Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Warren Commission Witness Deaths - 3 years after assassination
55 views
Skip to first unread message
richard...@comcast.net
May 21, 2013, 11:35:30 PM5/21/13
to
Warren Commission Witness Deaths - 3 years after assassination
Those on this forum who ask why would they murder witnesses three years
after testifying do not appreciate that motivation for the deaths is a
non-issue.
http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/05/15/jfk-witness-deaths-calculating-the-probabilities/
THE ONLY QUESTION IS HOW MANY OF THE 552 WARREN COMMISSION WITNESSES DIED
UNNATURALLY IN THREE YEARS. NOTHING ELSE MATTERS.
To calculate the probability of the 10 unnatural deaths, it is necessary
and sufficient to know that n (10) of N (552) witnesses died unnaturally
within the first 3 years, given the weighted mortality rate. These are the
ONLY required parameters
1) 552 witnesses
2) 10 unnatural deaths
3) 3 years
4) Unnatural mortality rate
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#gid=1
The Poisson probability function is strictly a function of the difference
between the statistically expected number of unnatural deaths and the
actual number.
P = Poisson (actual, expected)
The two scenarios only differ in the assumed mortality rate:
1)The published weighted rate: 0.000155
The probability is 1 in 3.5 TRILLION
2)The homicide rate: 0.000062
The probability is 1 in 31,000 TRILLION
The London Times actuary calculated the probability of 18 MATERIAL WITNESS
DEATHS in three years: 1 in 100,000 TRILLION.
Jack Ruby claimed that he was injected with a cancer virus. He was
injected within a few days of being granted a re-trial. Within 29 days of
being injected, he died of cancer. No trial. He had already stated to the
press that the conspiracy went all the way to the top.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=we2eucWXqjg
Date Witness Unnatural Death
6401 Warren Reynolds Murder attempt: Gunshot in head
6402 Domingo Benavides Murdered (brother): Gunshot
6507 Harold Russell Murdered: Killed by cop in bar
6512 William Whaley Accident: motor collision.
6601 Karen Carlin Murdered: Gunshot
6602 Albert Bogard Suicide: Carbon monoxide
6606 Frank Martin Sudden Cancer.
6608 Lee Bowers Jr. Accident: One-car crash
6611 James Worrell Accident: Motor collision
6701 Jack Ruby Sudden Cancer 29 days
1) Given cause of death
N R Official
6 0.000062 homicide
1 0.000107 suicide
3 0.000359 accident
10 0.000155 wtd avg rate
0.26 expected unnatural deaths
Probability 1 in 3,554,537,985,296
2.81E-13
2) Assume accidents and suicide were homicides
10 0.000062 homicide rate
0.10 expected unnatural deaths
Probability 1 in 30,891,051,852,498,616
3.24E-17
Those on this forum who ask why would they murder witnesses three years
after testifying do not appreciate that motivation for the deaths is a
non-issue.
http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/05/15/jfk-witness-deaths-calculating-the-probabilities/
THE ONLY QUESTION IS HOW MANY OF THE 552 WARREN COMMISSION WITNESSES DIED
UNNATURALLY IN THREE YEARS. NOTHING ELSE MATTERS.
To calculate the probability of the 10 unnatural deaths, it is necessary
and sufficient to know that n (10) of N (552) witnesses died unnaturally
within the first 3 years, given the weighted mortality rate. These are the
ONLY required parameters
1) 552 witnesses
2) 10 unnatural deaths
3) 3 years
4) Unnatural mortality rate
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#gid=1
The Poisson probability function is strictly a function of the difference
between the statistically expected number of unnatural deaths and the
actual number.
P = Poisson (actual, expected)
The two scenarios only differ in the assumed mortality rate:
1)The published weighted rate: 0.000155
The probability is 1 in 3.5 TRILLION
2)The homicide rate: 0.000062
The probability is 1 in 31,000 TRILLION
The London Times actuary calculated the probability of 18 MATERIAL WITNESS
DEATHS in three years: 1 in 100,000 TRILLION.
Jack Ruby claimed that he was injected with a cancer virus. He was
injected within a few days of being granted a re-trial. Within 29 days of
being injected, he died of cancer. No trial. He had already stated to the
press that the conspiracy went all the way to the top.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=we2eucWXqjg
Date Witness Unnatural Death
6401 Warren Reynolds Murder attempt: Gunshot in head
6402 Domingo Benavides Murdered (brother): Gunshot
6507 Harold Russell Murdered: Killed by cop in bar
6512 William Whaley Accident: motor collision.
6601 Karen Carlin Murdered: Gunshot
6602 Albert Bogard Suicide: Carbon monoxide
6606 Frank Martin Sudden Cancer.
6608 Lee Bowers Jr. Accident: One-car crash
6611 James Worrell Accident: Motor collision
6701 Jack Ruby Sudden Cancer 29 days
1) Given cause of death
N R Official
6 0.000062 homicide
1 0.000107 suicide
3 0.000359 accident
10 0.000155 wtd avg rate
0.26 expected unnatural deaths
Probability 1 in 3,554,537,985,296
2.81E-13
2) Assume accidents and suicide were homicides
10 0.000062 homicide rate
0.10 expected unnatural deaths
Probability 1 in 30,891,051,852,498,616
3.24E-17
John McAdams
May 22, 2013, 1:12:44 AM5/22/13
to
On 21 May 2013 23:35:30 -0400, richard...@comcast.net wrote:
>Warren Commission Witness Deaths - 3 years after assassination
>
>Those on this forum who ask why would they murder witnesses three years
>after testifying do not appreciate that motivation for the deaths is a
>non-issue.
>
>http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/05/15/jfk-witness-deaths-calculating-the-probabilities/
>
>THE ONLY QUESTION IS HOW MANY OF THE 552 WARREN COMMISSION WITNESSES DIED
>UNNATURALLY IN THREE YEARS. NOTHING ELSE MATTERS.
>
>To calculate the probability of the 10 unnatural deaths, it is necessary
>and sufficient to know that n (10) of N (552) witnesses died unnaturally
>within the first 3 years, given the weighted mortality rate. These are the
>ONLY required parameters
>
>1) 552 witnesses
And how are you defining "witness?"
>Warren Commission Witness Deaths - 3 years after assassination
>
>Those on this forum who ask why would they murder witnesses three years
>after testifying do not appreciate that motivation for the deaths is a
>non-issue.
>
>http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/05/15/jfk-witness-deaths-calculating-the-probabilities/
>
>THE ONLY QUESTION IS HOW MANY OF THE 552 WARREN COMMISSION WITNESSES DIED
>UNNATURALLY IN THREE YEARS. NOTHING ELSE MATTERS.
>
>To calculate the probability of the 10 unnatural deaths, it is necessary
>and sufficient to know that n (10) of N (552) witnesses died unnaturally
>within the first 3 years, given the weighted mortality rate. These are the
>ONLY required parameters
>
>1) 552 witnesses
This number is way too small to be everybody whom the FBI or other
authorities interviewed.
>2) 10 unnatural deaths
>3) 3 years
>4) Unnatural mortality rate
>
>https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#gid=1
>
>The Poisson probability function is strictly a function of the difference
>between the statistically expected number of unnatural deaths and the
>actual number.
>
>P = Poisson (actual, expected)
>
>The two scenarios only differ in the assumed mortality rate:
>1)The published weighted rate: 0.000155
>The probability is 1 in 3.5 TRILLION
>
>2)The homicide rate: 0.000062
>The probability is 1 in 31,000 TRILLION
>
>The London Times actuary calculated the probability of 18 MATERIAL WITNESS
>DEATHS in three years: 1 in 100,000 TRILLION.
>
>Jack Ruby claimed that he was injected with a cancer virus. He was
>injected within a few days of being granted a re-trial.
Injecting anybody with cancer is not a plausible way to give them
cancer.
>Within 29 days of
>being injected, he died of cancer. No trial. He had already stated to the
>press that the conspiracy went all the way to the top.
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=we2eucWXqjg
>
And if he was not part of it, he was just a buff, like people on this
newsgroup.
>Date Witness Unnatural Death
>
>6401 Warren Reynolds Murder attempt: Gunshot in head
everybody who was a victim of aggrevated assault.
>6402 Domingo Benavides Murdered (brother): Gunshot
you got the date wrong, since you followed the buff sources.
>6507 Harold Russell Murdered: Killed by cop in bar
>6512 William Whaley Accident: motor collision.
>6601 Karen Carlin Murdered: Gunshot
>6602 Albert Bogard Suicide: Carbon monoxide
>6606 Frank Martin Sudden Cancer.
>6608 Lee Bowers Jr. Accident: One-car crash
>6611 James Worrell Accident: Motor collision
>6701 Jack Ruby Sudden Cancer 29 days
>
>1) Given cause of death
> N R Official
> 6 0.000062 homicide
> 1 0.000107 suicide
> 3 0.000359 accident
> 10 0.000155 wtd avg rate
> 0.26 expected unnatural deaths
>
>Probability 1 in 3,554,537,985,296
> 2.81E-13
>
>2) Assume accidents and suicide were homicides
> 10 0.000062 homicide rate
> 0.10 expected unnatural deaths
>
>Probability 1 in 30,891,051,852,498,616
> 3.24E-17
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
mainframetech
May 22, 2013, 11:46:28 AM5/22/13
to
On May 22, 1:12 am, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
if it's in a conspiracy book it must be baloney. Which, of course, is
pure fiction and illogical to boot. We know that it is part of the human
experience for some to strive for the top position on the pyramid for
power and security. We've seen that humans can do quite horrendous things
to other humans, sometimes to gain position on that pyramid, and so we
must admit that conspiracies exist and look carefully to tell them from
the normal day to day nastiness humans purvey. For the top people in a
political group to be the ones to kill off a top dog is nothing new since
way before Julius Caesar.
> On 21 May 2013 23:35:30 -0400, richardchar...@comcast.net wrote:
>
>
> >Warren Commission Witness Deaths - 3 years after assassination
>
> >Those on this forum who ask why would they murder witnesses three years
> >after testifying do not appreciate that motivation for the deaths is a
> >non-issue.
>
> >http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/05/15/jfk-witness-deaths-cal...
>
>
> >Warren Commission Witness Deaths - 3 years after assassination
>
> >Those on this forum who ask why would they murder witnesses three years
> >after testifying do not appreciate that motivation for the deaths is a
> >non-issue.
>
>
> >THE ONLY QUESTION IS HOW MANY OF THE 552 WARREN COMMISSION WITNESSES DIED
> >UNNATURALLY IN THREE YEARS. NOTHING ELSE MATTERS.
>
> >To calculate the probability of the 10 unnatural deaths, it is necessary
> >and sufficient to know that n (10) of N (552) witnesses died unnaturally
> >within the first 3 years, given the weighted mortality rate. These are the
> >ONLY required parameters
>
> >1) 552 witnesses
>
> And how are you defining "witness?"
>
> This number is way too small to be everybody whom the FBI or other
> authorities interviewed.
>
>
> >2) 10 unnatural deaths
> >3) 3 years
> >4) Unnatural mortality rate
>
> >https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29x...
> >THE ONLY QUESTION IS HOW MANY OF THE 552 WARREN COMMISSION WITNESSES DIED
> >UNNATURALLY IN THREE YEARS. NOTHING ELSE MATTERS.
>
> >To calculate the probability of the 10 unnatural deaths, it is necessary
> >and sufficient to know that n (10) of N (552) witnesses died unnaturally
> >within the first 3 years, given the weighted mortality rate. These are the
> >ONLY required parameters
>
> >1) 552 witnesses
>
> And how are you defining "witness?"
>
> This number is way too small to be everybody whom the FBI or other
> authorities interviewed.
>
>
> >2) 10 unnatural deaths
> >3) 3 years
> >4) Unnatural mortality rate
>
>
> >The Poisson probability function is strictly a function of the difference
> >between the statistically expected number of unnatural deaths and the
> >actual number.
>
> >P = Poisson (actual, expected)
>
> >The two scenarios only differ in the assumed mortality rate:
> >1)The published weighted rate: 0.000155
> >The probability is 1 in 3.5 TRILLION
>
> >2)The homicide rate: 0.000062
> >The probability is 1 in 31,000 TRILLION
>
> >The London Times actuary calculated the probability of 18 MATERIAL WITNESS
> >DEATHS in three years: 1 in 100,000 TRILLION.
>
> And the TIMES admitted the number was nonsense.
>
> >Jack Ruby claimed that he was injected with a cancer virus. He was
> >injected within a few days of being granted a re-trial.
>
> Will you believe any nonsense you read in conspiracy books?
>
Ah, there's the rub! An effort to force thinking into the mode where
> >The Poisson probability function is strictly a function of the difference
> >between the statistically expected number of unnatural deaths and the
> >actual number.
>
> >P = Poisson (actual, expected)
>
> >The two scenarios only differ in the assumed mortality rate:
> >1)The published weighted rate: 0.000155
> >The probability is 1 in 3.5 TRILLION
>
> >2)The homicide rate: 0.000062
> >The probability is 1 in 31,000 TRILLION
>
> >The London Times actuary calculated the probability of 18 MATERIAL WITNESS
> >DEATHS in three years: 1 in 100,000 TRILLION.
>
> And the TIMES admitted the number was nonsense.
>
> >Jack Ruby claimed that he was injected with a cancer virus. He was
> >injected within a few days of being granted a re-trial.
>
> Will you believe any nonsense you read in conspiracy books?
>
if it's in a conspiracy book it must be baloney. Which, of course, is
pure fiction and illogical to boot. We know that it is part of the human
experience for some to strive for the top position on the pyramid for
power and security. We've seen that humans can do quite horrendous things
to other humans, sometimes to gain position on that pyramid, and so we
must admit that conspiracies exist and look carefully to tell them from
the normal day to day nastiness humans purvey. For the top people in a
political group to be the ones to kill off a top dog is nothing new since
way before Julius Caesar.
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
May 22, 2013, 1:02:30 PM5/22/13
to
On May 21, 11:35 pm, richardchar...@comcast.net wrote:
> Warren Commission Witness Deaths - 3 years after assassination
>
> Those on this forum who ask why would they murder witnesses three years
> after testifying do not appreciate that motivation for the deaths is a
> non-issue.
>
> http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/05/15/jfk-witness-deaths-cal...
> Warren Commission Witness Deaths - 3 years after assassination
>
> Those on this forum who ask why would they murder witnesses three years
> after testifying do not appreciate that motivation for the deaths is a
> non-issue.
>
>
> THE ONLY QUESTION IS HOW MANY OF THE 552 WARREN COMMISSION WITNESSES DIED
> UNNATURALLY IN THREE YEARS. NOTHING ELSE MATTERS.
>
> To calculate the probability of the 10 unnatural deaths, it is necessary
> and sufficient to know that n (10) of N (552) witnesses died unnaturally
> within the first 3 years, given the weighted mortality rate. These are the
> ONLY required parameters
>
> 1) 552 witnesses
> 2) 10 unnatural deaths
> 3) 3 years
> 4) Unnatural mortality rate
>
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29x...
> THE ONLY QUESTION IS HOW MANY OF THE 552 WARREN COMMISSION WITNESSES DIED
> UNNATURALLY IN THREE YEARS. NOTHING ELSE MATTERS.
>
> To calculate the probability of the 10 unnatural deaths, it is necessary
> and sufficient to know that n (10) of N (552) witnesses died unnaturally
> within the first 3 years, given the weighted mortality rate. These are the
> ONLY required parameters
>
> 1) 552 witnesses
> 2) 10 unnatural deaths
> 3) 3 years
> 4) Unnatural mortality rate
>
Richard.
You remember posting as TruthIsAll there?
For example, here:
http://www.amazon.com/forum/jfk/ref=cm_cd_tfp_ef_tft_tp?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=FxTXBP6FXU9HHM&cdThread=Tx2C0NRZZBV8S23
And here: http://www.amazon.com/forum/jfk/ref=cm_cd_tfp_ef_tft_tp?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=FxTXBP6FXU9HHM&cdThread=Tx1DEQJ7OG8LC25
None of your claims withstood scrutiny there. Why do you think
changing the location of the nonsense will make it more true?
Hank
Anthony Marsh
May 22, 2013, 4:12:59 PM5/22/13
to
But that does not prove that every assassination is a coup d'etat.
Sometimes they are revenge or an act of war.
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
May 22, 2013, 5:17:51 PM5/22/13
to
witnesses were killed to cover up the conspiracy, and attempting to
use math to prove that a non-conspiratorial explanation is unlikely.
But his analysis is flawed because his universe of subjects involved
isn't clearly defined (he's got non-witnesses on his list, he's got
people who died natural deaths on the list, he's got people who didn't
die from homicides, he's got people who aren't dead, he's got
relatives of people who were witnesses on his list, he's changed the
autopsy conclusions from heart attack to killed by cop in bar in
another instance ...
In other words, his claims don't withstand scrutiny.
His entire approach falls apart if you understand anything about
statistics.
And it's not like he's unaware of these faults in his analysis.
They've been pointed out before to him.
By me.
On Amazon.
Repeatedly.
If you don't believe me, see the cited threads above for only two
examples (there are others).
Hank
Anthony Marsh
May 22, 2013, 5:22:00 PM5/22/13
to
far back? CompuServe, Prodigy? Zircon, Diamond, Gemstone?
> For example, here:
> http://www.amazon.com/forum/jfk/ref=cm_cd_tfp_ef_tft_tp?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=FxTXBP6FXU9HHM&cdThread=Tx2C0NRZZBV8S23
>
> And here: http://www.amazon.com/forum/jfk/ref=cm_cd_tfp_ef_tft_tp?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=FxTXBP6FXU9HHM&cdThread=Tx1DEQJ7OG8LC25
>
> None of your claims withstood scrutiny there. Why do you think
> changing the location of the nonsense will make it more true?
>
I know some people here who do the same.
Even some WC defenders do it.
> Hank
>
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
May 23, 2013, 7:05:50 PM5/23/13
to
you don't need evidence, but I would think you would at least pretend
to understand the need for it, and at least give a nod in that general
direction.
Now, what evidence do you have that I ever posted under the other two
aliases as you allege? Nothing whatsoever. And you only know about the
JoeZircon alias because I admitted I had used it when I started posting
here using my real name (of course, one conspiracy theorist allege that is
an alias as well - and you even posted some balderdash about me being a
police officer in California. Where you got that particular bit of
nonsense I have no idea).
You seem to think that using an alias online means someone can be assumed
to be using it for nefarious purposes. That's nonsense. I did it - as I
explained back in 2007 - simply to keep the peace in my own household. My
wife was afraid of the nuts out there, and to keep her happy, I posted
using the alias.
Hilarious.
Hank
0 new messages