Re: in case mCadams don't post this one

[John McAdams]

Tom, you didn't post this on the moderated group.

What's the matter? Afraid to try to mix it up with people who know
more than you?

.John

On 18 May 2013 21:21:56 GMT, tom...@cox.net wrote:

>john;
>are you telling us that you have read all 4 of penn jones' editions of
>"forgive my grief? ? ?
>
>
>John McAdams <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>> On 17 May 2013 14:08:03 -0400, richard...@comcast.net wrote:
>>
>> >http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/05/15/jfk-witness-deaths-calcul
>> >ating-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=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWN
>> >yekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#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
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/18/2013 9:41 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> Tom, you didn't post this on the moderated group.
>
> What's the matter? Afraid to try to mix it up with people who know
> more than you?
>

Maybe the moderators won't allow him to post it here?

> .John
>
> On 18 May 2013 21:21:56 GMT, tom...@cox.net wrote:
>
>> john;
>> are you telling us that you have read all 4 of penn jones' editions of
>> "forgive my grief? ? ?
>>
>>
>> John McAdams <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>>> On 17 May 2013 14:08:03 -0400, richard...@comcast.net wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/05/15/jfk-witness-deaths-calcul
>>>> ating-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,

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

[curtjester1]

On May 18, 9:41 pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> Tom, you didn't post this on the moderated group.
>
> What's the matter?  Afraid to try to mix it up with people who know
> more than you?
>
> .John
>
> On 18 May 2013 21:21:56 GMT, tom...@cox.net wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >john;
> >are you telling us that you have read all 4 of penn jones' editions of
> >"forgive my grief? ? ?
>

> >John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:

Why didn't you post Tom's original statement? It's in ACJ if one's
want to know.

CJ

[curtjester1]

On May 18, 11:23 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 5/18/2013 9:41 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>
> > Tom, you didn't post this on the moderated group.
>
> > What's the matter?  Afraid to try to mix it up with people who know
> > more than you?
>
> Maybe the moderators won't allow him to post it here?
>
>
>
> > .John
>
> > On 18 May 2013 21:21:56 GMT, tom...@cox.net wrote:
>
> >> john;
> >> are you telling us that you have read all 4 of penn jones' editions of
> >> "forgive my grief? ? ?
>

> >> John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:

Maybe it's more sinister than that, Usually one can get an answer
when they stop in at ACJ. I'd hate to come down with the Frick n'
Frack bug.

http://www.whokilledjfk.net/frick%20n%20frack.htm

CJ

[Robert Harris]

John McAdams wrote:
> Tom, you didn't post this on the moderated group.
>
> What's the matter? Afraid to try to mix it up with people who know
> more than you?

Hmm...

After giving the matter some thought, I have to believe it is not nearly
as shameful to dodge a more knowledgeable adversary as it is to run from
evidence which proves one is wrong.

What do you think about that John:-)


Robert Harris

[timstter]

On May 19, 1:23 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 5/18/2013 9:41 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>
> > Tom, you didn't post this on the moderated group.
>
> > What's the matter?  Afraid to try to mix it up with people who know
> > more than you?
>
> Maybe the moderators won't allow him to post it here?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > .John
>
> > On 18 May 2013 21:21:56 GMT, tom...@cox.net wrote:
>
> >> john;
> >> are you telling us that you have read all 4 of penn jones' editions of
> >> "forgive my grief? ? ?
>

> >> John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:

Probably wise on the grounds of good taste?

Helpful Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/19/2013 2:48 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
> On May 18, 9:41 pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>> Tom, you didn't post this on the moderated group.
>>
>> What's the matter? Afraid to try to mix it up with people who know
>> more than you?
>>
>> .John
>>
>> On 18 May 2013 21:21:56 GMT, tom...@cox.net wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> john;
>>> are you telling us that you have read all 4 of penn jones' editions of
>>> "forgive my grief? ? ?
>>
>>> John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>>>> On 17 May 2013 14:08:03 -0400, richardchar...@comcast.net wrote:
>>
>>>>> http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/05/15/jfk-witness-deaths-calcul
>>>>> ating-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,

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

It is against the rules of this newsgroup to post messages from another
newsgroup. Why don't you LINK to it?

> CJ
>

[curtjester1]

On May 20, 5:34 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 5/19/2013 2:48 PM, curtjester1 wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 18, 9:41 pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> >> Tom, you didn't post this on the moderated group.
>
> >> What's the matter?  Afraid to try to mix it up with people who know
> >> more than you?
>
> >> .John
>
> >> On 18 May 2013 21:21:56 GMT, tom...@cox.net wrote:
>
> >>> john;
> >>> are you telling us that you have read all 4 of penn jones' editions of
> >>> "forgive my grief? ? ?
>
> >>> John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> >>>> On 17 May 2013 14:08:03 -0400, richardchar...@comcast.net wrote:
>
> >>>>>http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/05/15/jfk-witness-deaths-calcul
> >>>>> ating-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,

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

Everyone knows that it's from ACJ, so they can go there if there's
interest. It's not nice to accuse people of not coming over here when
there is a reason for it, and there is specific reference posts to
it.

CJ

[Anthony Marsh]

Not true. I can't go to the Nuthouse because Comcast and all the other
major InterNet providers dropped all newsgroups a couple of years ago
and Comcast has a monopoly.