Mysterious JFK witness deaths: A probability analysis

This analysis calculates the probability of at least 15 witnesses dying UNNATURAL deaths within one year of the JFK assassination. The deaths were a combination of homicides, suicides, accidents and undetermined origin.

The data is from "A LOOK AT THE DEATHS OF THOSE INVOLVED"
written by Jim Marrs and Ralph Schuster
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n2/deaths.html

The following comment on the deaths of assassination witnesses appeared at the end of the movie "Executive Action," released in 1973, starring Burt Lancaster and Robert Ryan:

"In the three-year period which followed the murder of President Kennedy and Lee Harvey Oswald, 18 material witnesses died - six by gunfire, three in motor accidents, two by suicide, one from a cut throat, one from a karate chop to the neck, three from heart attacks and two from natural causes".

"An actuary, engaged by the "London Sunday Times," concluded that on November 22, 1963, the odds against 18 witnesses being dead by February 1967, were one hundred thousand trillion to one".


But in a reply to the 1977 House Select Committee on Assassinations, the Times editor tried to refute the probability calculation:
"He was asked what were the odds against 15 named people out of the population of the United States dying within a short period of time, to which he replied -correctly - that they were very high. However, if one asks what are the odds against 15 of those included in the Warren Commission Index dying within a given period, the answer is, of course, that they are much lower. Our mistake was to treat the reply to the former question as if it dealt with the latter - hence the fundamental error in our first edition report, for which we apologize".

THERE WERE 42 DEATHS (33 UNNATURAL)IN THE THREE YEARS AFTER THE ASSASSINATION.

Marrs and Schuster conclude: "The House Committee made little or no attempt to seriously study the number of deaths which followed the JFK assassination."

The original probability calculation as stated was correct.

In any case, the Times Editor did not consider DEATH BY UNNATURAL CAUSES. He never calculated the probability of 15 UNNATURAL witness deaths out of approximately ONE THOUSAND witnesses within just ONE year of the assassination.

The probability is 1 in 21,230 TRILLION!
It is the same order of magnitude as the original calculation

Assuming there were 1,000 witnesses, the probability that at least 15 would die UNNATURAL deaths in the year following the assassination is 1 in 21,230 trillion.

Assuming there were 10,000 witnesses, the probability that at least 15 would die UNNATURAL deaths in the year following the assassination is 1 in 1,000

It's not likely that the 15 deaths were coincidental.

For the odds of death in each category, I used this table of 1999 mortality data:
http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm

Probability of:
........................1 year...Lifetime
suicide.................0.000107 0.008197
homicide................0.000062 0.004739
accidental death........0.000359 0.027778
undetermined death......0.000014 0.001101

Total...................0.000542 0.041815
The probability of an unnatural death is the sum of the probabilities

The Poisson Distribution

Although the Normal (Gaussian) probability distribution is by far the most important, there is another which has proven to be particularly useful - the Poisson Distribution. It is derived from and a special case of the Normal Distribution.

The Poisson Distribution applies when the probability "P" for success in any one trial is very small, but the number of trials N is so large that the expected number of successes (a=pN) is a moderate sized quantity.

The probability of m deaths: P(m) =a**m*exp(-a)/m!
In words, the Probability of EXACTLY m successes = a to the m'th power times the exponential function of (-a), divided by m factorial.
m! -15! = 15*14*13*12*11*10*9*8*7*6*5*4*3*2*1

Now lets use Poisson to determine the probability of a given number of witnesses meeting unnatural deaths within a year of the JFK assassination. The only assumption we are making is the number of witnesses.

Assume N= total witnesses = 1000
Let p= Probability of dying from UNNATURAL causes in a given year = 0.000542
Let a= Expected number of unnatural deaths = pN= 0.542
Let m= Actual number of unnatural deaths = 15

Then probability P(m) of exactly m=15 UNNATURAL deaths within a given year out of a predefined group of N = 1000 witnesses is:
P(m) =a**m*exp(-a)/m! or p(15)= 0.542**15*exp(-.542)/15!

Here are the probabilities for m=1 through m=15 deaths.
Prob(X=m) = probability of EXACTLY m DEATHS
Prob(X>=m) = probability of at AT LEAST m DEATHS (the one we want)

m Prob(X=m) Prob(X>=m)
1 3.15E-01 4.18E-01 Prob (X>=1 death)= 0.418
2 8.54E-02 1.03E-01
3 1.54E-02 1.78E-02
4 2.09E-03 2.34E-03
5 2.27E-04 2.49E-04 Prob (X>=5)= 1 in 4000
6 2.05E-05 2.22E-05
7 1.59E-06 1.70E-06
8 1.07E-07 1.14E-07
9 6.47E-09 6.84E-09
10 3.51E-10 3.69E-10 Prob (X>=10) = 1 in 2.8 billion
11 1.73E-11 1.81E-11
12 7.80E-13 8.14E-13
13 3.25E-14 3.38E-14
14 1.26E-15 1.31E-15
15 4.55E-17 4.71E-17 Prob (X>=15) = 1 in 21,230 trillion

For 15 or more deaths, the probability is:
Prob (X>=15) = 4.71e-17 = 0.000000000000000047101810079330
or 1 out of 21,230,606,601,227,800

Check the graph for a probability sensitivity analysis
Assume there were 10,000 witnesses.
The probability that at least 15 would die an unnatural death within one year is
P= .00096 = 9.6E-04 (1 in 1,000).

http://richardcharnin.com/poissonjfk_17844_image001.gif

POISSON(x,mean,cumulative)
X is the number of events.

Mean is the expected numeric value.
Cumulative is a logical value that determines the form of the probability distribution returned.

If Cumulative is TRUE, POISSON returns the cumulative Poisson probability that the number of random events occurring will be between zero and x inclusive;
if FALSE, it returns the Poisson probability mass function that the number of events occurring will be exactly x.

that they are effectively silenced. Which makes this an interesting "what if" game, but little more. At what point does this become moot? Never? After 50 years? A 100? 200? I guess my question is, so what? At this point and with the inhuman, cruel and murderous capitalist empire that has been in power long before Kennedy became Emperor - so what? Kennedy was one of Them. If they "took him out", what is that to us? We are slaves and peasants, with no power - none now, none then.

You know supporters of Vitellius murdered the Emperor Otho. They cut off his head and threw his body in the Tiber. Vitellius became Emperor and had to immediately take out his legions to face Vespasian. And you know what? To the slaves in the brickyard it made no difference at all.

"But Otho was murdered!" Yes, yes he was...

I won't say this undercuts the arguments using the Poisson Distribution (Pwah-so), remember that if you generate a random number 0..99, whatever number you get only had a 1% chance of being generated.

The PROBABILITY P is not based on EXACTLY 15 deaths.
It is based on 15 or MORE deaths.

The converse is the probability (1-P) of 14 or FEWER deaths.
It is ASTRONOMICALLY LARGE.

The mainstream media has been lying to us since 1963.
So what else is new?
It's what they do.
Oswald. Oswald. Oswald.
And the beat goes on.

The only way to undo the propaganda is to first become aware of it.
THE FIRST STEP IS TO DO THE MATH.
Unfortunately, not many can.
Those who can, won't.
They like the paycheck.

As far as the JFK analysis:
There is no ASSUMPTION about 15 being DEAD within ONE year.
IS FACT.
That they are DEAD is not even relevant.

This is what IS relevant:
WHAT is the probability of an UNNATURAL DEATH? Check the mortality tables.
HOW MANY JFK witnesses died? 15
WHEN? Within one year of the assassination.
HOW ? Unnatural causes

Given the above:
WHAT is the probability that AT LEAST 15 would die unnaturally?
Mix the parameters together in a Poisson soup.
DO THE MATH.

COME TO THE ONLY LOGICAL CONCLUSION.
IT'S ZERO.

inhabit. You can talk about the "MSM" till the cows come home; you can say, "if only the people knew"; you can crutch numbers till your fingers bleed and it none will make any difference, at all. At the end of the day, an Emperor was murdered; it happens a lot in Empires. It is like the phony elections - it doesn't matter - not to the people in power, not to the slaves under the whips. It can only matter to that small number of elitists who think of themselves as entitled and who believe that the system is basically good...

Now here's the story:


One night, probably in 1880, John Swinton, then the preeminent New York journalist, was the guest of honor at a banquet given him by the leaders of his craft. Someone who knew neither the press nor Swinton offered a toast to the independent press. Swinton outraged his colleagues by replying:

"There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it.

"There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty_four hours my occupation would be gone.

"The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press?

"We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes."

Did he really say that? Maybe you could examine the statistical probability of it? But it doesn't really matter. The essence of it is true at the date written and now.

Sorry TIA history did not start in 1963 and JFK was merely another errand boy for capital.

Here you are essentially trying to couch your JFK idolatry in numbers. Elsewhere you are trying to couch your validation of the American political system in numbers.

From all I've ever read from you you essentially subscribe to American Exceptionalism and have always refused to observe deeper historical context.

Anyway if I had a book due to press I probably couldn't admit not a single one of these statistical analyses really means one fucking thing. Not a thing man.

The game was rigged long before the first voter pulled the lever. No math needed to figure that out.

Don't lecture me on the meaning of my work.
I know you like to lecture.
That is what you do.
But, frankly, I don't give a fuck what you think about my analysis.

Get off your high horse.
I calculated some probabilities and tried to derive the true vote.
I tried to quantify the intentions of the voter.

You find that to be a worthless exercise.
Then you are not the true revolutionary you think you are.
Change begins with awareness.
Or didn't you know that?

You should read your history.

And don't fucking lecture me about my "idolatry" of JFK.
The numbers have nothing to do with JFK.
They are an indictment of the system.

You are full of thought, full of talk.
You should be educating the masses.
Write a book.

Tell you what, clam:
I'll buy your book if you buy mine.

Completely unnecessary...Dhalgren

An indictment you are hostile towards and perpetually unwilling to make. Not the electoral system, THE SYSTEM period. And since you assure us its not about JFK, then you'll cheerily acknowledge that JFK is an exemplar of, the epitome of, the system we're indicting..right?



You are full of thought, full of talk.
You should be educating the masses.

He's trying to educate YOU..something you don't see so keen on

And as Dhal says below, its not necessary to talk about wht you're full of..

So, the implication is that witnesses have been offed, yes?

What are the odds that so many of the defenders of and apologists for the Democratic party, various leaders, nationalism and Capitalism would just coincidentally keep posting things that steer the discussion back to the same theme - that the system would be just fine if we could only crack the case, if we could track down the criminals and bring them to justice?

TIA, you have lost all credibility with me by posting a link to that atrocious article.

Gee, "mobsters," "underworld figures" and law enforcement officers died prematurely from unnatural causes.

Gee, the CIA has worked on assassination techniques, therefore hint hint hint.

You cannot possibly take anything in that article seriously, can you? It skips from unrelated subject to unrelated subject and no attempt is made whatsoever to connect the different subjects.

"In this section, people who were connected - no matter how tenuously - with the assassination and who are now dead are listed according to date of death."

Come on TIA, you can see through that idiocy, no? Clearly the authors are selecting facts that happen to fit in with their preconceived thesis here.

"This section has been entitled 'Convenient Deaths' because these deaths certainly would have been convenient for anyone not wishing the truth of the JFK assassination to become public. Of course, it is impossible to state with any certainty which of these deaths resulted from natural causes and which did not."

The section is called "Convenient Deaths" in order to steer people to the authors' conclusion in a deceptive way.

If it is not possible to "state with any certainty" which deaths are natural and which are not, then the entire basis for the article collapses.

Those are just a few of the (mind-numbingly obvious) nonsensical and idiotic things in that article.

All right, I am really pissed TIA. Out of fairness to you I followed your link and waded through that piece of shit article.

I want all of the time back that I have wasted "following the links" and "looking at the facts" that the conspiracy theorists keep aggressively and insistently shoving in our faces. "Look over here everybody, this is the really important stuff. If you don't then you must be working for the PTB, or must be a brainwashed dupe of the elite." The ct-ers are trying to steer people, trying to distract them, trying to control their perceptions.

They are manipulating and deceiving people and being extremely dishonest, all the while wrapping themselves in the self-righteousness mantle of truth and justice, claiming to be crusading heroic "seekers of the truth" battling against the forces of evil.

Please do defend that article TIA. What possible justification do you have for sending people to that article?

How about we go through that article point by point and dismantle the shell game of distraction and obfuscation that the conspiracy theorists are playing?

TIA is wasting everyone's time and in an insultingly facile way. Not only that, he is posturing as though we're "all on the same page" or "what I am saying is serious and sensible and analytic and.."

Bullshit. He wants to fluff the Democratic Party and their "heroes", great. But somewhere else, not here.

And as I also mentioned above, he keeps referring to the "smoking gun" even though it is basically the FIRST principle of statistical analysis that correlation does not imply causation.

Now obviously, that rule is mainly pedantic in alot of cases but it is precisely there to prevent people from cobbling together sundry "evidence" of the flimsiest kind and then crunching numbers to insist "here it is, irrefutable proof!"

Bullshit

I made the mistake of following his link and reading that article. That was the end of my patience with this stuff.

I was around when JFK was assassinated, and saw the sincere grief people experienced. That is a separate issue from JFK's politics. I was 13 then. By the time I was 18 I knew that JFK was no hero, that it was all a sham and not real. But the grief of the people was real, and it is the people that matter.

My guess is he won't; he doesn't have the intellectual stuff for it...

I will turn it around.
I will ask you the questions.
One at a time.

Answer the questions.
Do not pontificate.

1. How many of these individuals died from unnatural causes?
Your move.

In the past and on this very site, I recall him mentioning George Brown (of KBR notability) as possibly involved.

What I can (re-)say is that I once worked in the faculty club of the medical school adjacent to the hospital where JFK was taken. I overheard on a couple of occasions two particular doctors who'd received the president, Drs. Paul Peters and Robert McClelland, discuss their attitudes concerning whether there was a conspiracy. Both claimed that the official autopsy photos and other content were faked and inconsistent with the wounds they saw PRIOR to the involvement of the state in what was, IMO, very likely a coverup of a conspiracy.

All that said, I do however understand and agree with Mike's comments insofar as he disregards conspiracy "theorizing" as an ineffectual way forward. I am also, after a rather embarrassingly wide detour, convinced of same.

Anax once commented, very potently if only very briefly, something to the effect of "Why if our fingers are in everything do we persist in being surprised and compelled at seeing fingerprints everywhere?" I think that applies very much to the issue of JFK. I also think Mike would not disavow his supposition about George Brown. After all, it was one of the first acts of LBJ to give a no-bid contract to KBR for a Vietnam base as operations ramped up in the aftermath of the assassination.

Still though, it ain't REMOTELY as though letting JFK and his supremely reactionary brother (partner in Palmer-like crime with McCarthy)live would have made any fucking difference at all. And that, TIA, is the point.

That said, I think your work on elections is unimpeachable (so to speak). I also think it is terribly, terribly important, and I am very pleased to know you are at work on a book. The one thing about these 'theories' is that they do sometimes - as in the case of your powerful investigations into the vote - represent a chance to show the general population that they are being had. However, showing them that should not be construed by anyone, yourself included, that liberals are the answer - however true it may be that they are the disproportionately maligned "victims."

I AM NO LONGER A DEMOCRAT.

I WAS ONE UP UNTIL 2004.
I AM NO LONGER.

MY ALLEGIANCE IS TO THE TRUTH.
THAT IS ALL I CARE ABOUT.
EVERYTHING ELSE IS BULLSHIT.

BUT DON'T LECTURE ME ABOUT JFK.
I DON'T GIVE A FUCK WHAT YOU GUYS THINK ABOUT HIM.
YOU GUYS SHOULD NOT GIVE A FUCK WHAT I THINK, EITHER.

I WELCOME TA'S ATTEMPT TO IMPEACH MY JFK PROBABILITY ANALYSIS.
IT WILL ONLY END IN HIS DEFEAT.

I AM PREPARED TO GO ONE ON ONE WITH HIM.
I HAVE ALREADY SERVED....AND AM WAITING FOR HIS RETURN.

HEY, ANAX, IF YOU ARE THERE...
YOU HAD BETTER PREPARE TA FOR WHAT HE IS UP AGAINST.
REMEMBER THOSE FIRST SERVES ON DU?

I ain't about to try and get in argument with ya. I have too much respect and too little horsepower.

I just was trying to elucidate where TA was coming from (I suspect).

Again, - A Few Dead Guys - OK, so what now?

That was the only point.

And BTW props on your "progress." That's only further proof of just how smart you are. I look forward to you coming out as Red.

It's a process. Feel free to join the so-called "forced march." I've thoroughly enjoyed it. Finally, shit makes sense.

Cheers-

I am talking about that article. I am talking where you are going with your analysis, what you are using it to promote, not trying to impeach the analysis. You know that I appreciate and have defended your work. If that were not true, I would not be pissed and disappointed. I remember the "first serves at DU." I was there. I was defending you. I was banned for defending you.

I asked you to defend that article and justify sending people to it. That is the serve, and it is up to you to return it, not ignore it and claim that you are now serving. I invited you to go through that article point by point and debate it. That article is bad, bad, bad, the worst example of conspiracy theory huckstering and bad journalism that I have seen in a while. I would think that you would stay a million miles away from something like that, for the sake of your own credibility.

On another note, a couple of years ago, I stood in a concealed location behind the grassy knoll and tossed pebbles at the "X" on the pavement, and never "walked a batter." Behind me was an industrial district and railroad yards with many good escape routes. I was astounded. Rusty - is that congruent with your perceptions of that locale? A shooter could have easily hidden himself there, would have been very close to the limo (the photos and videos do not give a sense for how small the space is) and could have easily escaped and have been difficult to follow. That, and the evidence that JFK was hit from the front, leads me to believe that there is a good possibility that there was a shooter there. So be it. So what? Now what?

There are all sorts of fishy things surrounding the JFK assassination. But where are we going with that?

No, TA, it doesn't work that way.
The onus is on you to impeach the article.

I have already served.
You have not returned.
We cannot move forward until you do so.

Now, you may not be aware that there is photographic evidence to confirm your suspicions about the Grassy Knoll.
http://progressiveindependent.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=103109

You have implicitly agreed that there was a conspiracy to kill JFK.
Therefore, you must also agree that it is not beyond the pale to assume that at least some witnesses have been terminated. That's usually the case, you know.

So let's get back to the original question.
How many witnesses died unnaturally within one year of the assassination.?

Was it 0?
Was it 1?
Was it 50?
Or do you have no clue?

Once again, TA.
Your move.

You should take a vacation TIA, you ain't well...

Dal,

You only function in the Gulag...
I sense hysteria in Siberia...

... and I agree entirely with Two Americas. Here is my opinion:

The exposure of conspiracies has exactly the same importance as the exposure of corruption, graft, politics, economics, propaganda, the actual conditions of people, the real social fabric and every other element of the superstructure of class society. To the degree that it elevates the understanding and the political cohesion of the mass of working people, it is a net positive. To the extent that it turns on itself - that it proposes "special theories", claims unique knowledge unavailable to the many, constructs artificial enemies, or calls on the very machinery of the system under consideration - to that same extent, such theories become reactionary or irrelevant.

The election fraud "movement" was positive to the extent that it exposed the fraud, "irregularities" and simple hypocrisy of electoral politics in 2000 and 2004. To the degree that it moved toward suppression, racial politics, registration, a legal critique and so on, it raised the possibility of elevating the understanding of people who are victims of the vote. To the extent that it focused on "technology", reform, "vulnerabilities", and "legitimacy", it became, at best, a philistine non sequitur.

Which brings us to the "combat"... Intellectual combat is the same as individual physical acts of resistance, differing in form but not in substance. What are the great mass of people supposed to do with this "struggle", as Two Americas asked? Do they get popcorn and pull up folding chairs? Does it reduce them to mere spectators?

The "truth" does not help you here because there is no truth without context. More properly, there are several truths which roughly correspond to the various social classes which supply that "context" in our society. There is no absolute or objective truth which defies partisanship. Quite the contrary, a truth which ignores, hides, or misunderstands its partisanship, actually ends up defining itself.

The greatest liar in Greek society was that old charlatan, Diogenes, who walked around with his manufactured rags and his lamp, looking for an "honest man"... at least according to Diogenes himself. In truth, it took a recent generation of liars to elevate the old hypocrite from the dismal assessment that the Greeks had consigned the ancient fraud... and this in a society which celebrated liars.

Choose up sides, TIA, and then revisit your assumptions.

Conspiracy theories are always more popular with the uh...comfortable classes. Which makes sense. Those people who (wrongly) believe they have a vested interest in the system that's there to protect them (which is actually fucking them over) need to make sense of why bad things happen to good (i.e. comfortable) people. What's implied is that surely something could be done to stop the few bad apple conspirators who are threatening their comfortable way of life - if only they could be exposed.

Pfft.

How is this any different than the attempts of most political or religious belief systems (or psychiatry and self-help) to drug-up feelings of powerlessness and fucked-ness?

Working and impoverished class people don't ask "OMG!! Could a few sinister corrupt ruling class people possibly, POSSIBLY be involved in some nefarious scheme to interfere with my way of life?!"

LOL when has the entire ruling class NOT done that?

15 JFK witnesses died of unnatural causes?

I'll raise you several thousand around the globe who are dying right now because of lack of healthcare, clean water, food, or protection.

It's unnatural to let our brothers and sisters die for greed.

and I called him a smelly cumbag hippie (or the equivalent) and mentioned that he was tagged as a reverse narcissist.

If I remember correctly, you came back and said that this "smelly hippie" was the author of most of what we know about Greek philosophy.

Those are actually two different dudes, right?

Been meaning to ask, but kept forgetting.

"Godlike Productions" is calling you.

"Ahh, but the strawberries, (clack, clack, clack) the strawberries, that's where I had them! (Clack, clack, clack) I proved with scientific accuracy (clack, clack, clack) that another key to the wardroom refrigerator did in fact exist! (Clack, clack, clack) And I would have found that key, too (clack, clack, clack) if I hadn't been relieved of command (clack, clack, clack)..."

None of this shit makes any difference except as an academic parlor game. We do it all the time - we just don't insist that the whole world turns on the shit. It is all in the perspective, TIA, get some...


:alberteinstein:

about Democritus...

I will only say that I'm pretty sure I MEANT to be talking about Diogenes..not out of the question that I got twisted around in my own underwear. But I am almost certain Anax's comment was about Diogenes the historian of Greek philosophy.

I guess I should get off my duff and search the archives for myself

"Most" is too strong but his perspective is disproportionately represented.

I am not going anywhere. That article is such an excellent example of the deceit and manipulation that ct-ers use, that I want to take it apart line by line so we can gain a better understanding of the "truth movement" phenomenon, and see the political impact that it has. I may go ahead and do that here with or without your participation. I may do it now, I may do it later. But rest assured that I will press on and there will be no retreat. The conspiracy theorists are a serious threat and need to be countered and routed.

Let me see if I am following you. Any old rubbish you link to is to be presumed to be "the truth" until and unless someone debunks it?

You are playing the conspiracy theorist truthiness game here. Wild speculation is thrown out, and then people are challenged to prove that it is NOT true. No skepticism is permitted whatsoever, and if a person expresses the slightest hint of skepticism, or even asks any questions, they are immediately accused of "buying the official version" and therefore being an agent for the forces of evil, being on the side of the bad guys. Now, in addition to being required to prove that the speculation by the conspiracy theorist is NOT true, the challenger must also prove that they are not on the side of evil.

You are steering and deceiving people when you do this. But where are you and other ct-ers steering us? Towards some "truth," you will say. To what end? You don't say. This "truth" is always hinted at, the reader is expected to "look at the facts" (paying no attention to the criteria the ct-er is using for the selection of facts) and then "get it" - reach the foregone conclusion for themselves. No attention is to be paid to the way the facts are assembled (even though it is in their juxtaposition and sequencing of the facts that the conclusion is suggested) and pay no attention to the political context (even though the existence of a political context is implied, and is a necessary condition for there to be any audience for the ct-ers in the first place. After all, we are supposedly having a political discusssion.)

Notice the leap of faith - from "facts" to "getting it." Getting it is a function of the reader's preconceptions, prejudices, their world view (and their politics) not "the facts." By this mechanism, people are won over when they indulge their prejudices while disguising that with talk about "facts" and "truth." We saw that with Jacques- "look at all of the Jews involved in this hint hint." His anti-Semitism is now "truth" because all he is doing is innocently "presenting facts," and he defies anyone to prove that his "facts" are not true. Any who question him are then accused of supporting the destruction of the Palestinian people - of being on the side of the bad and evil people.

Look at some of the "logic" in that article. Some number of people who were witnesses to the assassination died unexpectedly > the CIA has killed people > there must have been a conspiracy to kill JFK with the CIA involved. Now, each of those three things may well be true. But that does not prove that they are related, and the authors of that article make no attempt at demonstrating any connection, other than what they imply and that the reader is expected to imagine.

1. Some "facts" are presented, and a pattern implied by the (careful and meticulous) arrangement and sequencing of the facts and the way they are presented. "Hmmm check it out. Look at this. What could it mean?"

2. All readers are then challenged to prove that "the facts" are not true. What the ct-er says must be taken as "the truth" if no one can prove that it is NOT the truth.

3. The ct-er then says, "if you cannot debunk my facts, you must admit that my theory is true."

4. One is the supposed to then "get" the "truth" of the theory.

5. Anyone challenging the ct-er is then smeared and maligned in various ways as ignorant, stupid, or evil.

What is the probability that 15 people in a group of 10,000 mobsters and law enforcement officers will die UNNATURALLY within one year?

What is the probability that 15 people in a group of 10,000 who are prone to making false accusations about mobsters and law enforcement officials that could damage them, or expose damning things unrelated to the JFK assassination, will die UNNATURALLY within one year?

What is the probability that 15 people in a group of 10,000 who claim to have and may well have insider knowledge of corruption and criminal activities that may well be completely unrelated to the JFK assassination will die UNNATURALLY within one year?

I don't know that those are true, but they will serve to illustrate that there is a wide range of possible and plausible alternative explanations for "the facts."

My mother's barber's orthodonist says he overhead..

fuck me

I was actually just saying that I originally meant a different Diogenes, the one who was a student of Antisthenese who was a student of Socrates. I was talking about the one you mentioned just above who live in a tub and jacked off in public in his search for an honest man.

Anax,

Let me make a few points and hopefully this can be put to rest.

First let me say that I have no illusions about the failure of our system. As I have stated, I am no longer a Democrat. Both parties are complicit in selling out to the corporations. The government is just a tool for the PTB. If elections were fair, the left would be in permanent control – because they are the majority. That is why the PTB lets the GOP win periodically by election fraud – and reduces the Democratic mandate when the PTB wants them to win. The vast majority of the public is not aware of the con. I wasn't either, until 2004.

That is why the JFK probability analysis is relevant. The public must be made aware of the con as a first step in taking collective action. In whatever form is necessary. If you disagree, tell me why.

TA was shrill in his criticism that I would reference the Marrs article. Jim Marrs wrote “Crossfire,” in the late seventies at the time of the House investigation. It is one of the best books I have read on the assassination. I have read quite a few.The mysterious deaths in the article are documented in the book.

I have challenged TA to refute the number and cause of witness deaths stated in the article. He has not done so. He would also need to refute the unnatural death rates statistics. He has not done so. He would then need to refute the use of the Poisson distribution function to calculate the probabilities. He has not done so.

TA can only question the assumption of 1000 witnesses. But I have shown that even with 10,000 witness, the probability of 15 unnatural deaths is 1 in 1000. The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming.

The probability analysis is one that you won't find anywhere else. A number of articles and books have been written about the surprising number of mystery deaths. But how many have calculated the probabilities? But that's not all.

I have NOT done an equivalent analysis of unnatural deaths surrounding the 1977 House Investigation of the JFK and MLK murders. Quite a few very important witnesses were found dead just before they were due to testify. Check the list.

The JOINT probability P for the deaths during the 1964 and 1977 timeframes is:
P= 1 /infinity* 1/infinty.

The HSCA concluded that Oswald did not act alone. It was “limited hangout”. Oswald never fired a shot. He was, as he claimed, a patsy.

So why is the analysis relevant today? Let’s look at some motivations for doing it.

1) I enjoy doing the math. (Ok, its an academic exercise)
2) I saw “Executive Action” when it first came out in 1972. I was struck by the magnitude of the improbability of witness deaths as calculated by a London-based actuary The movie was based on a book by Mark Lane, who would have been Oswald's lawyer. In 1964, Lane was the first to document the real evidence in his shocking classic book, "Rush to Judgment".
3) The MSM (History Channel) continues to push the “magic bullet” and all the other BS that Oswald was a Communist-inspired nut job. It’s 46 years later.
4) This is despite the 1977 House investigation that determined the JFK and MLK murders were both the result of conspiracies. They never investigated RFK.
5) Those born after 1960 have been fed the same BS. Many believe the FICTION promoted by right-wing sites. The Kid referenced a primary one: McAdams.
6) People need to be educated as to the extent of govt. complicity and lies BEFORE they can do anything about it. That’s where you guys come in. What is YOUR strategy?
7) As an aside, in proving there was a ZERO probability that Bush won the TRUE VOTE in 2004 (and that ALL election results have been bogus), hopefully it will expose the joint Democratic AND Republican conspiracy to cover up election fraud to continue the marginalization and subjugation of the majority (i.e. the Left).
8) If Oswald was really the Lone Nut assassin the MSM has maintained for 46 years, there would have been ZERO witness deaths.
9) By calculating a ZERO probability that the number of UNNATURAL witness deaths could have occurred by chance, I have effectively PROVED a conspiracy.
10) By proving mathematically that the Warren Commission story was a LIE, and that election fraud is a fact of life, the denigration of researchers as “conspiracy nuts” should no longer be accepted by the public with a knee-jerk response.

You mention me in your post, so I will respond.

[div class="excerpt"]TA was shrill in his criticism that I would reference the Marrs article. Jim Marrs wrote “Crossfire,” one of the best books I have read on the assassination, in the late seventies at the time of the House investigation. The mysterious deaths in the article are documented in the book.[/quote]

He wrote a book that you think is good, therefore we cannot talk critically about that article?

[div class="excerpt"]I have challenged TA to refute it the number and cause of witness deaths states in the article. He has not done so. His next step would be to refute the unnatural death rates I have presented. He has not done so. He would then need to refute the use of the Poisson distribution function to calculate the probabilities. He has not done so.[/quote]

So what? Nothing I have said depends upon that one way or the other. I am in neither of the two camps you insist we all must be in - true believer or debunker.

[div class="excerpt"]TA can only question the assumption of 1000 witnesses. But I have shown that even with 10,000 witness, the probability of 15 unnatural deaths is 1 in a thousand. The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming.[/quote]

Sure, if I were playing in your game. But I am not. I am objecting to the game, not taking sides in it.

Look TIA, I'm sure you're tons better than me at math, but that is not a legitimate usage of statistics. Is the probability small? Duh. Vanishingly small? Depends on how you construe the word "vanishingly". But 1/infinity???

No one who wanted to be taken seriously would resort to such hyperbole, especially given the fact that you consider your statistical case so overwhelming. Truth Is All? How about Truth In Advertising? I don' think its too much to ask of the "statisical expert" to exhibit some professionalism and hold to a certain level of theoretical rigor.

You say: "People need to be educated as to the extent of govt. complicity and lies BEFORE they can do anything about it."

You have not supported that assertion. It is incumbent upon you to support it, by the way, the burden is not on any of us to prove that it is not true. I think that this proposition is believed by all conspiracy theorists. "If people only knew, then something would happen," and you go farther than that - "if people don't know, nothing will happen."

There are a number of unexamined and untested assumptions in your statement. We can go through them at length if you like, but I am giving you a chance to revise or extend your remarks first, should you choose to do so. I will post a few preliminary thoughts on this to prime the pump.

Can we be certain that you are not masking what is in fact advocacy as innocent and neutral observation? That you are not saying that you are opposed to anything happening, until and unless people are first educated by you as to the true nature of the problem?

Was the overthrow of slavery dependent upon "people knowing the extent of government complicity and lies?" The success of the labor movement? The Civil Rights movement?

Of course, if you are saying that people cannot do anything about the lies and complicity by the government, they need to understand the lies and complicity by the government, that I suppose could be true. But why must we accept that lies and complicity by the government is the problem, and that educating people about them - or rather, about the extent of them you say - is the solution?

Should people have spent time and effort corrected the lies and complicity by the government related to slavery, and educating people about those, rather than opposing slavery itself? What was the goal? Fixing the government, or ending slavery? Is that not a clever defense of slavery, and is not your insistence on the us all accepting without a murmur this context of "lies and complicity by the government" being the problem a clever defense of the ruling class and the existing order?

You then say: "That’s where you guys come in. What is YOUR strategy?"

That is revealing. You establish the context, define the problem, assert the solution, and then and only then do we come in. The "what" is up to you, the "how" is up to us.

Your strategy is to talk about things, what you think the problems are, what you think needs to be done. Why cannot our strategy be the same as yours, excepting that we disagree with you as to what the problems are and what needs to be done?

In any case, the validity of your claims is not related to or dependent upon whether or not anyone else has a strategy, nor whether or not their strategy is any good.

Pardon my hyperbolae.
I was trying to make a point

1/120,000 trillion = 1/infinity? not quite but close enough
(1/120,000 trillion) ^2 = 1/infinity? not quite but even closer

TA,
Perhaps I can best sum it up this way. Once, as I was about to get out of a cab in NY, the cabbie asked if I needed a receipt. I shrugged him off, but then he said: “Take it. It can’t hurt. It could help”.

I feel the same way about the election fraud/JFK analysis – among others I have done. Like the probability of 16 world-class microbiolgists dying mysteriously in the 4 months after 9/11.

This obsession to prove these things mathematically is my way of exposing the media propaganda. It is my belief that it is has always been the policy of those in power to distract the masses, whether by falsehoods, factual omission, sporting events or a controlled media.

So I am motivated to do what I do best. Perhaps in some small way it will advance the cause by revealing the mathematical truth to those who would by chance come to see it and who were unaware of it.

You question my statement that: "People need to be educated as to the extent of govt. complicity and lies BEFORE they can do anything about it."

Well, maybe you are right. I guess something could be done without the masses being educated. But a little education can’t hurt. It could help. I would venture to say that it is more likely that things would change if they were educated than otherwise. It’s all about probabilities, isn’t it?

If you are unaware that someone is slowly poisoning you, what could you do about it?
It would be better to know it. No? You would surely agree that the media has descended to a new level since the sixties.

You ask: “Can we be certain that you are not masking what is in fact advocacy as innocent and neutral observation? That you are not saying that you are opposed to anything happening, until and unless people are first educated by you as to the true nature of the problem”?

I am only advocating that people learn to question, and use whatever grey matter they have to better understand what is going on in their lives and how they are being duped every day by the media. The way I do it is through mathematical analysis. I am sure there are other approaches. The main thing is that they should be motivated to learn. What would you use as a learning method?

You ask: "Was the overthrow of slavery dependent upon "people knowing the extent of government complicity and lies?" The success of the labor movement? The Civil Rights movement"?

That was then. This is now. Deal with the present. We are dealing with mind-control – a different form of subjugation.

You say: "Of course, if you are saying that people cannot do anything about the lies and complicity by the government, they need to understand the lies and complicity by the government, that I suppose could be true. But why must we accept that lies and complicity by the government is the problem, and that educating people about them - or rather, about the extent of them you say - is the solution"?

There you go again. I am not saying that educating people would be the solution. But it may be a necessary first step in deriving a solution strategy. What strategy would you then employ? In fact, what would be your strategy in lieu of education? I venture to say that you would seek to attract people to your cause by making them aware of uncomfortable things that they are unaware or in denial of.

In other words, you would seek to educate them.

TA,

Don't change the subject.These were a variety of individuals.Why don't you classify THEM as to occupatIon or some other category?

DEAL WITH THE SPECIFIC INDIVIDUALS AND TYPE OF DEATH.
OTHERWISE, YOU ARE JUST EMPLOYING DIVERSIONARY TACTICS.
DO SOME ANALYSIS BASED ON THE FACTS YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU!

DON'T CREATE FICTITIOUS HYPOTHETICAL GROUPINGS.
YOU ARE MISDIRECTING.


From the article:

"The year 1977 produced a bumper crop of candidates for listing under convenient deaths connected to the JFK assassination - including the deaths of SIX top FBI officials all of whom were scheduled to testify before the House Select Committee on Assassinations.

Topping this list was former number three man in the FBI William C. Sullivan, who had already had a preliminary meeting the investigators for the House Committee. Sullivan was shot with a high-powered rifle near his New Hampshire home by a man who claimed to have mistaken him for a deer. The man was charged with a misdemeanor - "shooting a human being by accident" - and released into the custody of his father, a state policeman. There was no further investigation of Sullivan's death.

Louis Nichols was a special assistant to J. Edgar Hoover as well as Hoover's liaison with the Warren Commission. Alan H. Belmont also was a special assistant to Hoover. James Cadigan was a document expert with access to many classified assassination documents, while J.M. English headed the FBI laboratory where Oswald rifle and pistol were tested. Donald Kaylor was the FBI fingerprint expert who examined prints found at the assassination scene. None of these six Bureau officials lived to tell what they knew to the House Committee.

Other key assassination witnesses, such as George DeMohrenschildt and former Cuban President Carlos Prio Soccaras, died within weeks of each other in 1977, just as they too were being sought by the House Committee.

The ranks of both organized crime and U.S. intelligence agencies were thinned by deaths beginning in 1975, the time of the Senate Intelligence Hearings, and 1978, the closing months of the House Committee. Charles Nicoletti, a mobster connected with the CIA-Mafia assassination plots, was murdered in Chicago, while William Pawley, a former diplomat connected with both organized crime and CIA figures, reportedly committed suicide".


Just a coincidence, TA?

Sometimes a person gets so focused in on an unimportant thing and makes it the be-all and end-all of everything that it becomes a matter of dysfunction. We should look the other way...

Alternately bore people to death, run them in endless circles, or annoy the shit out of them. I guess ignoring the ct-ers is the only thing to do.