A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.

[John Mytton]

Is that supposed to prove that that particular coupon was ever in that particular envelope?

Hilarious talk about desperate, not only are you trying to separate each piece of evidence against Oswald now you're separating each piece of individual evidence into something which has no alternate narrative and no real world equivalence.

JohnM

[Andrew Mason]

When what little real evidence there is, is weak and circumstantial, and it's all questionable, arguable, impeachable, or tainted in some way then it's not ignoring anything to call it unreliable.  This isn't a single piece of evidence -- it's every piece of evidence.

Ok. So let's say there is a finite probability that the microfilm showing the envelope and coupon together is not evidence that the coupon was in the envelope. Let's say that probability is x. Then you have the order sheet prepared by Klein's showing that C2766 was used to fill an order to be sent to Box 2915 Dallas.  Let's say that the probability that C2766 was NOT used to fill such an order is x.  etc.etc. Are you saying at the end of the day you have a probability of x that Oswald never purchased C2766?

[John Iacoletti]

Hilarious talk about desperate, not only are you trying to separate each piece of evidence against Oswald now you're separating each piece of individual evidence into something which has no alternate narrative and no real world equivalence.

What's desperate is you trying to pile an envelope onto your supposed "mountain" that cannot be connected to any particular Klein's order or any particular weapon.

[John Iacoletti]

Ok. So let's say there is a finite probability that the microfilm showing the envelope and coupon together is not evidence that the coupon was in the envelope. Let's say that probability is x. Then you have the order sheet prepared by Klein's showing that C2766 was used to fill an order to be sent to Box 2915 Dallas.  Let's say that the probability that C2766 was NOT used to fill such an order is x.  etc.etc. Are you saying at the end of the day you have a probability of x that Oswald never purchased C2766?

Anyone can make up a value of x -- that isn't particularly useful.  What I'm saying is that none of these things show that Lee Oswald ever had possession of C2766.  At best, the unscientific and biased handwriting "analysis" of 2 block letters on a photo of a microfilm copy of a 2-inch order coupon, if accurate, just shows that Oswald filled out an order coupon for a 36-inch Italian carbine.

[Andrew Mason]

What's desperate is you trying to pile an envelope onto your supposed "mountain" that cannot be connected to any particular Klein's order or any particular weapon.

The point is that if the probability that each of two independent events occurred is x, the probability that both events occurred is x².  And since x is always less than 1, the probability of all events actually occurring keeps going down exponentially as the number of events increases. You do not seem to appreciate this.

So you have a doubt that Oswald filled out the Klein's coupon and the envelope with his Dallas post box, even though it appears very similar to his handwriting and to the handwriting on the coupon he filled out to purchase the handgun that Marina herself as Oswald's.  Then you say you have a doubt that Klein's filled that order at all, despite the shipping order that was prepared showing that C2766 was used to fill the order. Then you say that you doubt that Oswald or anyone took out a money order to pay for this order.  Let's say that the probability of each doubts being fulfilled is x = .1 (I am being generous: that would mean that, contrary to their documents, 1 in 10 of Klein's orders were not ordered;  a 1 in 10 chance that items were not shipped; and a 1 in 10 chance that they would indicate that an order had been paid when payment had not been received). 

In order for Oswald not to have received the gun, all three doubts must be fulfilled. The probability of fulfilling all three doubts (i.e. for someone other than Oswald to have filled out the coupon rifle AND for Klein's not to have processed the order despite producing paperwork to that effect AND to have done so without being paid and falsely entering that payment had been made) is x³ or 1/1000.

Then you have a rifle photographed in Oswald's hands within a week of when the rifle would most likely have arrived in Oswald's post box. Then that rifle shows up in the very building that Oswald worked in and has prints that are not inconsistent with Oswald's prints and Oswald is seen carrying a long package to work that morning etc. The probability becomes exponentially lower.  Even if you put a probability of each piece being false at .5 the probability that ALL of this evidence being false becomes extremely small as the evidence mounts.  That is the problem with your position.

[John Iacoletti]

The point is that if the probability that each of two independent events occurred is x, the probability that both events occurred is x².  And since x is always less than 1, the probability of all events actually occurring keeps going down exponentially as the number of events increases. You do not seem to appreciate this.

The reason I don't appreciate it is because you're just making up probabilities.  And none of these things are independent events.

So you have a doubt that Oswald filled out the Klein's coupon and the envelope with his Dallas post box, even though it appears very similar to his handwriting

Correct.  Handwriting "analysis" is biased and unscientific and thus unreliable.  Especially in this case where even the supposed standards of the practice aren't met (tiny sample that's a copy).

and to the handwriting on the coupon he filled out to purchase the handgun that Marina herself as Oswald's.

On what basis could Marina have possibly differentiated one handgun from another?  Marina by her own account knew nothing about guns.  "You men. That is your business."

  Then you say you have a doubt that Klein's filled that order at all, despite the shipping order that was prepared showing that C2766 was used to fill the order.

There is no shipping order.  And there is nothing to tie that "order blank" that you erroneously call a shipping order with that particular order coupon.  For example, the coupon could have been made after the fact to match the "order blank".  The handwritten serial number could have been added to the "order blank" after the fact as well.  Did any of the other Klein's orders have "order blanks" with handwritten serial numbers on them?  Did any of the other Klein's orders have copies of the order coupons and envelopes, but not money orders?  No way to tell because the original microfilm disappeared.  Darn the luck.  I guess we just have to have faith.

Then you say that you doubt that Oswald or anyone took out a money order to pay for this order.

Even though his timesheet says he was at work all day?  So since we're invoking probabilities here, what are the odds that he snuck away from work walked over a mile away to the post office and back to buy and mail a money order and nobody noticed?

  Let's say that the probability of each doubts being fulfilled is x = .1 (I am being generous: that would mean that, contrary to their documents, 1 in 10 of Klein's orders were not ordered;  a 1 in 10 chance that items were not shipped; and a 1 in 10 chance that they would indicate that an order had been paid when payment had not been received).

As long as we're just making up numbers here, let's say x = .95.

But the thing is that these are not independent events.  All it takes is for the handwriting to be misidentified and the rest of the stuff doesn't matter.  What are the odds that a biased and unscientific process with no standards or controls on a tiny sample size on a copy would give you unreliable results?  Pretty darn high.

In order for Oswald not to have received the gun, all three doubts must be fulfilled.

Even if a gun did get shipped by Klein's to PO box 2915 (and there no evidence of such), and was not intercepted by the FBI who was monitoring his mail (what are the odds of that?), you still have the hurdle of showing that Oswald picked it up.

Then you have a rifle photographed in Oswald's hands within a week of when the rifle would most likely have arrived in Oswald's post box.

You have no idea when this "would most likely have arrived", because you don't actually have anything that shows when it would have been shipped.  That's like saying that the Seaport Traders revolver would most likely have arrived in January.  But instead it supposedly arrived on the same day as the rifle (what are the odds of that?).

Then that rifle shows up in the very building that Oswald worked in and has prints that are not inconsistent with Oswald's prints

"not inconsistent with Oswald's prints"?  LOL.  Is that what we're calling them now?

and Oswald is seen carrying a long package to work that morning etc.

You keep forgetting the part about "too short to hold the C2766 rifle".

The probability becomes exponentially lower.  Even if you put a probability of each piece being false at .5 the probability that ALL of this evidence being false becomes extremely small as the evidence mounts.  That is the problem with your position.

The problem with your rebuttal is it is not necessary for ALL of what you mentioned to be false in order to come to a false conclusion.  In fact none of it has to be false -- just incorrectly interpreted.

Even if you were able to prove that C2766 actually went through the mail and was picked up by Oswald, you still have to get it  in Oswald's hands at 12:30 shooting at the president.

[Andrew Mason]

The reason I don't appreciate it is because you're just making up probabilities.  And none of these things are independent events.

I am not making up probabilities so much as I am putting an upward limit on the probability.  But in the end, it doesn't really matter what the probabilities are if there are enough independent events. 

I would agree that the converse of these events are NOT independent, but errors (i.e the source of your doubts) are IF there was no broad conspiracy to frame Oswald. 

For example, an order coupon comes in with Oswald's box number and there is also an envelope on which Oswald's box number is written and Klein's also records that it received a money order to pay for the item in the coupon.  These events would seem on the fact to be connected i.e Oswald sent in the order in the envelope with payment.  They are not independent if they are connected.

But you say they are not connected.  You say there are big doubts: the envelope may not have contained the coupon; Ok. That means that the envelope arrived for some reason completely unrelated to the coupon arrival.  And they arrived at about the same time and were processed in a way that caused Klein's to put them together.  eg. Klein's has to lose the envelope that accompanied the coupon and it has to misplace the coupon or whatever was in the envelope AND then some employee has to put the coupon and envelope together.  These events would seem to be independent.  So there you have 2 independent events that must occur in order for the coupon and envelope to be unrelated yet photographed together.  Unless you can conceive of a reason those two unrelated events would occur (a coupon with Oswald's box no appearing at Klein's and an envelope with Oswald's box no. appearing at Klein's but not together and both being unconnected to Oswald and then someone at Klein's putting them together rather than with the envelope/coupon that accompanied them) then they would seem to be random and independent.

Correct.  Handwriting "analysis" is biased and unscientific and thus unreliable.  Especially in this case where even the supposed standards of the practice aren't met (tiny sample that's a copy).

So if you are correct, someone else placed an order and put Oswald's box no. on it.  How do you explain that if there was no conspiracy operating in March 1963?

On what basis could Marina have possibly differentiated one handgun from another?  Marina by her own account knew nothing about guns.  "You men. That is your business."

There is no shipping order.  And there is nothing to tie that "order blank" that you erroneously call a shipping order with that particular order coupon.  For example, the coupon could have been made after the fact to match the "order blank".  The handwritten serial number could have been added to the "order blank" after the fact as well.  Did any of the other Klein's orders have "order blanks" with handwritten serial numbers on them?  Did any of the other Klein's orders have copies of the order coupons and envelopes, but not money orders?  No way to tell because the original microfilm disappeared.  Darn the luck.  I guess we just have to have faith.

Ok. And each of those independent events is improbable i.e. the probability that someone unrelated to Oswald sent in a blank envelope but with Oswald's box number and that it contained payment in the exact amount of a MC and scope. 

Even though his timesheet says he was at work all day?  So since we're invoking probabilities here, what are the odds that he snuck away from work walked over a mile away to the post office and back to buy and mail a money order and nobody noticed?

Most U.S. Post offices were open on Saturday. Did Oswald work on Saturday, March 23?

As long as we're just making up numbers here, let's say x = .95.

If the probability that Klein's mixed up orders they way you suggest was 95% they would have been out of business long before 1963.

But the thing is that these are not independent events.  All it takes is for the handwriting to be misidentified and the rest of the stuff doesn't matter.  What are the odds that a biased and unscientific process with no standards or controls on a tiny sample size on a copy would give you unreliable results?  Pretty darn high.

But it is not just the handwriting that ties it to Oswald.  The address was Oswald's.  These two events: the handwriting looking very much like Oswald's but not being Oswald's and a person with that handwriting accidentally putting a wrong address on their order and have it turn out to be Oswald's address - are independent.  And then there is the money order being tied to Oswald. And a similar gun in the hands of Oswald a few days after C2766 would have arrived in Dallas is also independent of whose handwriting it was on the coupon and envelope. These are independent events that have to occur in order for your doubts to materialize as fact.

Even if a gun did get shipped by Klein's to PO box 2915 (and there no evidence of such), and was not intercepted by the FBI who was monitoring his mail (what are the odds of that?), you still have the hurdle of showing that Oswald picked it up.

What hurdle is that?  He was shown a few days later holding a very similar - indistinguishable - gun.

Even if you were able to prove that C2766 actually went through the mail and was picked up by Oswald, you still have to get it  in Oswald's hands at 12:30 shooting at the president.

That is a much easier task since C2766 would then be Oswald's rifle.  His conduct after the assassination provides additional evidence that Oswald was involved.

[John Iacoletti]

But you say they are not connected.  You say there are big doubts: the envelope may not have contained the coupon; Ok. That means that the envelope arrived for some reason completely unrelated to the coupon arrival.  And they arrived at about the same time and were processed in a way that caused Klein's to put them together.  eg. Klein's has to lose the envelope that accompanied the coupon and it has to misplace the coupon or whatever was in the envelope AND then some employee has to put the coupon and envelope together.

I'm just saying that we don't know what we don't know.  All we have is a print allegedly from a single microfilm frame and the testimony of a vice-president who didn't process the orders.  Could there have been more than one order that day for the same item?  If you believe the deposit slip dated February 15 was actually supposed to be March 15 (why does every piece of evidence have some discrepancy associated with it?  What are the odds?), and the accompanying material then there was another $21.45 payment deposited that day.  What was that order?  We don't know because the microfilm is "missing".

Ok. And each of those independent events is improbable i.e. the probability that someone unrelated to Oswald sent in a blank envelope but with Oswald's box number and that it contained payment in the exact amount of a MC and scope. 

But now you have another discrepancy as the supposed order coupon says that $19.95 is enclosed.  Also, if this was ordered with a scope, why did Dial Ryder have to mount a scope on a rifle for "Oswald"?

Most U.S. Post offices were open on Saturday. Did Oswald work on Saturday, March 23?

Well, if you believe the stamp on the money order that was found in Virginia, it was purchased on Tuesday, March 12, 1963.

But it is not just the handwriting that ties it to Oswald.  The address was Oswald's.  These two events: the handwriting looking very much like Oswald's but not being Oswald's and a person with that handwriting accidentally putting a wrong address on their order and have it turn out to be Oswald's address - are independent.

Are you suggesting that only Oswald could possibly have received mail at PO box 2915?  Well, it would be nice to at least see who was authorized to receive mail there.  But, guess what?  MISSING!  If you believe the FBI, then they must have had the authorization card because they said that nobody else was authorized.  But Holmes jumped through a lot of verbal hoops to try to say that pretty much anybody could have gone to the window and picked up a package, authorized or not.  So why did it have to be Oswald?  And the question still remains, did a package ever actually arrive there?  The FBI was monitoring his mail.  Nobody remembers giving what would have been an unusually large package to a PO box holder.

  And then there is the money order being tied to Oswald.

Tied how?  Handwriting "analysis" again?

And a similar gun in the hands of Oswald a few days after C2766 would have arrived in Dallas is also independent of whose handwriting it was on the coupon and envelope.

Is "similar" good enough?  Some people think so.

His conduct after the assassination provides additional evidence that Oswald was involved.

Yeah, I know.  He wasn't chatty with the cab driver.