Possible / Unlikely / Probable

[Cliff Varnell]

On 5/27/2023 at 9:30 AM, Pat Speer said:

I state an obvious fact we agree upon and you try to turn it into a bone of contention.

It *is* a bone of contention.  “Highly unlikely” is not the same as “impossible.”

On 5/27/2023 at 9:30 AM, Pat Speer said:

 

I wrote that the single-assassin solution was "highly unlikely." You insist, like a belligerent blind man, that there is nothing you haven't seen that you could ever accept as possibly existing.

How does that word salad challenge the root facts that JFK suffered a wound of entrance in his throat and a shallow wound right of T3 — facts you actively deny.

On 5/27/2023 at 9:30 AM, Pat Speer said:

 

 

And you claim a mass amount of eyewitness support that doesn't actually exist. Very few if any of the witnesses to the back wound and throat wound insisted the back wound was at T-3

They put it in a location consistent with T3 and the bullet holes in the clothes.

 

On 5/27/2023 at 9:30 AM, Pat Speer said:

and the autopsy photos were fake,

Your prize Fox 5 is clearly a fake.

On 5/27/2023 at 9:30 AM, Pat Speer said:

 

and/or that the throat wound was absolutely positively an entrance wound

That’s what a dozen witnesses saw.

On 5/27/2023 at 9:30 AM, Pat Speer said:

 

and could not be an exit wound under any circumstances. So why pretend? 

I mean, think about it. These people attended a movie premiere with Frank Sinatra and Ava Gardner. They later said Ava was wearing a red dress. When they were shown photos of the wedding, however, they said "Huh, I guess she wasn't wearing a red dress, she was wearing a green dress." But then Cliff jumps in and says "No, she was wearing a red dress, and all the photos are fake, and it's all a part of a mass conspiracy."

...Excuse me?  How is this an argument?

On 5/27/2023 at 9:30 AM, Pat Speer said:

 

 

A voice of reason then says "But why change the dress, when the point was that the photos show Frank with Ava, at a time when he was married to someone else. That's the key. That's the problem. The color of the dress is a minor problem. Why go to such lengths to disguise it when the "faked" photos remain a major problem?

Non-sequitur City...

 The cover-up supplied 4 different locations for the posterior wound.  Rydberg drawing put it around C5/C6; Boswell in his ARRB interview put it at C6; the final autopsy report put it just above the the upper margin of the scapula (T2), and 13+cm below the mastoid process (T1) consistent with Fox 5.  None of this followed autopsy protocol.

On 5/27/2023 at 9:30 AM, Pat Speer said:

To refresh, the SBT led the WC and doctors to push that  the back wound was at the base of the neck. The back wound photos prove that to be a lie.

The clothing defects prove it’s a lie.

Properly prepared medical evidence proves it’s a lie.

The contemporaneous record of 7 witnesses in positions of authority prove it’s a lie.

Consensus witness testimonies prove it’s a lie.

Proves Fox 5 is a lie, too.

On 5/27/2023 at 9:30 AM, Pat Speer said:

 

 

If the back wound photos were faked, well, why in heck weren't they faked to show what they were supposed to show, namely that the back wound was in line with the throat wound?

They were guessing.

On 5/27/2023 at 9:30 AM, Pat Speer said:

 

And yes, I know. The SBT was developed months later. So, assuming the back wound photos were "faked" within a day or two of the assassination, the question becomes why, why, why, would they do such a thing?

Why, why, why do you make such an assumption?  There’s no chain of possession for the autopsy photos.

On 5/27/2023 at 9:30 AM, Pat Speer said:

 

 

If they really thought there were three shots, three hits, and that the bullet creating the back wound fell out, how would having this wound at T-1 be preferable to having this wound an inch or two lower?

They threw 4 locations at the wall hoping something would stick.

On 5/27/2023 at 9:30 AM, Pat Speer said:

It makes no sense. No sense at all. 

 

That you chronically ignore the physical evidence is drool on the floor senseless.

Edited May 28, 2023 by Cliff Varnell

[Bill Fite]

17 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Where in any of this gibberish is the actual physical evidence taken into account?

At 4 inches below the bottom of the collars, the bullet holes in the back of JFK’s clothes prove the shot is impossible.

I hate to be a killjoy but this tripe is absurd.

The physical evidence has been argued over for 60 years without convincing an overwhelming majority, no?

And it's quite easy to either deny it or use it to claim 'possibility' or 'impossibility'.

If as discussed, carefully constructed experiments are set up and run and results filmed and documented and broadcasted it might do more to convince people.

Why haven't the bullet holes in the back of JFK's clothes convinced everyone there was a conspiracy?

 

 

 

[Cliff Varnell]

3 hours ago, Bill Fite said:

The physical evidence has been argued over for 60 years without convincing an overwhelming majority, no?

I wasn’t aware there was a vote taken.

A lot of people like to ignore the physical evidence in order to push their pet theories.  Reflects poorly on them, not the evidence.

3 hours ago, Bill Fite said:

And it's quite easy to either deny it or use it to claim 'possibility' or 'impossibility'.

What is there to deny?

Are *you* denying the bullet holes in the clothes exist?

3 hours ago, Bill Fite said:

If as discussed, carefully constructed experiments are set up and run and results filmed and documented and broadcasted it might do more to convince people.

Gaeton Fonzi induced Arlen Specter to have a nervous breakdown when confronted with the clothing evidence back in 1966.

3 hours ago, Bill Fite said:

Why haven't the bullet holes in the back of JFK's clothes convinced everyone there was a conspiracy?

You didn’t watch the 2hour Oliver Stone Destiny Betrayed documentary?  Right around the 30 minute mark it says JFK had a shallow wound to the right of T3.

You’re claiming Stone got it wrong??

Edited May 28, 2023 by Cliff Varnell

[Gil Jesus]

On 5/21/2023 at 10:59 AM, Bill Fite said:

I've been interested in the experimental evidence for a while.  I recently watched a video on YouTube where the presenter (who debunks conspiracy theories) started off saying the JFK assassination was weird then in going over the evidence presented he used the word unlikely several times before arriving at no real conclusion.

When some argue the LN side experimental evidence is used to show that their favorite LN could possibly have committed the murder all by himself. There are many anecdotal accounts on the internet stating how easy the shot would  be and claims of having recreated it easily.  On the other hand there are frequent quotes from some attributed to Carlos Hathcock (IIRC) that the shot would have been extremely difficult if not impossible, highly unlikely.

As an example  For Illustration:

Restricting ourselves to the experimental evidence Dan Rather and CBS supplied an experiment by setting up a track, tower and target and then having 11 test shooters simulate the shots.

link to CBS recreation

Experimental Setup:

• 11 volunteers familiar with bolt action rifles but unfamiliar with MC
• given time to practice with MC similar to one found in TSB
• results - assuming Dan Rather only reported successes
  • 2 of the test shooters had 2 or more hits in < 6 seconds
  • 1 had 1 hit + 2 'near misses'

Assumptions include: 

• setup accurate
• the experience of the rifleman doesn't bias the experiment
• Rather reported only the most successful tests

Probability:

So, given the small sample size, we could model the probability of success using a Bayesian approach where we update the probability of some Lone Nut being able to pull off the shot from the rear.

Starting with an agnostic prior probability of 1 success, 1 failure the results of the experiment are added to the counts to get 4 successes, 9 failures.

This results in a probability of a LN success of 4/13  or 0.308.   (note: the agnostic prior increases this probability)

an aside:

If you watch the C-Span video linked above to the end - you miss some information - here's the rest of the info Dan R gave at the end of this one.

link to extended experiment

More Data:

* 37 attempts in total by the 11 marksmen

* 17 failed due to MC rifle problems 

* so, assuming Dan R reported successes as above

p(LN successful shots) = (1 + 3) / (20 + 2) = 0.189

At this point, if we assume the rifle tested was representative of the MC population (like we assumed the marksmen were representative of a LN shooter)

p(MC rifle functions) = (1+20) / (2+39)     -- again using the agnostic 1 success, 1 failure prior probability

p(MC rifle functions) = 21 / 41 = 0.512

For the LN hypothesis to be true - events tested by both experiments would have to be successful. This can be estimated by multiplying the 2 probabilities together - assuming the rifle tested by CBS was representative & the marksmen were of similar skill to the LN shooter in the rear.

 p(LN success) = p(LN successful shots) * p(MC rifle functions) =  0.189 * 0.512 = 0.093

Experiment 2:   Don Thomas presentation of acoustic evidence

Setup:

• Experts identified 5 sound impulses on the dicta belt recording as indicating shots
• 32 microphones were set up along the parade route 
• 5 shots were fired in Dealey Plaza
• the test recorded impulses were then matched to the microphone w the best match

Results:

• No matter which microphone picked up the first shot - there are only 120 different ways the sequence can occur.  examples ABCDE, BDCAE etc.
• Only 1 way for the matches to occur in sequence along the parade route where the mic sequence is always increasing from the first mic to the last
• so 1 in 120 chance that the matches would be in a sequence matching the motorcycles path over time along the parade route - ABCDE.
• The sequence matched the 1 in 120.
• note:  mic sequence diagram and explanation @20 minute mark or so
• note2: Thomas misspeaks in presentation and says 1 in 125.  I'm pretty sure that's wrong. 5*4*3*2*1 = 120

For LN 3-shot success  we would need a random match here with probability of 0.0083 assuming the impulses are from shots.  Here we are trying to reject the 5-shot acoustic evidence and would by chance have a (1- 0.0083) chance of doing so.  The expectation is that the 5 impulses will be randomly ordered across time but they show up in the sequence matching the motorcycles progress along the route.  Given that a lone nut was responsible the sequence is most probably one of the other 119 out of 120 sequences.  

So far then the p(LN ) =  0.189 * 0.512 *  0.0083 = 0.00077 or approximately 1 in 1288.  -- based on the experiments and assumptions used in this example.   Other experiments or more results from experiments that were run could be included easily.

So.... as illustrated above it's interesting to think about the experimental evidece in terms of probabilities.  It's easy to state what assumptions are made and count the results then compute the probabilities.

I hope I haven't made a numerical error - if someone finds one I'll correct the above.

It might be very interesting for the 60th year since JFK's murder to see someone do a documentary recreating past experiments.

Other experiments might include:

* suspending watermelons from above by string or rope or below by spring then shooting them to test which way they move

* having test witnesses sit across the street from the TSBD then have people of different sizes appear at the partially closed window for 5 or 10 seconds and seeing how many of the test witnesses could correctly (with some bounds for error) describe their sex, hair color, weight, height, etc.

I do know that lots of people who have explored the murder have evidence that proves a conspiracy - at least to themselves and others - and yet others will reject any evidence conflicting with their beliefs.  

But it could be more interesting if people would state a probability and list the assumptions experiments are based on rather than relying on possibilities.   Well at least for me.

Hope this was interesting example of how this could be done (maybe by an expert in designing experiments and modelling experimental probabilities) and an interesting read.

Bill, I think you'll agree that the CBS rifle tests are worthless because they didn't fire the alleged murder weapon. Any test for speed and accuracy would have had to include the alleged murder weapon, otherwise the test is void, regardless of any other factor.

If they're not firing the alleged murder weapon, the test is worthless in proving that the alleged murder weapon was, in fact, the murder weapon.

More of my take on the rifle tests:

https://gil-jesus.com/the-rifle-tests/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Bill Fite]

5 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

 

Hi Gil

Yes - all experiments & tests would have to be as accurate as possible and most would have to be redone.

I picked 2 that I found links to to illustrate the process.   

Run experiments as close as possible to accepted facts and use the laws of probability to compute the probability of all the individual experiments having a success - where success is defined as a lone assassin could succeed.

For that to happen you would have to multiply all the individual probabilities together - for example

p(rifle doesn't malfunction) * p(test shooters get shots off in time) * p(2 or more hits) *p(bullets shot into cadavers aren't significantly deformed) .... and on.

I think it would be really informative.

Edited May 28, 2023 by Bill Fite
add last line

[Cliff Varnell]

On 5/27/2023 at 9:30 AM, Pat Speer said:

I state an obvious fact we agree upon and you try to turn it into a bone of contention. 

Pat, the critical distinction between us is:

”The 100% Fact of Conspiracy” is the subtext of my work.

”Proving LNT Highly Unlikely” is the context of your work.

I find your approach to the evidence regressive.