Proven: The overwhelming circumstantial case for a JFK conspiracy..

[TruthIsAll]

Proven: The overwhelming circumstantial case for a JFK conspiracy..

First, some recommendations:
Watch "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" tonight on the History Channel.
Rent Oliver Stone's "JFK" (1991).
Rent the movie: "Executive Action" (1972), starring Burt Lancaster.
Read Mark Lane's "Rush to Judgment"
Read Mark Lane's "Plauible Denial"
Read Jim Marr's "Crossfire"

After 40 years, the coverup continues. In 1977, the House Select Committee on Assassinations came to the conclusion that BOTH the JFK and MLK murders were conspiracies. But the corrupt media (ABC, CBS, etc.) won't accept it.

This analysis has been previously posted. But for those who have not seen it, I am posting it again....

We seek to calculate 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 those of undetermined origin.

Take the tinfoil hats off, put your thinking caps on. The Warren Commission interviewed less than 600 witnesses.

Assuming there were 1000 witnesses, the probability that at least 15 would die UNNATURAL deaths in the year following the assassination is: 1 out of 21,230,606,601,227,800.
(or 1 out of 21,230 trillion, 606 billion, 601 million, 227 thousand, 800)

This result is the same order of magnitude of a famous prior, though slightly different, study: An actuary engaged by the London Times in 1963 computed the probability that 18 material witnesses would die (of any cause) within 3 years of the assassination as: 1 out of one hundred thousand trillion.

For the mystery deaths, refer to this table:
http://www.jfk-assassination.de/deaths.html

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

From the 1999 data:
........................1 year...Lifetime
Probability of:
suicide.................0.000107 0.008197
homicide................0.000062 0.004739
accidental death........0.000359 0.027778
undetermined death......0.000014 0.001101

Therefore, the probability of an unnatural death is the sum of the probabilties of the four categories above:
........................0.000542 0.041815

This means that the probability of ANY PERSON dying an unnatural death(as defined above) in a given YEAR is .000542, or 1 out of 2000.

The odds of any person dying an unnatural death(as defined above) in a LIFETIME is .041815, or about 1 of 25.

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, which is derived from, and is 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, pN, is a moderate sized quantity. The formula is: 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), all divided by m factorial.

If m= 15, m factorial = m! = 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 here is the number of witnesses.
Assume N= total witnesses = 1000

Let p= Probability of any individual dying from UNNATURAL causes within a given year = 0.000542
Let a= Expected Number of deaths = pN= 0.542
Let m= Actual Number of UNNATURAL deaths = 15

The probability 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.
Note:
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
Thus, for 1 or more deaths, Prob (X>=1)= 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
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
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

For 15 or more deaths out of 1000 witnesses,
Prob (X>=15) = 0.000000000000000047101810079330
or 1 out of 21,230,606,601,227,800 (or 1 out of 21,230 TRILLION)

What if there were more than 1000 witnesses? That's a fair question. Basic logic tells us that the probability of at least 15 deaths occurring will increase as the number of witnesses increase.

If we assume 2000 witnesses, the probability of 15 deaths is
0.00000000000093, or 1 out of 1,075,228,365,705 (1 out of 1 TRILLION)

If we assume 5000 witnesses, the probability of 15 deaths is 0.000000190, or 1 out of 5,239,859 (1 out of 5 MILLION...still very, very small)

column 1 refers to n, the number of deaths,
column 2 is the probability of at least n deaths,
columm 3 is the mathematical odds

Note: the years in which investigations occurred(Warren -1964 and HSCA -1977) had the most witness deaths (at least 15 in each year). A coincidence?

1000 witnesses
n.......prob.................1 out of
1 0.418 2.39
2 0.103 9.69
3 0.0177 56.26 (1971)
4 0.0023 427 (1968,1975)
5 0.0002 484,018 (1970,74,76)
6 0.000022 45,091 (1967,1969)
7 0.00000169 588,306
8 0.000000114 8,752,118
9 0.00000000683 146,245,847 (1965)
10 0.000000000368 2,712,122,977
11 0.0000000000180 55,278,020,364
12 0.000000000000814 1,228,276,488,499 (1966)
13 0.0000000000000338 29,551,271,527,958
14 0.00000000000000130 765,351,111,903,523 (1967)

15 0.00000000000000004710 21,230,606,601,227,800 (1964)


2000 witnesses
n.......prob...........1 out of

1 .661 1.51
2 0.295 3.39
3 0.096 10.38
4 0.024 41
5 0.005 195
6 0.00089 1,113
7 0.000136 7,343
8 0.0000181 55,093
9 0.00000215 463,452
10 0.000000231 4,321,227
11 0.0000000226 44,239,588
12 0.00000000202 493,399,077
13 0.000000000167 5,954,899,756
14 0.0000000000129 77,331,852,139

15 0.00000000000093 1,075,228,365,705


5000 witnesses
n........prob............1 out of
1 0.933
2 .753 1.33
3 .508 1.97
4 0.288 3.47
5 0.138 7
6 .057 17
7 0.020 47
8 .00670 148
9 .00196 510
10 .00051 1,939
11 0.00012 8,070
12 0.000027 36,485
13 0.0000056 178,135
14 0.0000010 934,300

15 0.000000190 5,239,859




The House Select Committee on Assassinations could not let the actuary's results stand; it was circumstantial proof of a conspiracy.

In response to a letter from the Committee, "London Sunday Times" Legal Manager Anthony Whitaker stated:

"Our piece about the odds against the deaths of the Kennedy witnesses was, I regret to say, 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...- had gone out, and later editions were amended. There was no question of our actuary having got his answer wrong: it was simply that we asked him the wrong question. 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".

Here is the fallacy of this obfuscation:
My calculations agree with the original study; and the probabilities are virtually the same (in the trillions). It is a fairly simple calculation - using the Poisson formula. I do not know what formula the actuary used, but it may well have been the Poisson or the Cumulative Normal Distribution.

In any case, the actuary did exactly what he was asked to do. The Times is using Orwellian-speak to give the impression that there was a mistake in the question to be solved. This is total obfuscation. There was NO miscommunication, here's why:

The probability that at least 15 people in the United States (pop. 280 million) would meet violent deaths in any given year is 100%. It is a certainty. On the other hand the probability that 15 out of a population of say, 1000, would do so is infinitesmal, as both my analysis and the actuarial study both prove.

This settled the matter for the House Select Committee, which apparently decided to dismiss a very legitimate actuarial study of the number of mysterious witness deaths which followed the JFK assassination.

My analysis confirms it.

[LifeDuringWartime]

1. i'm sorry, but...

i just can't handle this math stuff :wtf:

[xJlM]

4. The math doesn't matter to me

It has been pretty clearly proven that Oswald couldn't have done the shooting. Not to mention all those wounds from two shots. The perpetrators of this have gone on to reap whatever benefits they were seeking, and left us with questions which will never be answered.

[TomNickell]

2. If you've 'Proved" it, Why keep posting it????

Over and over and over and overandover and over and over and over....

You've proved nothing. Several of us have explained why in substantial detail.

Once again:
The witnesses were not a random sample of the US population; hence, the statistical analysis is invalid.

[TruthIsAll]

3. Tom Nickell, right on time. Hey Tom, did you ever start a post?

You are sooooo predictable.

[TruthIsAll]

5. Please explain, Why were they not a random sample?

Could it be because they all died mysteriously and were related to the JFK murder?

You know nothing, zilch, about random sampling, statistics or probability.

Give it up.

I post this for those who may have not already seen it.

You fool nobody.

[jobycom]

6. Not a random sample, and not relevant

Even if your numbers proved that many of the witnesses died due to foul play, you have still not proven that their deaths had any conection to JFK's.

Plus, the witnesses were not a random group. Those who watched the motorcade were not chosen to statistically fill a scientific group. Many factors connected them-- they were in downtown Dallas, they mostly lived in the area, many worked nearby, others had no jobs and thus were at the motorcade. You would have to rule out those factors as contributing. In addition, the assassination linked the witnesses in more ways than one. It brough many of them additional fame, additional contacts that were beyond the normal ones expected in a normal life. Thus, they were no longer an average group concerning the number of contacts they made, the number of opportunites for accidents, etc.

And it looks like you are also including secondary witnesses in your group. If so, the factoring becomes even less random, since one of the qualifications to be included in your sample is an untimely death. Another is hazardous background, since many of the witnesses who are reported in that number of statistical oddities were connected to the mob (thus they could testify about it) or to intelligence or law enforcement groups, in which case their life expectancy is shortened.

To statistically "prove" anything, you have to have an equal control group to which to compare your test group. You have to find a group with similar connections united by a similar dark incident which affects their lives in similar ways, and then see if the test group is more or less likely to have a high rate of death as the control group.

I can, for instance, prove that 100% of the people who witnessed the Lincoln assassination were dead within 90 years of the incident. More relevant, I can prove that a random sampling of plane crash victims were dead within a short time after their plane crash. You are defining the group in such a way as to make your results more likely.

You could find another group with a similar mortality rate if you looked hard enough and designed it that way.

And no matter the odds, again, you haven't proven that even if there is some connection between the eaths of all these people, it had anything to do with Kennedy's death. So even if you've found something statistical, and you haven't, you haven't proven what you've found.

[TruthIsAll]

7. Jobycom, a response..

You say:
Even if your numbers proved that many of the witnesses died due to foul play, you have still not proven that their deaths had any conection to JFK's.

I say: Go to the link and read about the connection of the witnesses to the JFK murder.

You say:
Plus, the witnesses were not a random group. Those who watched the motorcade were not chosen to statistically fill a scientific group. Many factors connected them-- they were in downtown Dallas, they mostly lived in the area, many worked nearby, others had no jobs and thus were at the motorcade. You would have to rule out those factors as contributing. In addition, the assassination linked the witnesses in more ways than one. It brough many of them additional fame, additional contacts that were beyond the normal ones expected in a normal life. Thus, they were no longer an average group concerning the number of contacts they made, the number of opportunites for accidents, etc.

I say: You have just revealed your ignorance. They surely are a random group. Why do you say otherwise? Simple. Because you want to use a strawman to hide your lack of mathematical maturity.
Please define a random sample. Are you saying that they were not a random sample because they all died mysteriously? Then your argument is circular. YOU CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.

Now, answer this:
And it looks like you are also including secondary witnesses in your group. If so, the factoring becomes even less random, since one of the qualifications to be included in your sample is an untimely death. Another is hazardous background, since many of the witnesses who are reported in that number of statistical oddities were connected to the mob (thus they could testify about it) or to intelligence or law enforcement groups, in which case their life expectancy is shortened.


You say:
To statistically "prove" anything, you have to have an equal control group to which to compare your test group. You have to find a group with similar connections united by a similar dark incident which affects their lives in similar ways, and then see if the test group is more or less likely to have a high rate of death as the control group.




I say: OK, Here is your control group: The 15 witnesses who died in 1977, within one year of the House Select Committee on Assassinations. See the link. The odds were the same as the 15 witnesses dying in 1964 (councidentally, the year of the Warren Commission).


You say:

I can, for instance, prove that 100% of the people who witnessed the Lincoln assassination were dead within 90 years of the incident. More relevant, I can prove that a random sampling of plane crash victims were dead within a short time after their plane crash. You are defining the group in such a way as to make your results more likely.

I say: Oh really, you can prove that? Come on, get real. No strawmen please. We are talking about ONE year here, not 90 years. We are talking about strange deaths.

You say:
You could find another group with a similar mortality rate if you looked hard enough and designed it that way.

I say:
OK, YOU find the group. I challenge you. Find the group. Find the circumstance which ties them together. YOU WON'T. BECAUSE YOU CANNOT. I did not have to look too hard to find these deade witnesses to JFK. In 1964 AND 1977.

YOU SAY:
And no matter the odds, again, you haven't proven that even if there is some connection between the Deaths of all these people, it had anything to do with Kennedy's death. So even if you've found something statistical, and you haven't, you haven't proven what you've found.

I SAY:
Oh, yes, I have proven something, but you fail to accept or appreciate the MATHEMATICS (of untimely deaths), the massive PHYSICAL evidence of conspiracy, the VISUAL (Zapruder) evidence, ACOUSTIC (dictabelt recordings) evidence, FORENSIC (botched autopsy, insane magic bullet theory), EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY (most witnesses said they heard shots, some SAW shots, coming from the Grassy Knoll).

You miss the whole point of the actuary's mathematical findings, which I have confirmed here. Now, please try to understand it this time: The only point of the study is to determine the probability of at least 15 individuals, considered to have some relationship as witnesses to the JFK murder, all meeting unnatural deaths within a given year.

Is it coincidence or conspiracy? If the mathematics tells me the odds are 120,000 trillion to one that it cannot be coincidence, I will go with the mathematics. I will trust the Cumulative Normal Distribution and the Poisson Distribution.

The only real question is: how many witnesses were there? The Warren Commission interviewed 550. I calculated the odds for 1000, 2000 and 5000 witnesses, just to be conservative.

The CONSERVATIVE odds are 1 out of 5 million, assuming 5000 witnesses.

Now you tell me this is just coincidence.





www.nxnwdemocrats.com

[TruthIsAll]

10. Here are some of the mystery deaths. Nothing here. Move along. Right.

Nothing strange here? Get real.


The Warren Commission- 1964
Date Name Connection with case Cause of death
11/63 Karyn Kupicinet Tv host's daughter who was overheard telling of JFK's death prior to 11/22/63 Murdered
12/63 Jack Zangretti Expressed foreknowledge of Ruby shooting Oswald Gunshot Victim
2/64 Eddy Benavides Lookalike brother to Tippit shooting witness, Domingo Benavides Gunshot to head
2/64 Betty MacDonald* Former Ruby employee who alibied Warren Reynolds shooting suspect. Suicide byhanging in Dallas Jail
3/64 Bill Chesher Thought to have information linking Oswald and Ruby Heart attack
3/64 Hank Killam* Husband of Ruby employee, knew Oswald acquaintance Throat cut
4/64 Bill Hunter* Reporter who was in Ruby's apartment on 11/24/63 Accidental shooting by policeman
5/64 Gary Underhill* CIA agent who claimed Agency was involved Gunshot in head ruled suicide
5/64 Hugh Ward* Private investigator working with Guy Banister and David Ferrie Plane crash in Mexico
5/64 DeLesseps Morrison* New Orleans Mayor Passenger in Ward's plane
8/64 Teresa Norton* Ruby employee Fatally shot
6/64 Guy Banister* x-FBI agent in New Orleans connected to Ferrie, CIA, Carlos Marcello & Oswald Heart attack
9/64 Jim Koethe* Reporter who was in Ruby's apartment on 11/24/63 Blow to neck
9/64 C.D. Jackson "Life" magazine senior Vicepresident who bought Zapruderfilm and locked it away Unknown
10/64 Mary Pinchot JFK "special" friend whose diary was taken by CIA chief James Angleton after her death Murdered
1/65 Paul Mandal "Life" writer who told of JFK turning to rear when shot in throat Cancer
3/65 Tom Howard* Ruby's first lawyer, was in Ruby's apartment on 11/24/63 Heart attack
5/65 Maurice Gatlin* Pilot for Guy Banister Fatal fall
8/65 Mona B. Saenz* Texas Employment clerk who interviewed Oswald Hit by Dallas bus
?/65 David Goldstein Dallasite who helped FBI trace Oswald's pistol Natural causes
9/65 Rose Cheramie* Knew of assassination in advance, told of riding to Dallas with Cubans Hit/run victim
11/65 Dorothy Kilgallen* Columnist who had private interview with Ruby, pledged to "break" JFK case Drug overdose
11/65 Mrs. Earl Smith* Close friend to Dorothy Kilgallen, died two daysafter columnist, may have kept Kilgallen's notes Cause unknown
12/65 William Whaley* Cab driver who reportedly drove Oswald to Oak Cliff (The only Dallas taxi driver to die on duty) Motor collision
1966 Judge Joe Brown Presided over Ruby's trial Heart attack
1966 Karen "Little Lynn" Carlin* Ruby employee who last talked with Ruby before Oswald shooting Gunshot victim
1/66 Earlene Roberts Oswald's landlady Heart attack
2/66 Albert Bogard* Car salesman who said Oswald test drove new car Suicide
6/66 Capt. Frank Martin Dallas policeman who witnessed Oswald slaying, told Warren Commission "there's a lot to be said but probably be better if I don't say it" Sudden cancer
8/66 Lee Bowers Jr.* Witnessed men behind picket fence on Grassy Knoll Motor accident
9/66 Marilyn "Delila Walle* Ruby dancer Shot by husband after 1 month of marriage
10/66 Lt. William Pitzer* JFK autopsy photographer who described his duty as "horrifying experience" Gunshot rule suicided
11/66 Jimmy Levens Fort Worth nightclub owner who hired Ruby employees Natural causes
11/66 James Worrell Jr.* Saw man flee rear of Texas School Book Depository Motor accident
1966 Clarence Oliver Dist. Atty. Investigator who worked Ruby case Unknown
12/66 Hank Suydam Life magazine official in charge of JFK stories Heart attack
1967 Leonard Pullin Civilian Navy employee who helped film "Last Two Days" about assassination One-car crash
1/67 Jack Ruby* Oswald's slayer Lung cancer (he told family he was injected with cancer cells)
2/67 Harold Russell* Saw escape of Tippit killer killed by cop in bar brawl


The Jim Garrison Trial of Clay Shaw- 1967-1969
2/67 David Ferrie* Acquaintance of Oswald, Garrison suspect and employee of Guy Banister Blow to neck (ruled accidental)
2/67 Eladio Del Valle* Anti-Castro Cuban associate of David Ferrie being sought by Garrison Gunshot wound, ax wound tohead
3/67 Dr. Mary Sherman* Ferrie associate working on cancer research Died in fire (possibly shot)
1/68 A. D. Bowie Asst. Dallas District Attorney prosecuting Ruby Cancer
4/68 Hiram Ingram Dallas Deputy Sheriff, close friend to Roger Craig Sudden cancer
5/68 Dr. Nicholas Chetta New Orleans coroner who on death of Ferrie Heart attack
8/68 Philip Geraci* Friend of Perry Russo, told of Oswald/Shaw conversation Electrocution
1/69 Henry Delaune* Brother-in-law to coroner Chetta Murdered
1/69 E.R. Walthers* Dallas Deputy Sheriff who was involved in Depository search, claimed to have found .45-cal. slug Shot by felon
1969 Charles Mentesana Filmed rifle other than Mannlicher-Carcano being taken from Depository Heart attack
4/69 Mary Bledsoe Neighbor to Oswald, also knew David Ferrie Natural causes
4/69 John Crawford* Close friend to both Ruby and Wesley Frazier, who gave ride to Oswald on 11/22/63 Crash of private plane
7/69 Rev. Clyde Johnson* Scheduled to testify about Clay Shaw/Oswald connection Fatally shot
1970 George McGann* Underworld figure connected to Ruby friends, wife, Beverly, took film in Dealey Plaza Murdered
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The HSCA Investigation - 1977
Just when the House Select Committee on Assassinations was investigating the JFK assassination, more suspicious deaths were coming up:
Date Name Connection with case Cause of Death
7/76 John Roselli* Mobster who testified to Senate Committee and was to appear again Stabbed and stuffed in metal drum
1/77 William Pawley* Former Brazilian Ambassador connected to Anti-Castro Cubans, crime figures Gunshot ruled suicide
3/77 George DeMohrenschildt* Close friend to both Oswald and Bouvier family (Jackie Kennedy's parents), CIA contract agent Gunshot wound ruled suicide
3/77 Carlos Prio Soccaras* Former Cuban President, money man for anti-Castro Cubans Gunshot wound ruled suicide
3/77 Paul Raigorodsky Business friend of George DeMohrenschildt and wealthy oilmen Natural causes
5/77 Lou Staples* Dallas radio Talk Show host who told friends he would break assassination case Gunshot to head,ruled suicide
6/77 Louis Nichols Former No. 3 man in FBI, worked on JFK investigation Heart attack
8/77 Alan Belmont FBI official who testified to Warren Commission "Long illness"
8/77 James Cadigan FBI document expert who testified to Warren Commission Fall in home
8/77 Joseph C. Ayres* Chief steward on JFK's Air Force One Shooting accident
8/77 Francis G. Powers* U-2 pilot downed over Russia in 1960 Helicopter crash (He reportedly ran out of fuel)
9/77 Kenneth O'Donnell JFK's closest aide Natural causes
10/77 Donald Kaylor FBI fingerprint chemist Heart attack
10/77 J.M. English Former head of FBI Forensic Sciences Laboratory Heart attack
11/77 William Sullivan* Former No. 3 man in FBI, headed Division 5, counter- espionage and domestic intelligence Hunting accident
1978 C.L. "Lummie" Lewis Dallas Deputy Sheriff who arrested Mafia man Braden in Dealey Plaza Natural causes
9/78 Garland Slack Man who said Oswald fired at his target at rifle range Unknown

[TruthIsAll]

11. Jack Ruby: A common thread in 18 witness deaths..

You don't know Jack...your ok..

[Nlighten1]

8. I watched "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" tonight.

I found some of the witness data sort of lacking but the idea that there were 2 shooters and 4 shots sticks with me.

[mobuto]

9. Statistics are irrelevent

Because they make assumptions about the pool of witnesses that are not necessarily valid. What would be valid? Go and investigate the deaths and find if they are in fact linked to the Kennedy assasination. If they are, then you have a case. Otherwise, its just mental masturbation.