Bill Fite

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.

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.

Thanks for reposting this.

Interesting... thanks.

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.

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.

Mr Caddy - thanks also for posting this interview.

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

Agreed - that's why it's important to state the assumptions --- independence etc...

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.

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

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.

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.

I thought that this topic might explain Mr Brennan's testimony: Link: Starting on Page 3 - Paul Joliffe's post

Maybe it's just me, but.... I think you need to state precisely which "Kennedy conspiracists" that you are referring to. Those who believe: 1) LHO may / may not have been involved, may / may not have been the sole person to fire shots. 2) Others were involved & all shots from the 6th floor window or two windows on the 6th floor. 3) Conspiracy with multiple shots from multiple locations. 4) Conspiracy organized and run by *********. I assume you are referring only to (4) in the paragraph quoted. However, the summary paragraph isn't clear which level of conspiracy is being referred to -> all conspiracies or a specific one?

Just to be the devil's advocate here Wouldn't * Harry Chapin w his eliminate hunger campaign have been more of a threat in 1980 and his death (by car burning up on the highway) be just as mysterious? Chapin was a real social warrior. * Mick Jagger with his Street Fighting Man lyrics ("now the time is right for a palace revolution") and marching in the London anti-Vietnam war demonstrations in 1968 while Lennon stayed home or in bed be more of a threat than Lennon? (even tho by 1980 neither were a threat).

+1

Her interview left no doubt as to the approach / purpose of the WC.

One of the most interesting interviews I've heard. She's extremely well-spoken. Link to Black Op Radio Interview

Thanks. I guess part of my skepticism is that in my memory Lennon's big song at the time was Watching the Wheels. In it he basically says he has withdrawn and is satisfied to sit back and watch and that he just had to let it go. It's hardly a call to action.

The first reason is that John Lennon was a man of peace. A couple of questions about that - Why is it so important that he was a man of peace in 1980, what was the military action of concern? ---- the war in Vietnam has been over for 6 years. What political influence did John Lennon have in 1980? --Imagine, Give Peace a Chance and So this is Christmas are 9-10 years in the past. Lennon's time in the spotlight was over. A possible common motive for the murders of JFK, MLK, RFK and Malcolm X, Fred Hampton, Medgar Evers was their support of civil rights -- I don't remember Lennon being an outspoken supporter of civil rights although I don't doubt that he did support them. By 1980, the left had been decapitated by the murders noted above -- why worry about Lennon? . Wouldn't the murder / attempted murder that is most comparable be the attack on George Harrison? -- who is not controversial at all.

Apparently, for the first couple sentences. It seems that entry in the Chronology implies that Ruth Paine may have fabricated the note and put it in the book for Marina as her house had already been searched. This would have made it hard to explain how the note was missed in the search(es?) unless it was hidden in a book. Maybe I'm reading too much into it.

Interesting interview on YouTube above, but - almost as many pats-self-on-back per hour as a certain ex-president. After finishing listening, it sounds like he's started by interviewing Air Force personnel about what they saw on Nov 22 and built on that and other evidence to a theory of who was behind the plot. Some interesting comments in the interview concerning JFK telling some in his circle who was going to kill him, LeMay's actions / inaction, and a claim that considering the goals of the plot as defined in the book that it was a failure.

Sorry, I don't know if this question is permitted, if not, feel free to delete / ignore. What is the make up of the group of voters that would vote for RFK Jr.? Surely, the relatively small number of people concerned with the JFKA records aren't the problem. If either / both of the 2 parties feel that their candidate is so shaky that their main argument is that a vote for a 3rd candidate or non-voting is a vote for the other party - it's on that party to nominate a better candidate. Adding: And the connection to the JFKA seems to be that in the 1964 election the vote against the other guy strategy seems to have started being significant. I seriously doubt JFK would have employed or have had to employ this strategy wrt Goldwater who was a friend.

Sorry, can't help you there..... but hope to be working on an NCAAM basketball model over the next few weeks if time permits.