Bill Fite
-
Posts
275 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Bill Fite
-
-
1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:
Getting back to my point (above) about the salience of forensic details, how would we calculate the probability that both Sam Giancana and George De Mohrenschildt would have been murdered, by chance, one day prior to their scheduled testimony about the JFK assassination?
Hi W
First thoughts: I think that there are 2 probability estimates you would need.
I might estimate them using simulation if all the data was readily available.
Data needed:
* witness list
* witness sex and age
* time frame to use
* categories of cause of death of witnesses in that time frame
* dates of death
* mortality rates by sex and age in each of the categories of death, maybe just the mortality rate alone by murder
* dates witnesses were being called to testify or give a statement
So the first probability that I would look at is the number of expected deaths in each category vs. actual deaths in that category.
I would simulate 100K instances with the following steps.
- Set count of more_than_observed deaths = 0
- Loop = 0
- Set simulated_deaths = 0
- for each witness generate a uniform random number in the 0 to 1 range -- call this u
- for each witness look up the appropriate mortality rate by sex and age -- call this p
- for each witness if their u < p then simulated_deaths = simulated_deaths + 1
- if simulated deaths >= observed deaths in category then more_than_observed_deaths = more_than_observed_deaths
- loop = loop + 1
- if loop = 100K STOP else GOTO step 3
After 100k simulations the probability of getting at least the observed number of deaths in the category = more_than_observed_deaths / 100K.
************************
For the second probability - witness death in some time period immediately before testifying (lets say 14 days) I might do this:
N = number of days between JFKA and scheduled investigation appearance
p = 14 / N
then use the cumulative binomial probability distribution to get the probability of at least the observed witness deaths in that short time period.
I think those estimates would work and hope that I've explained it well enough.
-
1 hour ago, Kevin Balch said:
In 1965 the clearance rate for homicide was around 80% meaning a murderer had approximately 20% chance of not getting caught. It’s much lower now.
Hi Kevin - it's interesting to think about this, at least for me.
-
5 hours ago, Bill Simpich said:
My two cents: If we analyzed the other 40 cases in Belzer's book on this thread, we would sink into a sea of uncertainty simply because of the weight of the details.
my 2¢: The way to deal with uncertainty is to use probability and statistics to quantify it by looking at all the data available and not by picking a few examples (you might be accused of cherry-picking coincidental data).
In Reclaiming Science - the JFK Conspiracy - Charnin uses a Poisson probability distribution to model the probabilities of unexpected deaths of witnesses / interviewees of the investigations. If the 1960-1970 era age-corrected population death rates by suicide / heart attack / murder / cancer / etc. are correct then the probabilities of getting n unexpected deaths from the sample population are a way to determine if the deaths were part of the natural life and death process or not.
The book is available on Kindle.
Otherwise, you are left with an argument similar to - well one person duplicated 2 hits in 3 shots in < 9 seconds so that's proof LHO (or whoever shot from the TSBD) did it. Just because something is possible, doesn't mean it happened.
-
3 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:
Hit List is valuable for multiple reasons. I'm not sure about Dead Wrong. Regarding the statistics see Richard Charnin's "Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy." Eight bucks. In addition to imho, good reviews.
Oh great - I have that book on Kindle & one of the same MSc degrees as the author. Now I'm gonnahavta look through it again - maybe even read it closely. I remember thinking it pretty thought provoking.
I have always wondered about probability calculations and the JFKA - why they aren't used more - then I remember I did read Innumeracy.
link to spreadsheet with all data, calculations, and results
link to author's blog JFKA section
-
8 hours ago, Steven Kossor said:
Fluid dynamics has been established science for a long, long time - decades at least. Fluids move in a cone away from the source. A blunt object applies force differently than a speeding bullet and results in different "splatter" patterns, but the splatter always moves away from the source of the striking force. If the fluid lands on the driver's side quarter panel of a limousine, it was propelled in that direction, moving away from the source of the energy that struck the object that exhausted the fluid from inside it. The apex of the cone points toward the source of the energy that moved the fluid. You can't have blood and gore spraying on officer Hargis with sufficient force to make him think that he, himself, had been struck by a shot (rather than "driving through a mist"), without having the cone pointed close to 180 degrees away from Hargis and the driver's side quarter panel of the limousine in DP at one of the times that JFK was shot in the head on 11/22/63 (in the direction of the GK). If fluid traveled elsewhere, it's because of force being applied (shot(s)) from other locations. That's plain old fluid dynamics in action, no matter what the Zfilm or other media may, or may not, depict. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.
+1
-
On 4/8/2024 at 6:48 AM, Pat Speer said:
Just a thought. But as it currently stands, researchers are forced to reach out to historians, experts in the sciences, and the media, in hopes of finding a sympathetic ear, entirely on their own. Well, the thought occurs that AI could be used to assess which historians, scientists and journalists would be sympathetic to any new discovery or new theory, and that a respected gatekeeper (e.g. the Mary Ferrell Foundation) could then be tasked with contacting those most likely to be interested.
Because, as it is, it's chaos, with the loudest voiced and often sloppiest researchers sucking all the air out of the room. The thought occurs that AI might help us change that.
Hi Pat
If the data could be collected (by AI or web scraping or ...by hand) a straightforward approach would be to estimate a statistical model using multinomial logistic regression to estimate the probabilities for each of the targets of the research accepting it and publishing it.
-
29 minutes ago, Denny Zartman said:
Three JFK's performing an autopsy on himself. Okay.
How are these images enhancing our understanding of the truth?
It very well may end up that the AI in the future will be reflecting a whole bunch of previously generated AI garbage all over the net.
-
11 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:
Debates are always after the conventions.
Meant by allowing him to run in the Dem primary and debating, isn't that what RFKjr wanted? or am I misremembering that?
-
Would this have been avoided if Biden had agreed to debate him?
-
1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:
Yes, fortran cards.
That's where I started both academically and professionally. Mostly using a somewhat dead language PL1 which seemed like a combination of COBOL for input/output and Fortran for computation.
Hand that deck in then go wait for an hour for the run to finish after those ahead in the stack.
The poor guy who took the decks and then ran them was no longer needed once we could submit jobs from the desktop pcs.
-
As someone who had their area of study renamed in the Great Renaming around the turn of the millennium from the name the general population didn't understand, Operations Research Analyst, to a name that apparently refers to some guys and gals in the back of a pharmacy, Prescriptive Analytics Engineer by the 'Data Scientists', I find it interesting to see algorithms that existed before being labelled AI.
For example, the facial recognition algorithms were well-known decades ago before AI was in the news: I remember laughing at Polly Perrett's character on NCIS recognising a suspect by searching YouTube videos in maybe 15 minutes.
Anyway, I've seen AI go from simple rule based systems, to providing solutions to complex planning problems in Prolog (how to re-assign airliners to gates when the schedule has been disrupted by weather cancellations and re-routings), to how to predict the next set of words given previous sets of words.
IMO - Large Language Models (AI now) are programs that have implemented memorization which isn't Intelligence. The Prolog example is closer to real intelligence. But just my opinion.
That said, I think the applications that have been discussed would be very interesting, just don't know if I would label them AI.
-
2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:
To be sure, Guinn, or anyone can make mistakes. I made one in 1983 and then another one in 1995, for example.
LOL - thanks
-
2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:
the big takeaway is Guinn saying it "appears, he added, that these (NAA) results can be obtained even if the paraffin casts are made 2 1/2 hours after shooting the rifle."
another question, actually 2:
Is this the same Guinn ran the NAA tests comparing the chemical composition of the MC bullets and refused to report the statistical confidence in his conclusions which were later refuted with 95% confidence?
Where does the 2.5 hour estimate come from? experiments or guessing?
QuoteOn the crucial work of Randich and Grant published in the Journal of Forensic Science which completely demolishes the validity of neutron activation analysis for the comparison of bullet lead, touted by the HSCA on the basis of Vincent Guinn's claims.
https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/death-of-the-naa-verdict
I don't know if the 2.5 hours is the upper limit or how it was arrived at, but Guinn seems to have been mistaken in the past.
-
4 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:
And, yes, again the mention that a simple washing the face would eliminate even traces of antimony, evidently the most resilient of GSRs.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but
- The NAA was positive for the casts from the hands, but could have been caused by handling printed materials among other items - books for example.
- So - don't most people wash their hands when using the toilet?
- Do most people wash their hands more thoroughly than their face?
- If LHO's washing was to remove GSRs why would he not concentrate on his hands?
I don't follow the assumption that he would wash the GSRs off his face but not his hands.
-
wrt Iraq: I always remembered this.
When Gen. Colin Powell gave his presentation to the United Nations, the US had the Guernica tapestry covered. That should have told everyone what the truth was.
QuoteEarlier this week, U.N. officials hung a blue curtain over a tapestry reproduction of Picasso’s Guernica at the entrance of the Security Council. The spot is where diplomats and others make statements to the press, and ostensibly officials thought it would be inappropriate for Colin Powell to speak about war in Iraq with the 20th century’s most iconic protest against the inhumanity of war as his backdrop. Why is Guernica such a powerfully controversial image after all these years, and how did it come to hang in tapestry form at the United Nations?
-
6 hours ago, Pat Speer said:
@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 hours ago, Denise Hazelwood said:
quote above
Actually, the quoted text was written by Pat Speer - I just agreed.
-
7 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:
I think those of us in the CT side (includes me) have to release this contention, that the negative cheek test proves anything.
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 -
-
On 2/18/2024 at 6:29 PM, Pat Speer said:
I believe the point made by Chesser and others is that the cloud of smaller fragments is towards the front of the head, not rear, which would not be in keeping with a bullet's heading from back to front, as smaller fragments have less momentum, and travel shorter distances than larger fragments.
+1
-
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?
-
22 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:
8. The FBI never told the WC about Guinn's tests, nor his results. Instead they had Cortlandt Cunningham, Frazier's partner, testify that his "personal expectation" was that no residue would leak from Oswald's rifle onto a cheek cast, and that the negative result on the nitrate test (the chemical test on the cast performed by the DPD) was thereby as expected. This concealed that his partner had participated in the FBI's tests of the cheek cast and had established that the rifle would leak residue onto the cheek.
Incredible that they would do this.
-
19 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:
I make the argument on my website that they knew the answer but didn't want to deal with its repercussions.
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.
-
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.
-
11 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:
Dr. Michael Chesser's superb, scientific analysis of the frontal head shot X-ray evidence is definitive, IMO.
Dr. Chesser is a board-certified neurologist who has taken the time to carefully analyze the X-ray evidence, and to demonstrate that the distribution of the bullet fragments-- based on their relative mass-- confirms that the fatal bullet struck JFK in the right forehead.
That much is also obvious from the Zapruder fllm, and Newtonian laws of physics.
To claim that the fatal head shot could have come from the TSBD is scientifically absurd-- anti-Newtonian.
+1
I haven't read Chesser's book, but others have led me to agree.
Hit List-- The Systematic Murders of JFK Witnesses
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
IF the probability estimates are sound and extremely low that proves beyond a reasonable doubt (to borrow a phrase) that something suspicious is going on in the witness deaths.
Playing the devil's advocate here:
I would guess the probability of a mafia boss being murdered is actually several orders of magnitude higher than a person in the 1960s general population. It probably increases a couple more orders of magnitude if he is scheduled to meet w the Feds, no?
Wouldn't the probabilities for murders of reporters who investigate criminal activities be much higher also? As for stealing notes - why would the criminal have to necessarily be looking for JFK notebooks and not notes on some other crime?
I think you can make the anecdotal argument about specific deaths from now until forever and it won't convince many more people. If that would work wouldn't it have closed the issue already?
On the other hand, if the estimated probabilities of the number of witness deaths are extremely low wouldn't that convince anyone other than an OJ jury member that something was going on?
You asked how I would estimate probabilities for witness deaths and I answered that question.