproved my hypothesis by the fact there was no evidence such as bullet holes. The same goes with the electrical components and the hypothesis of an electrical fire.

Ok, you say one has a hypothesis about a airplane causing the incident. The data collected does not support this hypothesis so you say you never formulated the hypothesis in the first place. I am confused. If you say it make no sense to formulate a hypothesis based on what you call no evidence and turn around a disprove it using the fact that there is no evidence. If that is the case what is it to say you formulated a hypothesis because the incident was near an airport and then say when no evidence was found to support this hypothesis that you say the hypothesis was never formulated in the beginning.

As to the number of hypotheses that can be formed, I believe one need to use the same criteria as is suggest by 921. Reasonable possibilities is a good place to start. It is not an indefinite number.

3.3.149 Scientific Method. The systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and definition of a problem; the collection of data through observation and experimentation; analysis of the data; the formulation, evaluation and testing of a hypothesis; and, when possible, the selection of a final
hypothesis.

I do not see where one way or the other, if used with some sense of reason will produce an indefinite number of hypotheses to be tested. So what you are telling me is you consider alternative hypothesis but you do not formulate alternative hypothesis. Hate to say it, but if you thought of it enough to consider it then you formulated it. Please review the comments below.

"This crash was different. There was no wreckage, no bodies, and no noise";- Somerset County Coroner Wallace Miller

"I was looking for anything that said tail, wing, plane, metal. There was nothing";- Photographer Scott Spangler

"I was amazed because it did not, in any way, shape, or form, look like a plane crash.";- Patrick Madigan, commander of the Somerset barracks
of the Pennsylvania State Police

Numerous individuals who spent time at the supposed crash site have described seeing almost nothing resembling wreckage from a plane there. Some witnesses have recalled seeing little or no human remains at the site. And although Flight 93 was reportedly "heavily laden with jet fuel" when it crashed, investigators found no contamination from jet fuel in the soil and ground water around the site.

"All I saw was a crater filled with small, charred plane parts. Nothing that would even tell you that it was the plane. ... There were no suitcases, no recognizable plane parts, no body parts.”

Here I am talking about a 127-ton aircraft. I have 32,000 lbs. of fuel on board at the time of the crash. Testing found no fuel residue in the soil at the site of the crash. No, fuel, no body parts, nothing that looked like a 757-222, just a large black crater was present. Would this lack of evidence prevent you from developing a hypothesis that a plan crashed at this location? The only information investigators had was that a farmer saw a large plan pass low over his farm. He then heard an explosion and saw smoke rising into the sky. There is no physical evidence to say the plane caused this crater the farmer saw. He said it was a big passenger plane. There was no evidence of a large plane, passengers or luggage in the crater or surrounding area. Yet, with not hard evidence to start with the hypothesis was that this was the crash site of flight 93. This to me is proof that a hypothesis can be formed with little to no evidence to support it and the time it was formulated.

Hope this helps answer your questions.

Pat do you still think you found the person you were looking for?

Jim Mazerat
Forensic Investigations Group