JFK Assassination computer analysis video!

[John Mytton]

Concerns about witness deaths were raised long before 1973, with early researchers like Penn Jones Jr. and Jim Marrs documenting them in the 1960s.
And how do you address the math? The core statistical improbability of so many witnesses meeting untimely or violent deaths in such a short span?

The genesis of the mysterious-deaths allegation goes back farther than the movie Executive Action. Penn Jones Jr., the late editor of a small, four-page weekly newspaper, the Midlothian Mirror, with a circulation of about five hundred1 in Midlothian, Texas (a semi-rural, one-yellow-page town of around 1,500 twenty-five miles southwest of Dallas), believed deeply in Oswald’s innocence.* In 1966 he self-published the first volume of his four-volume Forgive My Grief series in which he started alleging that people connected to or associated with the assassination in some way were suffering untimely and mysterious deaths—for instance, Earlene Roberts, the housekeeper of the rooming house where Oswald lived. But as the HSCA said, “There is no indication in the records relating to her death, or in Mr. Jones’ book, as to what exactly was mysterious about a 61-year-old woman with large calcium deposits and a case of pneumonia, dying of acute heart failure. The same is the case with other deaths cited in the same book, for example, Dr. Nicholas Chetta, the coroner…at David Ferrie’s death, and Thomas Howard, Jack Ruby’s attorney, both of whom died of heart attacks [Chetta in 1968, Howard in 1965].”2 Jones tells his readers that his book “gives names and details of the strange deaths of…people who knew something, learned something, or saw something that was supposed to have remained secret.”

The biggest supporter of Jones’s fantastic charges was Ramparts magazine, a onetime Catholic quarterly turned New Left monthly out of San Francisco. After interviewing him several times and conducting what the editorial staff suggested was a thorough investigation, they bought his allegations completely, publishing many of his articles on mysterious deaths word for word and concluding “that Penn [Jones] was right when he said the Warren Report was a waste of paper.”4 What gave tremendous aid to Penn Jones’s fantasies and mythology was a February 26, 1967, article in the London Sunday Times in which an actuary hired by the paper calculated that the odds of fifteen of the people Jones had listed as having died mysterious deaths (a list that included Oswald, Ruby, and Tippit) within a little over a three-year period after November 22, 1963 (up to the date of the article, February 26, 1967), were “100 trillion to one.” The article ended by observing that these “statistics are not proof of anything” but said that actuarial “science” pointed to foul play. The HSCA requested, in 1978, a copy of the actuarial study from the London paper and received a response on May 19, 1978, from the legal manager saying the article was “based on a careless journalistic mistake and should not have been published. This was realized by The Sunday Times editorial staff after the first edition—the one which goes to the United States and which I believe you have—had gone out, and later editions were amended…We asked [the actuary] the wrong question…what were the odds against fifteen named people out of the population of the United States dying within a short period of time…[instead of] the odds against fifteen of those included in the Warren Commission Index dying within a given period,” which they said would have been “much lower.” The editor said this was a “fundamental error…for which we apologize.”5        Apart from the issue of fifteen named people out of the U.S. population as opposed to fifteen un named people from the Warren Commission Index (there are 2,479 people in the Commission Index),6 the joker here is “named” people. For instance, if one were to ask what are the odds against one named person (out of any number, no matter how big or small) getting multiple sclerosis, they would be about 500 to 1, since about 1 out of 500 people in our population gets multiple sclerosis. However, if the question were what are the odds against one person (one person period, not one named person) out of 500 getting multiple sclerosis, they would be about 1 out of 1—in other words, it’s a virtual certainty, since 1 out of 500 people gets multiple sclerosis.
Reclaiming History Vincent Bugliosi

JohnM

[Tom Mahon]

The genesis of the mysterious-deaths allegation goes back farther than the movie Executive Action. Penn Jones Jr., the late editor of a small, four-page weekly newspaper, the Midlothian Mirror, with a circulation of about five hundred1 in Midlothian, Texas (a semi-rural, one-yellow-page town of around 1,500 twenty-five miles southwest of Dallas), believed deeply in Oswald’s innocence.* In 1966 he self-published the first volume of his four-volume Forgive My Grief series in which he started alleging that people connected to or associated with the assassination in some way were suffering untimely and mysterious deaths—for instance, Earlene Roberts, the housekeeper of the rooming house where Oswald lived. But as the HSCA said, “There is no indication in the records relating to her death, or in Mr. Jones’ book, as to what exactly was mysterious about a 61-year-old woman with large calcium deposits and a case of pneumonia, dying of acute heart failure. The same is the case with other deaths cited in the same book, for example, Dr. Nicholas Chetta, the coroner…at David Ferrie’s death, and Thomas Howard, Jack Ruby’s attorney, both of whom died of heart attacks [Chetta in 1968, Howard in 1965].”2 Jones tells his readers that his book “gives names and details of the strange deaths of…people who knew something, learned something, or saw something that was supposed to have remained secret.”

The biggest supporter of Jones’s fantastic charges was Ramparts magazine, a onetime Catholic quarterly turned New Left monthly out of San Francisco. After interviewing him several times and conducting what the editorial staff suggested was a thorough investigation, they bought his allegations completely, publishing many of his articles on mysterious deaths word for word and concluding “that Penn [Jones] was right when he said the Warren Report was a waste of paper.”4 What gave tremendous aid to Penn Jones’s fantasies and mythology was a February 26, 1967, article in the London Sunday Times in which an actuary hired by the paper calculated that the odds of fifteen of the people Jones had listed as having died mysterious deaths (a list that included Oswald, Ruby, and Tippit) within a little over a three-year period after November 22, 1963 (up to the date of the article, February 26, 1967), were “100 trillion to one.” The article ended by observing that these “statistics are not proof of anything” but said that actuarial “science” pointed to foul play. The HSCA requested, in 1978, a copy of the actuarial study from the London paper and received a response on May 19, 1978, from the legal manager saying the article was “based on a careless journalistic mistake and should not have been published. This was realized by The Sunday Times editorial staff after the first edition—the one which goes to the United States and which I believe you have—had gone out, and later editions were amended…We asked [the actuary] the wrong question…what were the odds against fifteen named people out of the population of the United States dying within a short period of time…[instead of] the odds against fifteen of those included in the Warren Commission Index dying within a given period,” which they said would have been “much lower.” The editor said this was a “fundamental error…for which we apologize.”5        Apart from the issue of fifteen named people out of the U.S. population as opposed to fifteen un named people from the Warren Commission Index (there are 2,479 people in the Commission Index),6 the joker here is “named” people. For instance, if one were to ask what are the odds against one named person (out of any number, no matter how big or small) getting multiple sclerosis, they would be about 500 to 1, since about 1 out of 500 people in our population gets multiple sclerosis. However, if the question were what are the odds against one person (one person period, not one named person) out of 500 getting multiple sclerosis, they would be about 1 out of 1—in other words, it’s a virtual certainty, since 1 out of 500 people gets multiple sclerosis.
Reclaiming History Vincent Bugliosi

JohnM

Dear John,

Do you think we're more likely to read your posts if you bold the text?

-- Tom

[John Mytton]

Dear John,

Do you think we're more likely to read your posts if you bold the text?

-- Tom

Hi Tom,

•When I write my own text it's written with regular text with the occasional italic, bold or underline for specific emphasis and if I'm feeling that a concept requires a particularly stronger presence I use a bigger font.

•When I quote another member I use the Forum quote function.

Do you think we're more likely to read your posts if you bold the text?

•And when I quote an outside source I bold it all.

It works for me and keeps every post I contribute consistent.

JohnM

[Tom Mahon]

Hi Tom,

•When I write my own text it's written with regular text with the occasional italic, bold or underline for specific emphasis and if I'm feeling that a concept requires a particularly stronger presence I use a bigger font.

•When I quote another member I use the Forum quote function.
•And when I quote an outside source I bold it all.

It works for me and keeps every post I contribute consistent.

JohnM

Dear John,

I prefer to read regular-sized, non-bolded, text.

-- Tom

[John Mytton]

Dear John,

I prefer to read regular-sized, non-bolded, text.

-- Tom

Thanks Tom,

I explained why I post the way I do, and if you read my posts or don't read my posts makes no difference to me.

JohnM

[Patrick Davies]

My money, and this is purely personal speculative opinion, is that a former president is implicated in some way in the unreleased files. Most likely LBJ. Although long dead, postponement of publication might be felt necessary to protect credibility of the institution.

[Tom Sorensen]

Rephrasing:

It only takes a handful of those connected to the assassination who held material knowledge of the events died within a few years of the assassination to have been killed for the probability of a cover-up, implying a conspiracy, become extremely high.
 
If, out of a group of 50 people, 5 of them win the lottery in the same year, you can conclude that it is almost certain, beyond reasonable doubt, there is foul play. The fact that the other 45 do not win, does not alter this.

Considering the witnesses who did not die, one can assume that it was not necessary for them to be to killed. If all witnesses were, suspicions would be overwhelming and the scheme would collapse.

Mathematical consideration of probabilities prevents us jumping to conclusions – Just because something "feels" true doesn't mean it is. Probability helps us weigh different explanations and decide which is most likely, objectively. When we use logic, we rely on facts and structured arguments. This helps avoid emotional thinking and keeps discussions focused on evidence. This is how, for example and NTSB investigation would be run, where finding probable cause is crucial to future safety.

It only takes a handful of those connected to the assassination who held material knowledge of the events died within a few years of the assassination to have been killed for the probability of a cover-up, implying a conspiracy, become extremely high.

This doesn't make sense to me as we're way above a handful. Unless the conspirators didn't have a clue about statistics they would soon back off but that didn't happen. They happily moved past "extremely high" toward "overwhelming" probability of a conspiracy.

[Patrick Davies]

It only takes a handful of those connected to the assassination who held material knowledge of the events died within a few years of the assassination to have been killed for the probability of a cover-up, implying a conspiracy, become extremely high.

This doesn't make sense to me as we're way above a handful. Unless the conspirators didn't have a clue about statistics they would soon back off but that didn't happen. They happily moved past "extremely high" toward "overwhelming" probability of a conspiracy.

"Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action.” Ian Fleming, Goldfinger