Bang up job, folks...

[Jonathan Cohen]

31 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

What I used is the average of multiple polls. It is known in the field of statistics that averages of polls give more accurate results. (Because of the "law of large numbers.")

Oh really? Can you cite a source for your claim that averaging polls is "known in the field of statistics" for giving "more accurate results" ? Because averaging an average does not in any way give an "accurate" result. To arrive at such, you'd need the actual raw data (total number of respondents, for example).

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

In other words, you cherry-picked the poll that supports your position.

What I used is the average of multiple polls. It is known in the field of statistics that averages of polls give more accurate results. (Because of the "law of large numbers.")

 

Since my position is that public support for the LN ballooned in this century — as reflected in all the polls — it seems that you’re nit-picking a “gotcha.”

[Benjamin Cole]

12 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Wikipedia: 

Conspiracy theorists often argue that there were multiple shooters—a "triangulation of crossfire"—and that the fatal shot was fired from the grassy knoll and struck Kennedy in the front of the head.^[282] Individuals present in Dealey Plaza have been the subject of much speculation, including the three tramps, the umbrella man, and the purported Badge Man.^{[283][284][285]} Conspiracy theorists argue that the autopsy and official investigations were flawed or, at worst, complicit,^[286] and that witnesses to the Kennedy assassination met mysterious and suspicious deaths.^[287]

Conspiracy theories have been espoused by notable figures, such as L. Fletcher Prouty, Chief of Special Operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Kennedy, who believed that elements of the U.S. military and intelligence communities had conspired to assassinate the president.^[288] Governor Connally also rejected the single-bullet theory,^[289][290] and President Johnson reportedly expressed doubt regarding the Warren Commission's conclusions prior to his death.^[291] According to Robert F. Kennedy Jr., his father believed that the Warren Report was a "shoddy piece of craftsmanship" and that John F. Kennedy had been killed by a conspiracy, possibly involving Cuban exiles and the CIA.^[292] Communist rulers like Castro and Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev believed that Kennedy had been killed by right-wing Americans.^[293] Former CIA director R. James Woolsey has argued that Oswald killed Kennedy as part of a Soviet conspiracy.^[294]  

</q>

Hardly a virulent attack.

In 2013 the Associated Press and Gallup both ran JFKA polls.

Gallup found a 61/30% split in favor of conspiracy.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1813/Most-Americans-Believe-Oswald-Conspired-Others-Kill-JFK.aspx

The AP found a 59/24% split pro-conspiracy with 16% unsure.  

http://surveys.associatedpress.com/data/GfK/AP-GfK April 2013 Topline Posted FINAL_JFK.pdf

The AP poll also asked:

How much of what you know about the Kennedy assassination has come from each of the following sources. (Nearly all/most)

Movies or fictional TV shows — 9%

Newspapers, magazines, television news or websites operated by news organizations — 35%

History textbooks or other non- fiction books — 37%

Discussion with friends or family — 12%

Blogs or websites that are not operated by news organizations — 6%

Maybe they flooded JFKA newsgroups and forums with “CTs” whose job was to uphold at least one Lone Nut talking point — that the back shot transited, for instance?

  

"Maybe they flooded JFKA newsgroups and forums with “CTs” whose job was to uphold at least one Lone Nut talking point — that the back shot transited, for instance?"--CV

Stay classy, San Diego. 

[Benjamin Cole]

We don't even know what we don't know. 

Yes, the JFKA research community is not perfect. 

But ponder this from The Intercept, a pretty good independent news organization: 

 

"Social media platforms like Facebook are escalating their efforts to get real news — politically troublesome tales of greed and corruption — out of your feed. They’ve decided it’s bad for business when users leave their walled garden to read a long article instead of continuously scrolling through Facebook.

This has been a long time coming, but we’ve passed the point of no return. Visits to The Intercept’s website from Facebook dropped by more than half in the past year. Visits from our own Facebook page dropped by an astonishing 83 percent.

When Facebook and its ilk bury our content, that doesn’t just mean fewer clicks or pageviews. Because we’re a nonprofit, fewer new readers also means fewer of the donations that ensure we’ll still be here tomorrow publishing journalism that takes on the powerful."

---30---

With some fiddling with algorithms, any news on social media can and does get buried. 

Blaming the JFKA research community for the censorship and polluting of news from the deeply-resourced Deep State...seems rather a stretch. 

The JFKA research community vs. the Deep State is like David (minus his sling) vs. Goliath. 

Kudos to the JFKA community for dauntless pursuit of the truth, even if some of us  have different assessments of what is true. 

Frankly, the US public is to be credited for, in this case, their ability to possibly see through the muck. 

 

 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Blaming the JFKA research community for the censorship and polluting of news from the deeply-resourced Deep State...seems rather a stretch. 

I haven’t seen that argument.  I’m blaming the JFKA research community  for ignoring historical facts — T3 back wound, throat entrance — in favor of rabbit holes like the acoustics, the NAA, the provenance of the Magic Bullet, the head wound(s), and any number of other dead ends.

Edited September 26, 2023 by Cliff Varnell

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

I haven’t seen that argument.  I’m blaming the JFKA research community  for ignoring historical facts — T3 back wound, throat entrance — in favor of rabbit holes like the acoustics, the NAA, the provenance of the Magic Bullet, the head wound(s), and any number of other dead ends.

You are entitled to your opinions and theories. 

There are several earnest views on the JFKA, some in opposition to the other, held by highly intelligent people. 

So it goes. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

You are entitled to your opinions and theories. 

The bullet holes in JFK’s clothes are four inches below the collars.

Is that a fact, or a theory?

 

[Sandy Larsen]

3 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

What I used is the average of multiple polls. It is known in the field of statistics that averages of polls give more accurate results. (Because of the "law of large numbers.")

3 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Oh really? Can you cite a source for your claim that averaging polls is "known in the field of statistics" for giving "more accurate results" ?  Because averaging an average does not in any way give an "accurate" result.

 

The goal of a poll is to determine what percentage of a group of people believes a specified thing. If pollsters polled every single person in the group, the calculated percentage would be precisely correct. Problem is, it is usually impractical to poll everybody. Pollsters will reduce the sample size to take care of that. That is to say, they will poll fewer people.

In statistics, the law of large numbers states that the larger the sample size is (i.e. the greater the number of people), the more accurate the results will be. Conversely, the lower the sample size is, the less accurate the results will be.

So the larger the poll size, the more accurate the results will be. Which makes sense.

Averaging multiple polls is equivalent to having a single poll with a larger sample size. For example, if in one poll 1500 people respond, in another 1000 people respond, and in yet another 500 people respond, averaging these polls would give the same results as if a single poll were taken and the same 3000 people responded. Since the sample size increased, the law of large numbers says that the results of the averaged polls will be more accurate.

 

3 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Because averaging an average does not in any way give an "accurate" result.

 

You don't simply average poll-averages when averaging polls. You need to weight each poll average by its sample size first.

 

3 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Because averaging an average does not in any way give an "accurate" result. To arrive at such, you'd need the actual raw data (total number of respondents, for example).

All reputable pollsters provide that data.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

4 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Since my position is that public support for the LN ballooned in this century — as reflected in all the polls — it seems that you’re nit-picking a “gotcha.”

 

I don't think so Cliff.

You said that the 1991 movie JFK  didn't increase the percentage of those who believe in conspiracy. I showed that it actually increased by 15 percentage points IIRC. 1991 is not in this century.

 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I don't think so Cliff.

You said that the 1991 movie JFK  didn't increase the percentage of those who believe in conspiracy.

No, I said the Gallup polling showed a consistency in public opinion from 1976 to 2001.  I also pointed out that the spike in conspiracy belief following the release of JFK matched highs reached twice before.  Jim D. wrote:

“The number of people who did not buy the WC and thought it was a conspiracy went through the ceiling in the years  1991-92 due to the film JFK.”

This is an over-statement since the polling you cited shows that level of support in both the 70’s and 80’s, and spiked 6 points more in 1998.

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I showed that it actually increased by 15 percentage points IIRC. 1991 is not in this century.

And since that did not go “through the ceiling” the claim that it did is an exaggeration.

[James DiEugenio]

BTW, averaging polls is a common practice by experts in the field, 538 does it all the time.

Let me add, if you were not around back then, the attack on Oliver Stone was unprecedented in film history.

It actually began seven months before the film debuted.  And this debate went on until the Academy Awards. When David Belin, in an anonymous letter to the trades, begged the Academy not to give any Oscars to JFK. In other words almost a year.  

Loomis and Evans knew that unless they did something, that debate would continue for the 30th and the critics would get a lot of time due to that controversy.  So they arranged for Posner to be their counter.  And his PR tour was simply incredible.  How many Kennedy assassination books get an ad in the NY TImes, cover of US News and World Report and an ABC prime time spot in the first week?  None that I can think of.  And the first two  are explained by Evans' influence  and at ABC by Casey's gang. (It later came out that Evans himself wrote the text for the Times ad.)

And that was just the beginning. Posner was everywhere for weeks on end.  And this helped wipe out some good books that came out for the 30th like Fonzi's.  I actually asked Gaeton about this and that is what he said.   What Evans and Loomis did was plain and simple: a combination of termination and preemption.  So if anyone tells you we are not in a war, call them on it.

BTW, not only will Landis be in Pittsburgh, I hear Alec Baldwin will be also.

Edited September 26, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

The bullet holes in JFK’s clothes are four inches below the collars.

Is that a fact, or a theory?

 

Even if the JFKA research community had unified behind a single theory of the JFKA, and let's say your theory of the mechanics of the JFKA, it would not have mattered. 

The Deep State has 1,000, or perhaps 10,000 the resources as the JFKA research community. 

The public (IMHO) has largely come to the correct conclusion about the JFKA largely due to the indisputable facts about the JFKA, that is LHO was murdered shortly thereafter (inherently suspicious), and the accuracy and rapidity of the shots does not line up with a lone gunman armed with a single-shot bolt-action rifle. 

Strange truth: It may be that Donks are joining the LN crowd in recent decades, a migration  entirely unrelated to the JFKA research community.

In a regrettable turn of events, Donks are responding to CIA woke ads, and CIA mouthpieces (Daily Beast, Rolling Stone) and the fact that the CIA had obviously targeted Trump---ergo, the CIA must be "good," as Trump is bad. 

Donk faith in authoritarianism and official police agencies is soaring. So the official JFKA narrative is gaining among Donks, and losing ground among 'Phants.

[Benjamin Cole]

Add on:

If Tucker Carlsen, Trump and RFK2 say the CIA did the JFKA, does that the mean the Donks have to take the opposing point of view? 

If the Donk Dicatator-Puppet-in-Chief does a snuff job on the JFK Records, do Donks have to say "Only nut jobs believe in a JFKA conspiracy, anyways." 

That might swing the polls....

 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Even if the JFKA research community had unified behind a single theory of the JFKA, and let's say your theory of the mechanics of the JFKA, it would not have mattered. 

So you’re saying that it’s just a theory that the bullet holes in JFK’s clothes are four inches below the bottom of the collars?

Promotion of false mystery has been a feature of the cover-up since 1966.

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

If the Donk Dicatator-Puppet-in-Chief does a snuff job on the JFK Records, 

As opposed to Pet Theorists on-line who do a snuff job on the facts of the case?