JFK Witness deaths:Calculating the Probabilties

[richard...@comcast.net]

http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/05/15/jfk-witness-deaths-calculating-the-probabilities/

We must distinguish between unnatural and natural deaths. The failed to do
so. In its attempt to dismiss the London Sunday Times actuary’s 100,000
TRILLION to 1 odds of 18 witness deaths in three years after the
assassination, the HSCA made the following fundamental errors:

1) considered just 21 of 46 suspicious deaths from Nov 1963-Feb 1967,
avoiding Oswald, Ruby, Ferrie, etc.

2) did not specify that the deaths were UNNATURAL

3) did not consider witness CONNECTIONS to the case and MOTIVATION for
their elimination

4) ignored the need to utilize UNNATURAL MORTALITY RATES

5) falsely stated that the UNIVERSE of witnesses was UNKNOWABLE

6) ignored the KNOWN UNIVERSE of 552 Warren Commission witnesses:14 unnatural,
10 suspicious deaths

7) ignored the SUSPICIOUS deaths in 1977 of 7 top FBI officials called to
testify at HSCA

8) did not question why no one at the London Times knew the actuary's name

9) failed to show the actuary's ASSUMPTIONS and calculation METHOD

10) did not consider using the POISSON distribution function to calculate
probabilities

The HSCA succeeded in misinforming the public by inferring that the
actuary’s odds were not proof of a conspiracy.

The key to calculating the probability of a given number (n) of unnatural
deaths occurring in a given group (N) in a given time period (T) is to
recognize that it is based on the difference between <em>expected and
actual unnatural deaths</em>. The larger the discrepancy between the
actual observed and expected number of deaths, the lower the probability.

These are the relevant probability input parameters:
N= total number of witnesses
n= number of observed unnatural deaths
T= time period in years
R= unnatural mortality rate

The tables in the JFK Witness Spreadsheet Database display unnatural death
probabilities for 552 Warren Commission and 1400 material witnesses based
on unnatural, weighted and homicide mortality rates over 3, 7 and 14 year
time intervals.

In 1963, the annual national homicide rate was 6 per 100,000 (0.00006). At
least 4 of the 552 Warren Commission witnesses were murdered in the first
3 years after the assassination. The equivalent Warren Commission rate was
0.0024 = 4/(552*3) or 240 per 100,000 (40 times the national rate).

If the 5 accidental deaths and 1 suicide in the three year period were actually
homicides, then the equivalent Warren Commission rate was 0.006038 = 10/(552*3) or 603 per 100,000 (100 times the national average).

The Poisson Distribution calculates the probabilities of rare events over
time.

We must first calculate E, the expected number of unnatural deaths: E= N*R*T

The probability of EXACTLY n unnatural deaths is: P = POISSON (n, E,
false).

The probability of AT LEAST n deaths is P = 1- POISSON (n-1, E, true)

EXAMPLE:
The probability of AT LEAST 14 Warren Commission witness homicides in the
14 years from 1964-77:
E = 0.479 = N*T*R = 552*14*0.000062
P = 1 - Poisson (13, 0.479, true)
P = 4.44E-16 = 1 in 2,251,799,813,685,248
P = 1 in 2251 trillion</strong>

View the witness database and the probability sensitivity tables...
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#gid=1

[Jason Burke]

> homicides, then the equivalent Warren Commission rate was 0.006038 == 10/(552*3) or 603 per 100,000 (100 times the national average).

>
> The Poisson Distribution calculates the probabilities of rare events over
> time.
>
> We must first calculate E, the expected number of unnatural deaths: E= N*R*T
>
> The probability of EXACTLY n unnatural deaths is: P = POISSON (n, E,
> false).
>
> The probability of AT LEAST n deaths is P = 1- POISSON (n-1, E, true)
>
> EXAMPLE:
> The probability of AT LEAST 14 Warren Commission witness homicides in the
> 14 years from 1964-77:
> E = 0.479 = N*T*R = 552*14*0.000062
> P = 1 - Poisson (13, 0.479, true)
> P = 4.44E-16 = 1 in 2,251,799,813,685,248
> P = 1 in 2251 trillion</strong>
>
> View the witness database and the probability sensitivity tables...
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#gid=1
>

On no, not again...

[richard...@comcast.net]

On Friday, May 17, 2013 4:12:34 PM UTC-4, Jason Burke wrote:
> On 5/17/2013 11:08 AM, richard...@comcast.net wrote:
>
> > http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/05/15/jfk-witness-deaths-calculating-the-probabilities/
>
> >
>

> > We must distinguish between unnatural and natural deaths. The HSCA failed to do

Yes, again. This time, read it. Try to understand it. And let it sink in.

[John Fiorentino]

Jason:

Yeah, I'm with you.

I was going to tackle this (again and again and again) but I just don't
have the strength.

We should suppose that every crackpot assertion will be re-hashed for the
50th anniversary.

John F.




"Jason Burke" <Burke...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:kn5vb7$mdb$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 5/17/2013 11:08 AM, richard...@comcast.net wrote:
>> http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/05/15/jfk-witness-deaths-calculating-the-probabilities/
>>
>> We must distinguish between unnatural and natural deaths. The failed to
>> do

>> so. In its attempt to dismiss the London Sunday Times actuary?s 100,000

>> TRILLION to 1 odds of 18 witness deaths in three years after the
>> assassination, the HSCA made the following fundamental errors:
>>
>> 1) considered just 21 of 46 suspicious deaths from Nov 1963-Feb 1967,
>> avoiding Oswald, Ruby, Ferrie, etc.
>>
>> 2) did not specify that the deaths were UNNATURAL
>>
>> 3) did not consider witness CONNECTIONS to the case and MOTIVATION for
>> their elimination
>>
>> 4) ignored the need to utilize UNNATURAL MORTALITY RATES
>>
>> 5) falsely stated that the UNIVERSE of witnesses was UNKNOWABLE
>>
>> 6) ignored the KNOWN UNIVERSE of 552 Warren Commission witnesses:14
>> unnatural,
>> 10 suspicious deaths
>>
>> 7) ignored the SUSPICIOUS deaths in 1977 of 7 top FBI officials called to
>> testify at HSCA
>>
>> 8) did not question why no one at the London Times knew the actuary's
>> name
>>
>> 9) failed to show the actuary's ASSUMPTIONS and calculation METHOD
>>
>> 10) did not consider using the POISSON distribution function to calculate
>> probabilities
>>
>> The HSCA succeeded in misinforming the public by inferring that the

>> actuary?s odds were not proof of a conspiracy.

[Jason Burke]

On 5/17/2013 6:19 PM, richard...@comcast.net wrote:
> On Friday, May 17, 2013 4:12:34 PM UTC-4, Jason Burke wrote:
>> On 5/17/2013 11:08 AM, richard...@comcast.net wrote:
>>
>>> http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/05/15/jfk-witness-deaths-calculating-the-probabilities/
>>
>>>
>>
>>> We must distinguish between unnatural and natural deaths. The HSCA failed to do
>>

>>> so. In its attempt to dismiss the London Sunday Times actuary�s 100,000

>>
>>> TRILLION to 1 odds of 18 witness deaths in three years after the
>>
>>> assassination, the HSCA made the following fundamental errors:
>>
>>>
>>
>>> 1) considered just 21 of 46 suspicious deaths from Nov 1963-Feb 1967,
>>
>>> avoiding Oswald, Ruby, Ferrie, etc.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> 2) did not specify that the deaths were UNNATURAL
>>
>>>
>>
>>> 3) did not consider witness CONNECTIONS to the case and MOTIVATION for
>>
>>> their elimination
>>
>>>
>>
>>> 4) ignored the need to utilize UNNATURAL MORTALITY RATES
>>
>>>
>>
>>> 5) falsely stated that the UNIVERSE of witnesses was UNKNOWABLE
>>
>>>
>>
>>> 6) ignored the KNOWN UNIVERSE of 552 Warren Commission witnesses:14 unnatural,
>>
>>> 10 suspicious deaths
>>
>>>
>>
>>> 7) ignored the SUSPICIOUS deaths in 1977 of 7 top FBI officials called to
>>
>>> testify at HSCA
>>
>>>
>>
>>> 8) did not question why no one at the London Times knew the actuary's name
>>
>>>
>>
>>> 9) failed to show the actuary's ASSUMPTIONS and calculation METHOD
>>
>>>
>>
>>> 10) did not consider using the POISSON distribution function to calculate
>>
>>> probabilities
>>
>>>
>>
>>> The HSCA succeeded in misinforming the public by inferring that the
>>

>>> actuary�s odds were not proof of a conspiracy.

Look, Pal. I'm glad you've learned a bit about the Poisson distribution.

Too bad you don't have a clue as to when to apply it.

[Bud]

On May 17, 2:08 pm, richardchar...@comcast.net wrote:
> http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/05/15/jfk-witness-deaths-cal...

>
> We must distinguish between unnatural and natural deaths. The failed to do
> so. In its attempt to dismiss the London Sunday Times actuary’s 100,000
> TRILLION to 1 odds of 18 witness deaths in three years after the
> assassination, the HSCA made the following fundamental errors:

Lets look at some, but not all of your errors...

> 1) considered just 21 of 46 suspicious deaths from Nov 1963-Feb 1967,
> avoiding Oswald, Ruby, Ferrie, etc.

Who determines when a death is "suspicious"? Why not use the data
base of all the witnesses the FBI interviewed (over 5,000)? Plus all
the investigators.

> 2) did not specify that the deaths were UNNATURAL

As determined by who? The coroner who someone with a blog on the
internet?

> 3) did not consider witness CONNECTIONS to the case and MOTIVATION for
> their elimination

Talk about assuming what you`ve set out to show. And who`s
motivations? The Russians? The Cubans? The mob`s. The CIA?

And what is the motivation to kill a witness years after they have
talked to authorities?

> 4) ignored the need to utilize UNNATURAL MORTALITY RATES

Who determined the deaths were unnatural, a coronor or someone with
a blog on the internet.

> 5) falsely stated that the UNIVERSE of witnesses was UNKNOWABLE

As true a statement as you will ever see. What Richard Randolf Carr
a witness?

> 6) ignored the KNOWN UNIVERSE of 552 Warren Commission witnesses:14 unnatural,
> 10 suspicious deaths

Again, who determined "unnatural" and "suspicious"?

> 7) ignored the SUSPICIOUS deaths in 1977 of 7 top FBI officials called to
> testify at HSCA

<snicker> What were they, 80 by then?

> 8) did not question why no one at the London Times knew the actuary's name

Yet you use his calculations anyway.

> 9) failed to show the actuary's ASSUMPTIONS and calculation METHOD

I agree, this article should have been ignored.

> 10) did not consider using the POISSON distribution function to calculate
> probabilities

Doesn`t matter what method you use, if you put garbage in you will
get garbage out.

> The HSCA succeeded in misinforming the public by inferring that the
> actuary’s odds were not proof of a conspiracy.

Yet more "proof". CTers can`t get in the front door by exposing a
conspiracy so they are always trying to sneak in the back way.

> The key to calculating the probability of a given number (n) of unnatural
> deaths occurring in a given group (N)  in a given time period (T) is to
> recognize that it is based on the difference between <em>expected and
> actual unnatural deaths</em>. The larger the discrepancy between the
> actual observed and expected number of deaths, the lower the probability.
>
> These are the relevant probability input parameters:
> N= total number of witnesses
> n= number of observed unnatural deaths
> T= time period in years
> R= unnatural mortality rate
>
> The tables in the JFK Witness Spreadsheet Database display unnatural death
> probabilities for 552 Warren Commission and 1400 material witnesses based
> on unnatural, weighted and homicide mortality rates over 3, 7 and 14 year
> time intervals.
>
> In 1963, the annual national homicide rate was 6 per 100,000 (0.00006). At
> least 4 of the 552 Warren Commission witnesses were murdered in the first
> 3 years after the assassination. The equivalent Warren Commission rate was
> 0.0024 = 4/(552*3) or 240 per 100,000 (40 times the national rate).

What was Texas`s murder rate? What was Dallas`s murder rate?

> If the 5 accidental deaths and 1 suicide in the three year period were actually
> homicides, then the equivalent Warren Commission rate was 0.006038 = 10/(552*3) or 603 per 100,000 (100 times the national average).
>
> The Poisson Distribution calculates the probabilities of rare events over
> time.
>
> We  must first calculate E, the expected number of unnatural deaths: E= N*R*T
>
> The probability of EXACTLY n unnatural deaths is: P = POISSON (n, E,
> false).
>
> The probability of AT LEAST n deaths is P = 1- POISSON (n-1, E, true)
>
> EXAMPLE:
> The probability of AT LEAST 14 Warren Commission witness homicides in the
> 14 years from 1964-77:
> E = 0.479 = N*T*R = 552*14*0.000062
> P = 1 - Poisson (13, 0.479, true)
> P = 4.44E-16 = 1 in 2,251,799,813,685,248
> P = 1 in 2251 trillion</strong>
>

> View the witness database and the probability sensitivity tables...https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29x...

[Chad Anthony]

Why did the conspirators murder all the witnesses AFTER they told their
story? Also some of the witnesses actually supported the WC.A bunch of
nonsense if you ask me.

[richard...@comcast.net]

Poisson is applied to determine the probability of rare events. Getting
shot is a rare event. Dying in an auto accident is a rare event. A suicide
is a rare event.

You making sense is a rare event.

Educate yourself.
Death from a horse kick is a rare event.
http://www.umass.edu/wsp/statistics/lessons/poisson/

[John McAdams]

On 17 May 2013 14:08:03 -0400, richard...@comcast.net wrote:

>http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/05/15/jfk-witness-deaths-calculating-the-probabilities/
>
>We must distinguish between unnatural and natural deaths. The failed to do
>so. In its attempt to dismiss the London Sunday Times actuary�s 100,000
>TRILLION to 1 odds of 18 witness deaths in three years after the
>assassination, the HSCA made the following fundamental errors:
>

Are you even aware that the SUNDAY TIMES *admitted* that the analysis
was nonsense?

>1) considered just 21 of 46 suspicious deaths from Nov 1963-Feb 1967,
>avoiding Oswald, Ruby, Ferrie, etc.
>
>2) did not specify that the deaths were UNNATURAL
>

About half were perfectly natural.

>3) did not consider witness CONNECTIONS to the case and MOTIVATION for
>their elimination
>

The connection was absurdly tenuous in virtually every case.

>4) ignored the need to utilize UNNATURAL MORTALITY RATES
>
>5) falsely stated that the UNIVERSE of witnesses was UNKNOWABLE
>

Huh?

Kindly specify what the universe of witnesses was?

Give us a number!

>6) ignored the KNOWN UNIVERSE of 552 Warren Commission witnesses:14 unnatural,
>10 suspicious deaths
>
>7) ignored the SUSPICIOUS deaths in 1977 of 7 top FBI officials called to
>testify at HSCA
>

Nonsense. There were no "7 top FBI officials" called.

If you think so, name them.

>8) did not question why no one at the London Times knew the actuary's name
>

They probably did, but wanted to spare him embarrassment.

>9) failed to show the actuary's ASSUMPTIONS and calculation METHOD
>

How could they, when the SUNDAY TIMES failed to publish them?

>10) did not consider using the POISSON distribution function to calculate
>probabilities
>

They could not calculate probabilities without knowing the universe of
"connected" people.

>The HSCA succeeded in misinforming the public by inferring that the
>actuary�s odds were not proof of a conspiracy.
>

But the actuary's "odds" were not proof of anything. They told him to
calculate the probability of 17 named people dying.

They did *not* tell him to calculate the probability of 17 out of a
thousand (ot ten thousand) people dying.

>The key to calculating the probability of a given number (n) of unnatural
>deaths occurring in a given group (N) in a given time period (T) is to
>recognize that it is based on the difference between <em>expected and
>actual unnatural deaths</em>. The larger the discrepancy between the
>actual observed and expected number of deaths, the lower the probability.
>
>These are the relevant probability input parameters:
>N= total number of witnesses
>n= number of observed unnatural deaths
>T= time period in years
>R= unnatural mortality rate
>
>The tables in the JFK Witness Spreadsheet Database display unnatural death
>probabilities for 552 Warren Commission and 1400 material witnesses based
>on unnatural, weighted and homicide mortality rates over 3, 7 and 14 year
>time intervals.
>
>In 1963, the annual national homicide rate was 6 per 100,000 (0.00006). At
>least 4 of the 552 Warren Commission witnesses were murdered in the first
>3 years after the assassination. The equivalent Warren Commission rate was
>0.0024 = 4/(552*3) or 240 per 100,000 (40 times the national rate).
>

But most of the people on the list were *not* Warren Commission
witnesses. Was the Mayor of New Orleans a WC witness? He's on the
silly list.

>If the 5 accidental deaths and 1 suicide in the three year period were actually

>homicides, then the equivalent Warren Commission rate was 0.006038 == 10/(552*3) or 603 per 100,000 (100 times the national average).

>
>The Poisson Distribution calculates the probabilities of rare events over
>time.
>
>We must first calculate E, the expected number of unnatural deaths: E= N*R*T
>
>The probability of EXACTLY n unnatural deaths is: P = POISSON (n, E,
>false).
>
>The probability of AT LEAST n deaths is P = 1- POISSON (n-1, E, true)
>
>EXAMPLE:
>The probability of AT LEAST 14 Warren Commission witness homicides in the
>14 years from 1964-77:
>E = 0.479 = N*T*R = 552*14*0.000062
>P = 1 - Poisson (13, 0.479, true)
>P = 4.44E-16 = 1 in 2,251,799,813,685,248
>P = 1 in 2251 trillion</strong>
>
>View the witness database and the probability sensitivity tables...
>https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#gid=1

You don't seem to understand that there must be 10,000 people
"connected" with the assassination, given the absurd critera buffs
use.

Indeed, most of the people on the list were not "connected" at all!

Was the Chief steward on JFK's Air Force One connected?

If he was a conspirator, why not have him poison JFK's food?

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[John McAdams]

But dying from *some* cause is not a rare event.

These "mysterious deaths" were all over the place. About half were
natural.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[John McAdams]

On 17 May 2013 14:08:03 -0400, richard...@comcast.net wrote:

>http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/05/15/jfk-witness-deaths-calculating-the-probabilities/
>
>We must distinguish between unnatural and natural deaths. The failed to do
>so. In its attempt to dismiss the London Sunday Times actuary�s 100,000
>TRILLION to 1 odds of 18 witness deaths in three years after the
>assassination, the HSCA made the following fundamental errors:
>
>1) considered just 21 of 46 suspicious deaths from Nov 1963-Feb 1967,
>avoiding Oswald, Ruby, Ferrie, etc.
>
>2) did not specify that the deaths were UNNATURAL
>
>3) did not consider witness CONNECTIONS to the case and MOTIVATION for
>their elimination
>
>4) ignored the need to utilize UNNATURAL MORTALITY RATES
>
>5) falsely stated that the UNIVERSE of witnesses was UNKNOWABLE
>
>6) ignored the KNOWN UNIVERSE of 552 Warren Commission witnesses:14 unnatural,
>10 suspicious deaths
>
>7) ignored the SUSPICIOUS deaths in 1977 of 7 top FBI officials called to
>testify at HSCA
>
>8) did not question why no one at the London Times knew the actuary's name
>
>9) failed to show the actuary's ASSUMPTIONS and calculation METHOD
>
>10) did not consider using the POISSON distribution function to calculate
>probabilities
>
>The HSCA succeeded in misinforming the public by inferring that the
>actuary�s odds were not proof of a conspiracy.
>

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/deaths.htm

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

Look at the murders of the Mafia dons Sam Giancana and Johnny Roselli.
Whether it was because of the JFK assassination or the CIA attempts to
assassinate Castro, they were not rubbed out when they only told their
stories to a couple of people or a reporter. But they were killed shortly
before they were due to TESTIFY before Congress. Different kettle of fish.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/18/2013 3:18 PM, Bud wrote:
> On May 17, 2:08 pm, richardchar...@comcast.net wrote:
>> http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/05/15/jfk-witness-deaths-cal...
>>
>> We must distinguish between unnatural and natural deaths. The failed to do

>> so. In its attempt to dismiss the London Sunday Times actuary?s 100,000

>> TRILLION to 1 odds of 18 witness deaths in three years after the
>> assassination, the HSCA made the following fundamental errors:
>
> Lets look at some, but not all of your errors...
>
>> 1) considered just 21 of 46 suspicious deaths from Nov 1963-Feb 1967,
>> avoiding Oswald, Ruby, Ferrie, etc.
>
> Who determines when a death is "suspicious"? Why not use the data
> base of all the witnesses the FBI interviewed (over 5,000)? Plus all
> the investigators.
>

Why suspect any death is suspicious? Maybe Georgi Markov just had a bad
cold, right. Maybe you look at the circumstances, which people he was in
contact with and how many times his life had been threatened. Oh, but no,
not you. Must have been a bad cold because only kooks believe in umbrella
guns.

>> 2) did not specify that the deaths were UNNATURAL
>
> As determined by who? The coroner who someone with a blog on the
> internet?
>

Sometimes the coroner is the last to know.

>> 3) did not consider witness CONNECTIONS to the case and MOTIVATION for
>> their elimination
>
> Talk about assuming what you`ve set out to show. And who`s
> motivations? The Russians? The Cubans? The mob`s. The CIA?
>
> And what is the motivation to kill a witness years after they have
> talked to authorities?
>

Maybe they didn't say anything which proved conspiracy earlier.

>> 4) ignored the need to utilize UNNATURAL MORTALITY RATES
>
> Who determined the deaths were unnatural, a coronor or someone with
> a blog on the internet.
>

Sometimes the coroner is that last to know. Especially when he is paid
off. Such as when the CIA kills someone and the coroner lists the cause
of death as accidental.

>> 5) falsely stated that the UNIVERSE of witnesses was UNKNOWABLE
>
> As true a statement as you will ever see. What Richard Randolf Carr
> a witness?
>
>> 6) ignored the KNOWN UNIVERSE of 552 Warren Commission witnesses:14 unnatural,
>> 10 suspicious deaths
>
> Again, who determined "unnatural" and "suspicious"?
>
>> 7) ignored the SUSPICIOUS deaths in 1977 of 7 top FBI officials called to
>> testify at HSCA
>
> <snicker> What were they, 80 by then?
>

What does it matter how old they were?

>> 8) did not question why no one at the London Times knew the actuary's name
>
> Yet you use his calculations anyway.
>
>> 9) failed to show the actuary's ASSUMPTIONS and calculation METHOD
>
> I agree, this article should have been ignored.
>
>> 10) did not consider using the POISSON distribution function to calculate
>> probabilities
>
> Doesn`t matter what method you use, if you put garbage in you will
> get garbage out.
>
>> The HSCA succeeded in misinforming the public by inferring that the

>> actuary?s odds were not proof of a conspiracy.

[Jason Burke]

On 5/18/2013 12:19 PM, richard...@comcast.net wrote:
> On Friday, May 17, 2013 9:44:20 PM UTC-4, Jason Burke wrote:
>> On 5/17/2013 6:19 PM, richard...@comcast.net wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, May 17, 2013 4:12:34 PM UTC-4, Jason Burke wrote:
>>
>>>> On 5/17/2013 11:08 AM, richard...@comcast.net wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/05/15/jfk-witness-deaths-calculating-the-probabilities/
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> We must distinguish between unnatural and natural deaths. The HSCA failed to do
>>
>>>>
>>

>>>>> so. In its attempt to dismiss the London Sunday Times actuary�s 100,000

>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> TRILLION to 1 odds of 18 witness deaths in three years after the
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> assassination, the HSCA made the following fundamental errors:
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> 1) considered just 21 of 46 suspicious deaths from Nov 1963-Feb 1967,
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> avoiding Oswald, Ruby, Ferrie, etc.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> 2) did not specify that the deaths were UNNATURAL
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> 3) did not consider witness CONNECTIONS to the case and MOTIVATION for
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> their elimination
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> 4) ignored the need to utilize UNNATURAL MORTALITY RATES
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> 5) falsely stated that the UNIVERSE of witnesses was UNKNOWABLE
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> 6) ignored the KNOWN UNIVERSE of 552 Warren Commission witnesses:14 unnatural,
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> 10 suspicious deaths
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> 7) ignored the SUSPICIOUS deaths in 1977 of 7 top FBI officials called to
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> testify at HSCA
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> 8) did not question why no one at the London Times knew the actuary's name
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> 9) failed to show the actuary's ASSUMPTIONS and calculation METHOD
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> 10) did not consider using the POISSON distribution function to calculate
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> probabilities
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> The HSCA succeeded in misinforming the public by inferring that the
>>
>>>>
>>

>>>>> actuary�s odds were not proof of a conspiracy.

At the risk of repeating myself:

You have no clue about when the to apply Poisson distribution. It
certainly does *not* apply in this case.

As to my education in mathematics, well, I don't think we need to go
into that again.

[Bud]

On May 18, 7:17 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 5/18/2013 3:18 PM, Bud wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 17, 2:08 pm, richardchar...@comcast.net wrote:
> >>http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/05/15/jfk-witness-deaths-cal...
>
> >> We must distinguish between unnatural and natural deaths. The failed to do
> >> so. In its attempt to dismiss the London Sunday Times actuary?s 100,000
> >> TRILLION to 1 odds of 18 witness deaths in three years after the
> >> assassination, the HSCA made the following fundamental errors:
>
> >    Lets look at some, but not all of your errors...
>
> >> 1) considered just 21 of 46 suspicious deaths from Nov 1963-Feb 1967,
> >> avoiding Oswald, Ruby, Ferrie, etc.
>
> >    Who determines when a death is "suspicious"? Why not use the data
> > base of all the witnesses the FBI interviewed (over 5,000)? Plus all
> > the investigators.
>
> Why suspect any death is suspicious?

Good point, especially since everyone dies sooner or later.

> Maybe Georgi Markov just had a bad
> cold, right. Maybe you look at the circumstances, which people he was in
> contact with and how many times his life had been threatened. Oh, but no,
> not you. Must have been a bad cold because only kooks believe in umbrella
> guns.

Conspiracy folk start with umbrella guns as the default explanation.
It`s an umbrella gun unless an umbrella gun can be 100% ruled out.

> >> 2) did not specify that the deaths were UNNATURAL
>
> >    As determined by who? The coroner who someone with a blog on the
> > internet?
>
> Sometimes the coroner is the last to know.

No, conspiracy folks are the last to know. Then they start a blog
letting everyone know this.

> >> 3) did not consider witness CONNECTIONS to the case and MOTIVATION for
> >> their elimination
>
> >    Talk about assuming what you`ve set out to show. And who`s
> > motivations? The Russians? The Cubans? The mob`s. The CIA?
>
> >    And what is the motivation to kill a witness years after they have
> > talked to authorities?
>
> Maybe they didn't say anything which proved conspiracy earlier.

Maybe they didn`t have anything to say about a conspiracy earlier.

> >> 4) ignored the need to utilize UNNATURAL MORTALITY RATES
>
> >    Who determined the deaths were unnatural, a coronor or someone with
> > a blog on the internet.
>
> Sometimes the coroner is that last to know. Especially when he is paid
> off. Such as when the CIA kills someone and the coroner lists the cause
> of death as accidental.

Sometimes paranoid people just imagine that a death was caused by
the CIA.

> >> 5) falsely stated that the UNIVERSE of witnesses was UNKNOWABLE
>
> >    As true a statement as you will ever see. What Richard Randolf Carr
> > a witness?
>
> >> 6) ignored the KNOWN UNIVERSE of 552 Warren Commission witnesses:14 unnatural,
> >> 10 suspicious deaths
>
> >    Again, who determined "unnatural" and "suspicious"?
>
> >> 7) ignored the SUSPICIOUS deaths in 1977 of 7 top FBI officials called to
> >> testify at HSCA
>
> >   <snicker> What were they, 80 by then?
>
> What does it matter how old they were?

Because it would be suspicious if they were alive at 80.

[curtjester1]

On May 18, 3:19 pm, richardchar...@comcast.net wrote:
> On Friday, May 17, 2013 9:44:20 PM UTC-4, Jason Burke wrote:

> > On 5/17/2013 6:19 PM, richardchar...@comcast.net wrote:
>
> > > On Friday, May 17, 2013 4:12:34 PM UTC-4, Jason Burke wrote:
>

> > >> On 5/17/2013 11:08 AM, richardchar...@comcast.net wrote:
>
> > >>>http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/05/15/jfk-witness-deaths-cal...

>
> > >>> We must distinguish between unnatural and natural deaths. The HSCA failed to do
>

> > >>> so. In its attempt to dismiss the London Sunday Times actuary s 100,000

>
> > >>> TRILLION to 1 odds of 18 witness deaths in three years after the
>
> > >>> assassination, the HSCA made the following fundamental errors:
>
> > >>> 1) considered just 21 of 46 suspicious deaths from Nov 1963-Feb 1967,
>
> > >>> avoiding Oswald, Ruby, Ferrie, etc.
>
> > >>> 2) did not specify that the deaths were UNNATURAL
>
> > >>> 3) did not consider witness CONNECTIONS to the case and MOTIVATION for
>
> > >>> their elimination
>
> > >>> 4) ignored the need to utilize UNNATURAL MORTALITY RATES
>
> > >>> 5) falsely stated that the UNIVERSE of witnesses was UNKNOWABLE
>
> > >>> 6) ignored the KNOWN UNIVERSE of 552 Warren Commission witnesses:14 unnatural,
>
> > >>> 10 suspicious deaths
>
> > >>> 7) ignored the SUSPICIOUS deaths in 1977 of 7 top FBI officials called to
>
> > >>> testify at HSCA
>
> > >>> 8) did not question why no one at the London Times knew the actuary's name
>
> > >>> 9) failed to show the actuary's ASSUMPTIONS and calculation METHOD
>
> > >>> 10) did not consider using the POISSON distribution function to calculate
>
> > >>> probabilities
>
> > >>> The HSCA succeeded in misinforming the public by inferring that the
>

> > >>> actuary s odds were not proof of a conspiracy.

> > >>>https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29x...

>
> > >> On no, not again...
>
> > > Yes, again. This time, read it. Try to understand it. And let it sink in.
>
> > Look, Pal. I'm glad you've learned a bit about the Poisson distribution.
>
> > Too bad you don't have a clue as to when to apply it.
>
> Poisson is applied to determine the probability of rare events. Getting
> shot is a rare event. Dying in an auto accident is a rare event. A suicide
> is a rare event.
>
> You making sense is a rare event.
>

Indeedly amusing.

CJ

[curtjester1]

On May 18, 7:17 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:

> On 5/18/2013 3:18 PM, Bud wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 17, 2:08 pm, richardchar...@comcast.net wrote:
> >>http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/05/15/jfk-witness-deaths-cal...
>
> >> We must distinguish between unnatural and natural deaths. The failed to do
> >> so. In its attempt to dismiss the London Sunday Times actuary?s 100,000
> >> TRILLION to 1 odds of 18 witness deaths in three years after the
> >> assassination, the HSCA made the following fundamental errors:
>
> >    Lets look at some, but not all of your errors...
>
> >> 1) considered just 21 of 46 suspicious deaths from Nov 1963-Feb 1967,
> >> avoiding Oswald, Ruby, Ferrie, etc.
>
> >    Who determines when a death is "suspicious"? Why not use the data
> > base of all the witnesses the FBI interviewed (over 5,000)? Plus all
> > the investigators.
>
> Why suspect any death is suspicious? Maybe Georgi Markov just had a bad
> cold, right. Maybe you look at the circumstances, which people he was in
> contact with and how many times his life had been threatened. Oh, but no,
> not you. Must have been a bad cold because only kooks believe in umbrella
> guns.
>

Because neutralizing and retaliation are part of the pattern for power
seekers eliminating their competition. Why not suspect people privy to
pertinent and incovenient knowledge surrounding the JFK case and their
'unusual' untimely death as just 'ok' or 'who cares?' And how many died
say right before a witness interrogation like the HSCA or how many were
hounded and shot at and reported it. How many were warned in advance and
told about it? How many died and it was rule suicide when a position was
impossible to do, or they didn't have the weapons bought to do the deed?
I think a LNT'er could die for lack of thinking. Could that be called a
natural death?

CJ

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/19/2013 3:00 PM, Bud wrote:
> On May 18, 7:17 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 5/18/2013 3:18 PM, Bud wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On May 17, 2:08 pm, richardchar...@comcast.net wrote:
>>>> http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/05/15/jfk-witness-deaths-cal...
>>
>>>> We must distinguish between unnatural and natural deaths. The failed to do
>>>> so. In its attempt to dismiss the London Sunday Times actuary?s 100,000
>>>> TRILLION to 1 odds of 18 witness deaths in three years after the
>>>> assassination, the HSCA made the following fundamental errors:
>>
>>> Lets look at some, but not all of your errors...
>>
>>>> 1) considered just 21 of 46 suspicious deaths from Nov 1963-Feb 1967,
>>>> avoiding Oswald, Ruby, Ferrie, etc.
>>
>>> Who determines when a death is "suspicious"? Why not use the data
>>> base of all the witnesses the FBI interviewed (over 5,000)? Plus all
>>> the investigators.
>>
>> Why suspect any death is suspicious?
>
> Good point, especially since everyone dies sooner or later.
>
>> Maybe Georgi Markov just had a bad
>> cold, right. Maybe you look at the circumstances, which people he was in
>> contact with and how many times his life had been threatened. Oh, but no,
>> not you. Must have been a bad cold because only kooks believe in umbrella
>> guns.
>
> Conspiracy folk start with umbrella guns as the default explanation.
> It`s an umbrella gun unless an umbrella gun can be 100% ruled out.
>

No, that's just a trick that the cover-up uses to smear ALL conspiracy
believers by claiming that they all believe the same thing.

>>>> 2) did not specify that the deaths were UNNATURAL
>>
>>> As determined by who? The coroner who someone with a blog on the
>>> internet?
>>
>> Sometimes the coroner is the last to know.
>
> No, conspiracy folks are the last to know. Then they start a blog
> letting everyone know this.
>

Whose blog? Where's my blog? Do you even know what my blog is about?
Contract Bridge.
Please list for me all the blogs of he posters here so that I can check
them out.
Do you understand the difference between a blog and a web site?

>>>> 3) did not consider witness CONNECTIONS to the case and MOTIVATION for
>>>> their elimination
>>
>>> Talk about assuming what you`ve set out to show. And who`s
>>> motivations? The Russians? The Cubans? The mob`s. The CIA?
>>
>>> And what is the motivation to kill a witness years after they have
>>> talked to authorities?
>>
>> Maybe they didn't say anything which proved conspiracy earlier.
>
> Maybe they didn`t have anything to say about a conspiracy earlier.
>
>>>> 4) ignored the need to utilize UNNATURAL MORTALITY RATES
>>
>>> Who determined the deaths were unnatural, a coronor or someone with
>>> a blog on the internet.
>>
>> Sometimes the coroner is that last to know. Especially when he is paid
>> off. Such as when the CIA kills someone and the coroner lists the cause
>> of death as accidental.
>
> Sometimes paranoid people just imagine that a death was caused by
> the CIA.
>

Sometimes people do the detective work to prove it.

>>>> 5) falsely stated that the UNIVERSE of witnesses was UNKNOWABLE
>>
>>> As true a statement as you will ever see. What Richard Randolf Carr
>>> a witness?
>>
>>>> 6) ignored the KNOWN UNIVERSE of 552 Warren Commission witnesses:14 unnatural,
>>>> 10 suspicious deaths
>>
>>> Again, who determined "unnatural" and "suspicious"?
>>
>>>> 7) ignored the SUSPICIOUS deaths in 1977 of 7 top FBI officials called to
>>>> testify at HSCA
>>
>>> <snicker> What were they, 80 by then?
>>
>> What does it matter how old they were?
>
> Because it would be suspicious if they were alive at 80.
>

Why is it suspicious that people are alive at 80? Is this ageism?

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

On May 18, 3:33 pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> On 17 May 2013 14:08:03 -0400, richardchar...@comcast.net wrote:
...

>
> >View the witness database and the probability sensitivity tables...

> >https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29x...

>
> You don't seem to understand that there must be 10,000 people
> "connected" with the assassination, given the absurd critera buffs
> use.

More like 10,000,000.

The mayor of N.O. is on the list - ergo, every mayor and governor, and
every other elected official in every town in the USA should be part
of that universe as well. The brother of Domingo Benavides was killed,
so Domingo Benavides is on the list. That means every relative of
every witness and every relative of every elected official should be
part of the universe. The coroner of David Ferrie is on the list.
Ferrie has no provable association to the assassination. At best he
knew Oswald in the 1950's. That means everyone who knew Oswald in the
1950's is part of that universe, and every coroner of all those people
who knew Oswald in the 1950's should be part of the universe too. And
the brother-in-law of the coroner of David Ferrie is on the list,
which means the relatives of all the coroners of all the people who
knew Oswald in the 1950's are part of the universe.

I think we're starting to see why the HSCA decided the universe of
people to include was unknowable.

But Richard still doesn't get it, notwithstanding I explained all this
to him months ago on Amazon.

Hank

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

No, the odds are that most people die before 80. Ergo, if the odds
prove anything, it's that these 7 top FBI officials should have died
before they reached that age.

Ergo, the fact that they lived longer than average, does not establish
they were "bumped off" in any fashion.

You cannot make that argument about people who died natural deaths in
any case.

Hank

[Anthony Marsh]

BS. You can't prove that and you know it. And you are lumping 25 year
olds in with the 80 year olds. It also depends on what kind a job the
person has.
You know, there are actually people who study these things for a living.

> Ergo, the fact that they lived longer than average, does not establish
> they were "bumped off" in any fashion.
>
> You cannot make that argument about people who died natural deaths in
> any case.
>
> Hank
>

I'm not make any such arguments, so shut up.

[Anthony Marsh]

Maybe the brother was killed as a warning to keep quiet. I guess you've
never heard of that tactic. With 6 degrees of separation everyone should
be on the list.

[Bud]

It`s a truism that all conspiracy believers believe silly things.
That they differ on the silly things they choose to believe is
irrelevant.

> >>>> 2) did not specify that the deaths were UNNATURAL
>
> >>>     As determined by who? The coroner who someone with a blog on the
> >>> internet?
>
> >> Sometimes the coroner is the last to know.
>
> >    No, conspiracy folks are the last to know. Then they start a blog
> > letting everyone know this.
>
> Whose blog?

The guy who started this post. Hit the link he provided and cure
your ignorance.

> Where's my blog?

I`m guessing on the internet.

> Do you even know what my blog is about?

"How to create a strawman for every occasion"?

> Contract Bridge.
> Please list for me all the blogs of he posters here so that I can check
> them out.

Hold your breath and I`ll get right on that.

> Do you understand the difference between a blog and a web site?

One begins with the letter "b"?

> >>>> 3) did not consider witness CONNECTIONS to the case and MOTIVATION for
> >>>> their elimination
>
> >>>     Talk about assuming what you`ve set out to show. And who`s
> >>> motivations? The Russians? The Cubans? The mob`s. The CIA?
>
> >>>     And what is the motivation to kill a witness years after they have
> >>> talked to authorities?
>
> >> Maybe they didn't say anything which proved conspiracy earlier.
>
> >    Maybe they didn`t have anything to say about a conspiracy earlier.
>
> >>>> 4) ignored the need to utilize UNNATURAL MORTALITY RATES
>
> >>>     Who determined the deaths were unnatural, a coronor or someone with
> >>> a blog on the internet.
>
> >> Sometimes the coroner is that last to know. Especially when he is paid
> >> off. Such as when the CIA kills someone and the coroner lists the cause
> >> of death as accidental.
>
> >    Sometimes paranoid people just imagine that a death was caused by
> > the CIA.
>
> Sometimes people do the detective work to prove it.

Or so they think. Being estranged from reality makes it impossible
for them to tell.

> >>>> 5) falsely stated that the UNIVERSE of witnesses was UNKNOWABLE
>
> >>>     As true a statement as you will ever see. What Richard Randolf Carr
> >>> a witness?
>
> >>>> 6) ignored the KNOWN UNIVERSE of 552 Warren Commission witnesses:14 unnatural,
> >>>> 10 suspicious deaths
>
> >>>     Again, who determined "unnatural" and "suspicious"?
>
> >>>> 7) ignored the SUSPICIOUS deaths in 1977 of 7 top FBI officials called to
> >>>> testify at HSCA
>
> >>>    <snicker> What were they, 80 by then?
>
> >> What does it matter how old they were?
>
> >    Because it would be suspicious if they were alive at 80.
>
> Why is it suspicious that people are alive at 80? Is this ageism?

Most people are dead by 80. Only a CTer would see something so
ordinary as suspicious.

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

Maybe he wasn't. Do you have any of, you know, that stuff called
*evidence* that he belongs on any such list? No. While conspiracy
theorists typically don't see a need for the stuff, it comes in quite
handy when you're actually trying to get to the underlying facts of
this case - or any case.

But Richard has him on this list, regardless. With the wrong date of
death by a year and the claim that the brother's death *preceded*
Domingo's testimony as a warning to Domingo. But of course, Domingo
Benavides had already testified, the Warren Commission had already
rendered their conclusion, published the Warren Report and the 26
volumes of evidence, and THEN Eddy was killed. In February of 1965,
not February of 1964. But 1964 makes a better story, so that's the
date in the conspiracy books. Like I said - they don't let the facts
get in the way of a good story.

When you get the date of Eddy's death right, the claim makes no sense
on its face. So what evidence do you have that Eddy Benavides was
killed (February 1965) - as a warning to keep quiet to Domingo - AFTER
Domingo Benavides already gave his testimony ten months before (April
1964)?

I'd really love to hear that evidence. Of course, the fact that you
preceded the statement with "Maybe" shows you're just speculating. And
that, I remind you, is no substitute for evidence.


Hank

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

Hilarious. Sure I can.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/births_deaths_marriages_divorces/life_expectancy.html

The average male in the 1970s died about 72 years old. The average life
expectancy for someone born in 1890 was below 70 years old. That means
most males were dead before they reached their 80s. Even today, when
people are living longer, the average male doesn't live to 80 years old.

According to the census data above, for every 100,000 males born in
1900-1902 in the USA, there were only 12,084 alive at 80 years old. That
means fully 88% of those born in 1900-1902 were ALREADY DEAD by the time
they would have reached their 80th birthday.

Ergo, trying to claim there's something suspicious about these men dying
in their 80's is beyond bizarre. The unusual part is that they lived that
long, not that they died "mysterious deaths".

> And you are lumping 25 year
> olds in with the 80 year olds.

No, I'm not.

> It also depends on what kind a job the
> person has.
> You know, there are actually people who study these things for a living.

Here ya go.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/births_deaths_marriages_divorces/life_expectancy.html

Sedentary desk job people usually die sooner. That's something that was
determine a century ago by a study of English streetcar conductors vs
streetcar drivers. The FBI people in question had what kind of job - blue
collar, white collar, no collar? Would their job be considered sedentary?

Your arguments aren't factual.

>
> > Ergo, the fact that they lived longer than average, does not establish
> > they were "bumped off" in any fashion.
>
> > You cannot make that argument about people who died natural deaths in
> > any case.
>
> > Hank
>
> I'm not make any such arguments, so shut up.

Do you not understand the plural "you"? Is English your second language?
Or are you just pretending this was directed at you personally?

But you raised the question of what the person's age has to do it with.
Let's summarize: Since only 12% of those born in 1900-1902 lived to reach
80, then most people would be expected to be dead by then. Since these
people only died in their 80's, they lived extraordinary LONG lives, and
thus there is no meaningful argument that they died mysterious deaths. The
unusual part is their living as long as they did. Any argument that they
belong on some mysterious death list is therefore nonsense.

Hank

[Jason Burke]

Naturally, this means that you have to include the brother of everyone on
this list in the universe of those who weren't killed (or made dead by the
government, as some would say.) Come to think of it, everyone in their
family needs to be in the undead list. And all their acquaintances need to
be in the undead list also.

Unless you want to go the route that bad lighting, pixelated pictures, and
yelling REALLY loudly proves that the brother was really... Oh, never
mind...

[Anthony Marsh]

Which men did they say died in their 80s?
Which witnesses were born in 1902?
You are making up crap.

[Anthony Marsh]

It's a slander.

The word you don't understand is disproportionate. Look it up.

[Anthony Marsh]

That's the problem with that kind of hypothesis.

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

> >http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/births_deaths_marriages_d...

>
> > The average male in the 1970s died about 72 years old. The average life
> > expectancy for someone born in 1890 was below 70 years old. That means
> > most males were dead before they reached their 80s. Even today, when
> > people are living longer, the average male doesn't live to 80 years old.
>
> > According to the census data above, for every 100,000 males born in
> > 1900-1902 in the USA, there were only 12,084 alive at 80 years old. That
> > means fully 88% of those born in 1900-1902 were ALREADY DEAD by the time
> > they would have reached their 80th birthday.
>
> > Ergo, trying to claim there's something suspicious about these men dying
> > in their 80's is beyond bizarre. The unusual part is that they lived that
> > long, not that they died "mysterious deaths".
>
> Which men did they say died in their 80s?

See the original post and the links therein.

> Which witnesses were born in 1902?

Ok, you don't understand statistical analysis. Do you think the
percentage of people living to 80 but born in 1900, 1901, or 1903 was
significantly different from those born in 1902? If you do, then prove it.
Otherwise, the statistics we have indicate that approximately only 12% of
those born in the early years of the 20th century - and the last few years
of the 19th century, lived that long. Which makes them long-lived, not
victims of mysterious deaths.

> You are making up crap.

No, Tony. You are just flailing wildly for some way to discredit the
point. Good luck with that.

Here it is again:

But you raised the question of what the person's age has to do it with.
Let's summarize: Since only 12% of those born in 1900-1902 lived to reach
80, then most people would be expected to be dead by then. Since these
people only died in their 80's, they lived extraordinary LONG lives, and
thus there is no meaningful argument that they died mysterious deaths. The
unusual part is their living as long as they did. Any argument that they
belong on some mysterious death list is therefore nonsense.


>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> >> And you are lumping 25 year
> >> olds in with the 80 year olds.
>
> > No, I'm not.
>
> >> It also depends on what kind a job the
> >> person has.
> >> You know, there are actually people who study these things for a living.
>
> > Here ya go.
>

> >http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/births_deaths_marriages_d...

[Bud]

How can something that is true and accurate be a slander?

The science you don`t understand is statistics.

[Anthony Marsh]

Because it's not true and not accurate.

[Bud]

Of course it`s true. A conspiracy believer is defined by the silly
things he chooses to believe.

[Anthony Marsh]

So you think the government doesn't believe in conspiracies?
How about 9/11? Did the government say that was an accident?

[Bud]

You think the "government" is one entity with one belief?

> How about 9/11?

Is this I 9-11 board? I was referring to people who believe in a
conspiracy in the case this board is dedicated to.

[Anthony Marsh]

Do you know what an analogy is?