Jump to content
The Education Forum

Bill Fite

Members
  • Posts

    259
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Bill Fite

  1. @Pat Speer Thank you for all the effort you put into this and the clear explanation of all the results of the GSR / NAA tests and experimental setup. I've been looking for more details on the NAA tests for quite a while. Very well done and also well-written.
  2. Actually, the quoted text was written by Pat Speer - I just agreed.
  3. It's not just the paraffin test but the Neutron Activation Analysis tests performed on the Oswald paraffin and the paraffin tests on 7 FBI agents who test fired an MC rifle (the MC rifle). The NAA would be much more sensitive than paraffin tests. LHO's result was negative. All 7 FBI agents positive. A summary can be found here - http://www.22november1963.org.uk/jfk-assassination-neutron-activation-analysis. Pat Speer posted a really good explanation of this last week in this thread -
  4. I seem to remember that there was a JFKA conference in the last year where Ron Paul was going to present who he believed was responsible. Am I misremembering that? or does someone know what he said?
  5. Thanks much for the detailed answer and the amount of time that had to be put into gathering all the info. It's very interesting.
  6. I wonder why the FBI did not do a follow-up on the NAA tests on the 7 test shooters to test for false negatives. Have 7 other marksmen shoot, then wash their faces, then take a paraffin test to see whether the NAA would be positive or negative. I guess the FBI did not have a statistician or probability modeller take a look at the experimental set up or maybe they just didn't want to know the answer.
  7. Watched the videos. Thanks I'd heard of the spot where the storm drain was at the end of the overpass but never seen a photo. I think it was said that it has been paved over in the last few years. Why yuk?
  8. Those on your list are the ones that I think are most suspicious, especially the FBI agents and Richard Case Nagell. IIRC: One of the FBI agents that died just before giving testimony was the agent who collected the photos and movies of the murder.
  9. I don't know if you've seen it, but there is some thought that AI will collapse upon itself by the algorithms finding more and more output from AI on the net and not non-AI-produced data. By garbage in -- I mean AI produced output from the bot algorithm and not the conspirator list. That said, it might be interesting to ask an AI chatbot a question or questions something like: Given the list of suspects and roles what are the 5 most likely conspiracies given at least 1 conspirator in each role and no conspirator in more than 1 conspiracy based on connections between suspects? If I had the time and knowledge about how to best compose the query I would give it a go.
  10. Along those lines, it isn't out of the realm of possibility that * the Paines were involved w LHO in an effort to to protect the world from Communism - an effort directed by someone above the 3 * this might explain - Michael taking LHO to various 'subversive' mtgs and a college campus to infiltrate / monitor the radicals and commies & Ruth taking in Marina and the kids * then once they see what happened to LHO they are then manipulated / managed to produce evidence / testimony to save the world (let alone their own lives) from nuclear destruction or is that out of the realm of possibility? It's a really weird thought, I know.
  11. Exactly -- it would be interesting to see the list of all the evidence / witness statements / experimental results or tests that one has to ignore to accept the Oswald did it all by himself hypothesis.
  12. Well - when LNers claim that the whole murder was possible by one man LHO it is enlightening to look at the probabilities of all the independent events. Assuming that the evidence that would make an LN scenario impossible is not admissible (holes in the jacket and shirt, angles etc..) then what's left -- for example: * Test firing 100 rounds into carcasses and bones did not produce 1 case where the bullet was in as a good a shape as CE399. So let's say there's a 1 in 100 chance it could occur. * There were 120 different sequences for the spikes on the audio tape to occur when the audio tests were done in Dealey Plaza. However, they occurred in the order corresponding to approx motorcycle location. So that's 1 / 120. * IIRC, the CBS recreation of the shooting sequence resulted in 2 or 3 marksmen in 13 coming close to duplicating the shots in time and/or hitting the moving target they rigged up. If there is a later, better test I'd find it interesting. So, just with that data p(Lone Nut) = 0.01 * 0.0083 * 0.23 or approximately 0.000019 or 1 in 52,000 Throw out some tests if you object or multiply in others --> paraffin/chemical spectroscopy / NAA on the LHO paraffin for example.0.0000190.0083
  13. Agreed - that's why it's important to state the assumptions --- independence etc...
  14. Yes - that explains the difference. I think in a question like this the desired probability can be stated - 'What is the probability of at least 40 out of 50 being wrong?' If 41 are wrong then 40 are also wrong.
  15. Sandy I checked on Wolfram Alpha -> link Seems to give the same probability as I had in python which would give the same odds. You can click on the fraction and it will give the decimal. The to get the odds enter 1/that decimal number. Rgds
  16. If I had to do it - (1) Assume the worst case scenario - all the witnesses are just guessing. (2) That gives a probability that any 1 witness is correct of 0.5. (3) If there are 50 witnesses on record then the probability that 40 are wrong would follow a binomial distribution. (4) So we have n=50, p=0.5, x=40. (5) I would then go to Python and use the binomial distribution to find the probability of 40 are more being wrong. (6) So, I would then use the following piece of code to get that probability: from scipy.stats import binom p = binom.cdf(39,50,0.5) print(f'The probability of having 40 or more successes in 50 trials is approximately {1-p:8.6f}') print(f'The odds of having 40 or more successes in 50 trials is {1/(1-p):,.0f} to 1') which prints out the answer: The probability of having 40 or more successes in 50 trials is approximately 0.000012 The odds of having 40 or more successes in 50 trials is 83,818 to 1 note: here a success is a person being wrong in their observation. Assumptions: * The probability of a person being wrong is not greater than if they had just guessed. * The person stated location is independent of other witnesses stated locations. So in the worst case scenario - defined here as independent guessing & independence of wound locations assumptions - I think the above works. Happy to have someone point out the error or errors.
  17. It makes one wonder if shining the spotlight on Oswald was/is a diversion from putting it on Ruby, who confessed to being part of or manipulated by a conspiracy.
  18. I thought that this topic might explain Mr Brennan's testimony: Link: Starting on Page 3 - Paul Joliffe's post
×
×
  • Create New...