Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

in cade mCadams don't post this one

5 views

Skip to first unread message

tom...@cox.net

unread,

May 20, 2013, 10:06:18 PM5/20/13

Anthony Marsh <anthon...@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-c
> >>>>> alcul 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 expected and actual unnatural deaths. 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
> >>
> >>>>> View the witness database and the probability sensitivity tables...
> >>>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd2
> >>>>> 9xWWN 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
> >
> > Why didn't you post Tom's original statement? It's in ACJ if one's
> > want to know.
> >
>
> It is against the rules of this newsgroup to post messages from another
> newsgroup. Why don't you LINK to it?

now that you mention it john;

there is very little about tis case that you're willing to tlk about...

--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB

timstter

unread,

May 23, 2013, 6:25:48 PM5/23/13

On May 21, 12:06 pm, tom...@cox.net wrote:

Que?

Concerned 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!

tom...@cox.net

unread,

May 23, 2013, 9:01:57 PM5/23/13

So, john;

Did you read all four volumes of "Forgive My Grief" by Penn JOnes? ? ? ?
or, NOT? ? ? ?

timstter <tims...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 21, 12:06=A0pm, tom...@cox.net wrote:
> > 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? =A0Afraid to try to mix it up with people who
> > > >> kno=

> w
> > > >> 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-death

> > > >>>>>s-=

> c
> > > >>>>> alcul ating-the-probabilities/
> >
> > > >>>>> We must distinguish between unnatural and natural deaths. The
> > > >>>>> failed to do so. In its attempt to dismiss the London Sunday

> > > >>>>> Time=
> s
> > > >>>>> actuary=92s 100, 000 TRILLION to 1 odds of 18 witness deaths in
> > > >>>>> t=

> hree
> > > >>>>> 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

> > > >>>>> MOTIVATIO=

> N
> > > >>>>> 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. =A0There 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

> > > >>>>> METHO=

> D
> >
> > > >>>> 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

> > > >>>> univers=

> e
> > > >>>> of "connected" people.
> >
> > > >>>>> The HSCA succeeded in misinforming the public by inferring that

> > > >>>>> t=
> he
> > > >>>>> actuary=92s odds were not proof of a conspiracy.
> >
> > > >>>> But the actuary's "odds" were not proof of anything. =A0They
> > > >>>> 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) =A0in a given
> > > >>>>> tim=

> e
> > > >>>>> period (T) is to recognize that it is based on the difference
> > > >>>>> between expected and actual unnatural deaths. The
> > > >>>>> larger the discrepancy between the actual observed and expected

> > > >>>>> number o=

> f
> > > >>>>> deaths, the lower the probability.
> >
> > > >>>>> These are the relevant probability input parameters:

> > > >>>>> N=3D total number of witnesses
> > > >>>>> n=3D number of observed unnatural deaths
> > > >>>>> T=3D time period in years
> > > >>>>> R=3D 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 =3D 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. =A0Was the Mayor of New Orleans a WC witness? =A0He's
> > > >>>> o=

> n the
> > > >>>> silly list.
> >
> > > >>>>> If the 5 accidental deaths and 1 suicide in the three year
> > > >>>>> period were actually homicides, then the equivalent Warren

> > > >>>>> Commission ra=
> te
> > > >>>>> was 0.006038 =3D=3D 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 =A0must first calculate E, the expected number of unnatural
> > > >>>>> deaths: E=3D N*R*T
> >
> > > >>>>> The probability of EXACTLY n unnatural deaths is: P =3D POISSON
> > > >>>>> (=
> n,
> > > >>>>> E, false).
> >
> > > >>>>> The probability of AT LEAST n deaths is P =3D 1- POISSON (n-1,

> > > >>>>> E, true)
> >
> > > >>>>> EXAMPLE:
> > > >>>>> The probability of AT LEAST 14 Warren Commission witness

> > > >>>>> homicide=

> s
> > > >>>>> in the 14 years from 1964-77:

> > > >>>>> E =3D 0.479 =3D N*T*R =3D 552*14*0.000062
> > > >>>>> P =3D 1 - Poisson (13, 0.479, true)
> > > >>>>> P =3D 4.44E-16 =3D 1 in 2,251,799,813,685,248
> > > >>>>> P =3D 1 in 2251 trillion

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

> > > >>>>> tables.=
> ..
> > > >>>>>https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=3D0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU
> > > >>>>>3N=
> Vd2
> > > >>>>> 9xWWN yekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#gid=3D1

> >
> > > >>>> 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
> >

> > > > Why didn't you post Tom's original statement? =A0It's in ACJ if

> > > > one's want to know.
> >
> > > It is against the rules of this newsgroup to post messages from
> > > another newsgroup. Why don't you LINK to it?
> >
> > now that you mention it john;
> >
> > there is very little about tis case that you're willing to tlk about...
> >
> > --
> > --------------------http://NewsReader.Com/--------------------

> > Usenet Newsgroup Service =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0
> > =A0$=

> 9.95/Month 30GB
>
> Que?
>
> Concerned 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_0

> 14= 4a.htm

>
> X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!

--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------

timstter

unread,

May 25, 2013, 6:20:32 PM5/25/13

> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol...

> > 14= 4a.htm
>
> > X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!
>
> --

> --------------------http://NewsReader.Com/--------------------
> Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB

No one would want to work their way thru THAT deluded stodge, tomnln.

No one in their right mind, that is...

Say, don't YOU have multiple copies for sale at @ least $200 apiece?

Given that Penn Jones is dead, maybe you should put them online so
that others could be DAZZLED by the <snicker> BRILLIANCE of his prose
if you think it is so important.

More likely you will simply choose to line your pockets, tomnln.

Quite the record of JFK-CTers doing THAT, tomnln. You included.

Informative 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

tom...@cox.net

unread,

May 26, 2013, 9:23:51 PM5/26/13

timstter <tims...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 24, 11:01=A0am, tom...@cox.net wrote:
> > So, john;
> >
> > Did you read all four volumes of "Forgive My Grief" by Penn JOnes? ? ?
> > ? or, NOT? ? ? ?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > On May 21, 12:06=3DA0pm, tom...@cox.net wrote:
> > > > 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? =3DA0Afraid to try to mix it up with people
> > > > > >> w=
> ho
> > > > > >> kno=3D

> > > w
> > > > > >> 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

> > > > > >>>> wrot=
> e:
> >
> > > > > >>>>>http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/05/15/jfk-witness-d
> > > > > >>>>>ea=
> th
> > > > > >>>>>s-=3D

> > > c
> > > > > >>>>> alcul ating-the-probabilities/
> >
> > > > > >>>>> We must distinguish between unnatural and natural deaths.
> > > > > >>>>> The failed to do so. In its attempt to dismiss the London

> > > > > >>>>> Sunday Time=3D
> > > s
> > > > > >>>>> actuary=3D92s 100, 000 TRILLION to 1 odds of 18 witness
> > > > > >>>>> death=
> s in
> > > > > >>>>> t=3D

> > > hree
> > > > > >>>>> 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-F=

> eb
> > > > > >>>>> 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

> > > > > >>>>> MOTIVATIO=3D

> > > N
> > > > > >>>>> 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

> > > > > >>>>> UNKNOWAB=

> LE
> >
> > > > > >>>> Huh?
> >
> > > > > >>>> Kindly specify what the universe of witnesses was?
> >
> > > > > >>>> Give us a number!
> >
> > > > > >>>>> 6) ignored the KNOWN UNIVERSE of 552 Warren Commission

> > > > > >>>>> witnesses:=3D

> > > 14
> > > > > >>>>> unnatural, 10 suspicious deaths
> >
> > > > > >>>>> 7) ignored the SUSPICIOUS deaths in 1977 of 7 top FBI

> > > > > >>>>> officia=

> ls
> > > > > >>>>> called to testify at HSCA
> >

> > > > > >>>> Nonsense. =3DA0There 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

> > > > > >>>>> METHO=3D

> > > D
> >
> > > > > >>>> 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

> > > > > >>>> univers=3D

> > > e
> > > > > >>>> of "connected" people.
> >
> > > > > >>>>> The HSCA succeeded in misinforming the public by inferring

> > > > > >>>>> th=
> at
> > > > > >>>>> t=3D
> > > he
> > > > > >>>>> actuary=3D92s odds were not proof of a conspiracy.

> >
> > > > > >>>> But the actuary's "odds" were not proof of anything.

> > > > > >>>> =3DA0They told =3D

> > > him
> > > > > >>>> to calculate the probability of 17 named people dying.
> >
> > > > > >>>> They did *not* tell him to calculate the probability of 17

> > > > > >>>> out of =3D

> > > 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) =3DA0in a
> > > > > >>>>> giv=
> en
> > > > > >>>>> tim=3D

> > > e
> > > > > >>>>> period (T) is to recognize that it is based on the
> > > > > >>>>> difference between expected and actual unnatural
> > > > > >>>>> deaths. The larger the discrepancy between the actual

> > > > > >>>>> observed and expect=
> ed
> > > > > >>>>> number o=3D

> > > f
> > > > > >>>>> deaths, the lower the probability.
> >
> > > > > >>>>> These are the relevant probability input parameters:

> > > > > >>>>> N=3D3D total number of witnesses
> > > > > >>>>> n=3D3D number of observed unnatural deaths
> > > > > >>>>> T=3D3D time period in years
> > > > > >>>>> R=3D3D 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. T=
> he
> > > > > >>>>> equivalent Warren Commission rate was 0.0024 =3D3D
> > > > > >>>>> 4/(552*3) =
> or
> > > > > >>>>> 240=3D
> > > =A0per

> > > > > >>>>> 100,000 (40 times the national rate).
> >
> > > > > >>>> But most of the people on the list were *not* Warren

> > > > > >>>> Commissio=
> n
> > > > > >>>> witnesses. =3DA0Was the Mayor of New Orleans a WC witness?
> > > > > >>>> =3D=
> A0He's
> > > > > >>>> o=3D

> > > n the
> > > > > >>>> silly list.
> >
> > > > > >>>>> If the 5 accidental deaths and 1 suicide in the three year
> > > > > >>>>> period were actually homicides, then the equivalent Warren

> > > > > >>>>> Commission ra=3D
> > > te
> > > > > >>>>> was 0.006038 =3D3D=3D3D 10/(552*3) or 603 per 100,000 (100
> > > > > >>>>> ti=

> mes
> > > > > >>>>> the national average).
> >
> > > > > >>>>> The Poisson Distribution calculates the probabilities of
> > > > > >>>>> rare events over time.
> >

> > > > > >>>>> We =3DA0must first calculate E, the expected number of
> > > > > >>>>> unnatu=
> ral
> > > > > >>>>> deaths: E=3D3D N*R*T
> >
> > > > > >>>>> The probability of EXACTLY n unnatural deaths is: P =3D3D
> > > > > >>>>> POI=
> SSON
> > > > > >>>>> (=3D
> > > n,
> > > > > >>>>> E, false).
> >
> > > > > >>>>> The probability of AT LEAST n deaths is P =3D3D 1- POISSON
> > > > > >>>>> (n=

> -1,
> > > > > >>>>> E, true)
> >
> > > > > >>>>> EXAMPLE:
> > > > > >>>>> The probability of AT LEAST 14 Warren Commission witness

> > > > > >>>>> homicide=3D

> > > s
> > > > > >>>>> in the 14 years from 1964-77:

> > > > > >>>>> E =3D3D 0.479 =3D3D N*T*R =3D3D 552*14*0.000062
> > > > > >>>>> P =3D3D 1 - Poisson (13, 0.479, true)
> > > > > >>>>> P =3D3D 4.44E-16 =3D3D 1 in 2,251,799,813,685,248
> > > > > >>>>> P =3D3D 1 in 2251 trillion

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

> > > > > >>>>> tables.=3D
> > > ..
> > > > > >>>>>https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=3D3D0AjAk1JUWDMy
> > > > > >>>>>Rd=
> DFSU
> > > > > >>>>>3N=3D
> > > Vd2
> > > > > >>>>> 9xWWN yekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#gid=3D3D1

> >
> > > > > >>>> 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=3D

> > > !
> >
> > > > > >>>> 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
> >

> > > > > > Why didn't you post Tom's original statement? =3DA0It's in ACJ

> > > > > > if one's want to know.
> >
> > > > > It is against the rules of this newsgroup to post messages from
> > > > > another newsgroup. Why don't you LINK to it?
> >
> > > > now that you mention it john;
> >
> > > > there is very little about tis case that you're willing to tlk

> > > > about.=
> ..
> >
> > > > --
> > > > --------------------http://NewsReader.Com/--------------------
> > > > Usenet Newsgroup Service =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0
> > > > =
> =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0
> > > > =3DA0$=3D

> > > 9.95/Month 30GB
> >
> > > Que?
> >
> > > Concerned 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_Vol.
> > >..

> > > 14=3D 4a.htm

> >
> > > X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!
> >
> > --
> > --------------------http://NewsReader.Com/--------------------

> > Usenet Newsgroup Service =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0
> > =A0$=
> 9.95/Month 30GB
>

> No one would want to work their way thru THAT deluded stodge, tomnln.
>
> No one in their right mind, that is...
>
> Say, don't YOU have multiple copies for sale at @ least $200 apiece?
>
> Given that Penn Jones is dead, maybe you should put them online so
> that others could be DAZZLED by the <snicker> BRILLIANCE of his prose
> if you think it is so important.
>
> More likely you will simply choose to line your pockets, tomnln.
>
> Quite the record of JFK-CTers doing THAT, tomnln. You included.
>
> Informative 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_0

> 14= 4a.htm
>
> X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!

HOW MUCH OF "YOUR" JFK LIBRARY HAVE YOU GIVEN AWAY FOR FREE? ? ?

WE ALREADY KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT ONE, DON'T WE YOU CHEAP COCKSUCKER.

BTW;

YOU'VE GIVEN THE TERM "MOTHERFUCKER" A WHOLE NEW MEANING.

WHAT DID YOUR KID BROTHER BUY YOU FOR FATHER'S DAY? ? ?

PS;
THERE ARE SINGLE CPOIES OF "FORGIVE mY gRIE4S FOUND ON THE INTERNET
SELLINFG FOR AS MUCH AS $400.00 "USED" MINE ARE ALL BRAND NEW TOO RICH FOR
AN ASSHOLE ON WELFARE LIKE YOU ANYWAY...

--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------

timstter

unread,

May 26, 2013, 9:28:26 PM5/26/13

> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol...

> > 14= 4a.htm
>
> > X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!
>
> HOW MUCH OF "YOUR" JFK LIBRARY HAVE YOU GIVEN AWAY FOR FREE? ? ?
>
> WE ALREADY KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT ONE, DON'T WE YOU CHEAP COCKSUCKER.
>
> BTW;
>
> YOU'VE GIVEN THE TERM "MOTHERFUCKER" A WHOLE NEW MEANING.
>
> WHAT DID YOUR KID BROTHER BUY YOU FOR FATHER'S DAY? ? ?
>
> PS;
> THERE ARE SINGLE CPOIES OF "FORGIVE mY gRIE4S FOUND ON THE INTERNET
> SELLINFG FOR AS MUCH AS $400.00 "USED" MINE ARE ALL BRAND NEW TOO RICH FOR
> AN ASSHOLE ON WELFARE LIKE YOU ANYWAY...
>
> --

> --------------------http://NewsReader.Com/--------------------
> Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB

Wow! I can see why Anton Batey would be so interested in putting you
on the radio, Tom.

I mean who would want to miss a show featuring you?

KUTGW!

Admiring Regards,

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

tom...@cox.net

unread,

May 26, 2013, 9:36:41 PM5/26/13

timstter <tims...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 27, 11:23=A0am, tom...@cox.net wrote:
> > timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > On May 24, 11:01=3DA0am, tom...@cox.net wrote:
> > > > So, john;
> >
> > > > Did you read all four volumes of "Forgive My Grief" by Penn JOnes?

> > > > ? =

> ?
> > > > ? or, NOT? ? ? ?
> >
> > > > timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > On May 21, 12:06=3D3DA0pm, tom...@cox.net wrote:
> > > > > > 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? =3D3DA0Afraid to try to mix it up with
> > > > > > > >> pe=
> ople
> > > > > > > >> w=3D
> > > ho
> > > > > > > >> kno=3D3D

> > > > > w
> > > > > > > >> 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 wrot=3D
> > > e:
> >
> > > > > > > >>>>>http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/05/15/jfk-witne
> > > > > > > >>>>>ss=
> -d
> > > > > > > >>>>>ea=3D
> > > th
> > > > > > > >>>>>s-=3D3D

> > > > > c
> > > > > > > >>>>> alcul ating-the-probabilities/
> >
> > > > > > > >>>>> We must distinguish between unnatural and natural
> > > > > > > >>>>> deaths. The failed to do so. In its attempt to dismiss

> > > > > > > >>>>> the London Sunday Time=3D3D
> > > > > s
> > > > > > > >>>>> actuary=3D3D92s 100, 000 TRILLION to 1 odds of 18
> > > > > > > >>>>> witness death=3D
> > > s in
> > > > > > > >>>>> t=3D3D

> > > > > hree
> > > > > > > >>>>> years after the assassination, the HSCA made the

> > > > > > > >>>>> followin=

> g
> > > > > > > >>>>> fundamental errors:
> >
> > > > > > > >>>> Are you even aware that the SUNDAY TIMES *admitted* that

> > > > > > > >>>> t=

> he
> > > > > > > >>>> analysis was nonsense?
> >
> > > > > > > >>>>> 1) considered just 21 of 46 suspicious deaths from Nov

> > > > > > > >>>>> 1963-F=3D

> > > eb
> > > > > > > >>>>> 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

> > > > > > > >>>>> MOTIVATIO=3D3D

> > > > > N
> > > > > > > >>>>> for their elimination
> >
> > > > > > > >>>> The connection was absurdly tenuous in virtually every

> > > > > > > >>>> cas=

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

> > > > > > > >>>>> UNKNOWAB=3D

> > > LE
> >
> > > > > > > >>>> Huh?
> >
> > > > > > > >>>> Kindly specify what the universe of witnesses was?
> >
> > > > > > > >>>> Give us a number!
> >
> > > > > > > >>>>> 6) ignored the KNOWN UNIVERSE of 552 Warren Commission

> > > > > > > >>>>> witnesses:=3D3D

> > > > > 14
> > > > > > > >>>>> unnatural, 10 suspicious deaths
> >
> > > > > > > >>>>> 7) ignored the SUSPICIOUS deaths in 1977 of 7 top FBI

> > > > > > > >>>>> officia=3D

> > > ls
> > > > > > > >>>>> called to testify at HSCA
> >

> > > > > > > >>>> Nonsense. =3D3DA0There were no "7 top FBI officials"
> > > > > > > >>>> calle=

> d.
> >
> > > > > > > >>>> If you think so, name them.
> >
> > > > > > > >>>>> 8) did not question why no one at the London Times knew

> > > > > > > >>>>> t=

> he
> > > > > > > >>>>> actuary's name
> >
> > > > > > > >>>> They probably did, but wanted to spare him
> > > > > > > >>>> embarrassment.
> >
> > > > > > > >>>>> 9) failed to show the actuary's ASSUMPTIONS and

> > > > > > > >>>>> calculati=
> on
> > > > > > > >>>>> METHO=3D3D

> > > > > D
> >
> > > > > > > >>>> How could they, when the SUNDAY TIMES failed to publish
> > > > > > > >>>> them?
> >
> > > > > > > >>>>> 10) did not consider using the POISSON distribution

> > > > > > > >>>>> function =3D

> > > to
> > > > > > > >>>>> calculate probabilities
> >
> > > > > > > >>>> They could not calculate probabilities without knowing

> > > > > > > >>>> the univers=3D3D

> > > > > e
> > > > > > > >>>> of "connected" people.
> >
> > > > > > > >>>>> The HSCA succeeded in misinforming the public by

> > > > > > > >>>>> inferrin=
> g
> > > > > > > >>>>> th=3D
> > > at
> > > > > > > >>>>> t=3D3D
> > > > > he
> > > > > > > >>>>> actuary=3D3D92s odds were not proof of a conspiracy.

> >
> > > > > > > >>>> But the actuary's "odds" were not proof of anything.

> > > > > > > >>>> =3D3DA0They told =3D3D

> > > > > him
> > > > > > > >>>> to calculate the probability of 17 named people dying.
> >
> > > > > > > >>>> They did *not* tell him to calculate the probability of

> > > > > > > >>>> 17 out of =3D3D

> > > > > a
> > > > > > > >>>> thousand (ot ten thousand) people dying.
> >
> > > > > > > >>>>> The key to calculating the probability of a given

> > > > > > > >>>>> number (n) =3D

> > > of
> > > > > > > >>>>> unnatural deaths occurring in a given group (N)

> > > > > > > >>>>> =3D3DA0in=
> a
> > > > > > > >>>>> giv=3D
> > > en
> > > > > > > >>>>> tim=3D3D

> > > > > e
> > > > > > > >>>>> period (T) is to recognize that it is based on the
> > > > > > > >>>>> difference between expected and actual unnatural
> > > > > > > >>>>> deaths. The larger the discrepancy between the

> > > > > > > >>>>> actua=
> l
> > > > > > > >>>>> observed and expect=3D
> > > ed
> > > > > > > >>>>> number o=3D3D

> > > > > f
> > > > > > > >>>>> deaths, the lower the probability.
> >
> > > > > > > >>>>> These are the relevant probability input parameters:

> > > > > > > >>>>> N=3D3D3D total number of witnesses
> > > > > > > >>>>> n=3D3D3D number of observed unnatural deaths
> > > > > > > >>>>> T=3D3D3D time period in years
> > > > > > > >>>>> R=3D3D3D unnatural mortality rate

> >
> > > > > > > >>>>> The tables in the JFK Witness Spreadsheet Database

> > > > > > > >>>>> displa=

> y
> > > > > > > >>>>> unnatural death probabilities for 552 Warren Commission

> > > > > > > >>>>> a=

> nd
> > > > > > > >>>>> 1400 material witnesses based on unnatural, weighted
> > > > > > > >>>>> and homicide mortality rates over 3, 7 and 14 year time

> > > > > > > >>>>> intervals=3D

> > > .
> >
> > > > > > > >>>>> 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. T=3D
> > > he
> > > > > > > >>>>> equivalent Warren Commission rate was 0.0024 =3D3D3D
> > > > > > > >>>>> 4/(552*3) =3D
> > > or
> > > > > > > >>>>> 240=3D3D
> > > > > =3DA0per

> > > > > > > >>>>> 100,000 (40 times the national rate).
> >
> > > > > > > >>>> But most of the people on the list were *not* Warren

> > > > > > > >>>> Commissio=3D
> > > n
> > > > > > > >>>> witnesses. =3D3DA0Was the Mayor of New Orleans a WC
> > > > > > > >>>> witnes=
> s?
> > > > > > > >>>> =3D3D=3D
> > > A0He's
> > > > > > > >>>> o=3D3D

> > > > > n the
> > > > > > > >>>> silly list.
> >
> > > > > > > >>>>> If the 5 accidental deaths and 1 suicide in the three

> > > > > > > >>>>> yea=

> r
> > > > > > > >>>>> period were actually homicides, then the equivalent

> > > > > > > >>>>> Warre=
> n
> > > > > > > >>>>> Commission ra=3D3D
> > > > > te
> > > > > > > >>>>> was 0.006038 =3D3D3D=3D3D3D 10/(552*3) or 603 per 100,
> > > > > > > >>>>> 000=
> (100
> > > > > > > >>>>> ti=3D

> > > mes
> > > > > > > >>>>> the national average).
> >
> > > > > > > >>>>> The Poisson Distribution calculates the probabilities
> > > > > > > >>>>> of rare events over time.
> >

> > > > > > > >>>>> We =3D3DA0must first calculate E, the expected number
> > > > > > > >>>>> of unnatu=3D
> > > ral
> > > > > > > >>>>> deaths: E=3D3D3D N*R*T

> >
> > > > > > > >>>>> The probability of EXACTLY n unnatural deaths is: P

> > > > > > > >>>>> =3D3D=
> 3D
> > > > > > > >>>>> POI=3D
> > > SSON
> > > > > > > >>>>> (=3D3D
> > > > > n,
> > > > > > > >>>>> E, false).
> >
> > > > > > > >>>>> The probability of AT LEAST n deaths is P =3D3D3D 1-
> > > > > > > >>>>> POIS=
> SON
> > > > > > > >>>>> (n=3D

> > > -1,
> > > > > > > >>>>> E, true)
> >
> > > > > > > >>>>> EXAMPLE:
> > > > > > > >>>>> The probability of AT LEAST 14 Warren Commission

> > > > > > > >>>>> witness homicide=3D3D

> > > > > s
> > > > > > > >>>>> in the 14 years from 1964-77:

> > > > > > > >>>>> E =3D3D3D 0.479 =3D3D3D N*T*R =3D3D3D 552*14*0.000062
> > > > > > > >>>>> P =3D3D3D 1 - Poisson (13, 0.479, true)
> > > > > > > >>>>> P =3D3D3D 4.44E-16 =3D3D3D 1 in 2,251,799,813,685,248
> > > > > > > >>>>> P =3D3D3D 1 in 2251 trillion

> >
> > > > > > > >>>>> View the witness database and the probability

> > > > > > > >>>>> sensitivity tables.=3D3D
> > > > > ..
> > > > > > > >>>>>https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=3D3D3D0AjAk1
> > > > > > > >>>>>JU=
> WDMy
> > > > > > > >>>>>Rd=3D
> > > DFSU
> > > > > > > >>>>>3N=3D3D
> > > > > Vd2
> > > > > > > >>>>> 9xWWN yekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#gid=3D3D3D1

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

> > > > > > > >>>> absur=

> d
> > > > > > > >>>> critera buffs use.
> >
> > > > > > > >>>> Indeed, most of the people on the list were not

> > > > > > > >>>> "connected=
> "
> > > > > > > >>>> at all=3D3D

> > > > > !
> >
> > > > > > > >>>> Was the Chief steward on JFK's Air Force One connected?
> >
> > > > > > > >>>> If he was a conspirator, why not have him poison JFK's

> > > > > > > >>>> foo=

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

> > > > > > > > Why didn't you post Tom's original statement? =3D3DA0It's
> > > > > > > > in =

> ACJ
> > > > > > > > if one's want to know.
> >
> > > > > > > It is against the rules of this newsgroup to post messages
> > > > > > > from another newsgroup. Why don't you LINK to it?
> >
> > > > > > now that you mention it john;
> >
> > > > > > there is very little about tis case that you're willing to tlk

> > > > > > about.=3D
> > > ..
> >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > --------------------http://NewsReader.Com/--------------------
> > > > > > Usenet Newsgroup Service =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0
> > > > > > =3D3DA0 =
> =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0
> > > > > > =3D
> > > =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0
> > > > > > =3D3DA0$=3D3D

> > > > > 9.95/Month 30GB
> >
> > > > > Que?
> >
> > > > > Concerned 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_

> > > > >Vo=
> l.
> > > > >..
> > > > > 14=3D3D 4a.htm

> >
> > > > > X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!
> >
> > > > --
> > > > --------------------http://NewsReader.Com/--------------------

> > > > Usenet Newsgroup Service =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0
> > > > =
> =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0
> > > > =3DA0$=3D
> > > 9.95/Month 30GB
> >

> > > No one would want to work their way thru THAT deluded stodge, tomnln.
> >
> > > No one in their right mind, that is...
> >
> > > Say, don't YOU have multiple copies for sale at @ least $200 apiece?
> >
> > > Given that Penn Jones is dead, maybe you should put them online so
> > > that others could be DAZZLED by the <snicker> BRILLIANCE of his prose
> > > if you think it is so important.
> >
> > > More likely you will simply choose to line your pockets, tomnln.
> >
> > > Quite the record of JFK-CTers doing THAT, tomnln. You included.
> >
> > > Informative 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_Vol.
> > >..
> > > 14=3D 4a.htm
> >
> > > X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!
> >

> > HOW MUCH OF "YOUR" JFK LIBRARY HAVE YOU GIVEN AWAY FOR FREE? ? ?
> >
> > WE ALREADY KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT ONE, DON'T WE YOU CHEAP COCKSUCKER.
> >
> > BTW;
> >
> > YOU'VE GIVEN THE TERM "MOTHERFUCKER" A WHOLE NEW MEANING.
> >
> > WHAT DID YOUR KID BROTHER BUY YOU FOR FATHER'S DAY? ? ?
> >
> > PS;

> > THERE ARE SINGLE CPOIES OF "FORGIVE mY gRIE4S FOUND ON =A0THE INTERNET
> > SELLINFG FOR AS MUCH AS $400.00 "USED" =A0MINE ARE ALL BRAND NEW TOO
> > RICH=

> FOR
> > AN ASSHOLE ON WELFARE LIKE YOU ANYWAY...
> >
> > --
> > --------------------http://NewsReader.Com/--------------------

> > Usenet Newsgroup Service =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0
> > =A0$=
> 9.95/Month 30GB
>

> Wow! I can see why Anton Batey would be so interested in putting you
> on the radio, Tom.
>
> I mean who would want to miss a show featuring you?
>

PROBABLY BECAUSE SO MANY PEOPLE GOT AN EDUCATION AS TO WHAT IS IN THE
EVIDENCE/TEWSTIMONY IN THE 26 VOLUMES OF THE WARREN COMMISSION.

EZCEPT OF COURSE THOSE LN'S, THEY AREN'T CAPABLE OF LEARNING A DAMNED
THING! ! !

> KUTGW!
>
> Admiring 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_0

> 14= 4a.htm
>
> X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!

--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------

timstter

unread,

May 26, 2013, 10:38:43 PM5/26/13

> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol...

> > 14= 4a.htm
>
> > X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!
>
> --

> --------------------http://NewsReader.Com/--------------------
> Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB

The evidence/tewstimony?!

The EVIDENCE/TEWSTIMONY?!!

CLASSIC clownnln on display!

KUTGW, Tommy!

We'd go MILES for better COMEDY entertainment!! :-)

LMFAO Regards,

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

tom...@cox.net

unread,

May 27, 2013, 2:01:12 AM5/27/13

timstter <tims...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 27, 11:36=A0am, tom...@cox.net wrote:
> > timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > On May 27, 11:23=3DA0am, tom...@cox.net wrote:
> > > > timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > On May 24, 11:01=3D3DA0am, tom...@cox.net wrote:
> > > > > > So, john;
> >
> > > > > > Did you read all four volumes of "Forgive My Grief" by Penn

> > > > > > JOnes=
> ?
> > > > > > ? =3D

> > > ?
> > > > > > ? or, NOT? ? ? ?
> >
> > > > > > timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > On May 21, 12:06=3D3D3DA0pm, tom...@cox.net wrote:
> > > > > > > > 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? =3D3D3DA0Afraid to try to mix it up
> > > > > > > > > >> w=
> ith
> > > > > > > > > >> pe=3D
> > > ople
> > > > > > > > > >> w=3D3D
> > > > > ho
> > > > > > > > > >> kno=3D3D3D

> > > > > > > w
> > > > > > > > > >> 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 wrot=3D3D
> > > > > e:
> >
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/05/15/jfk-w
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>it=
> ne
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>ss=3D
> > > -d
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>ea=3D3D
> > > > > th
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>s-=3D3D3D

> > > > > > > c
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> alcul ating-the-probabilities/
> >
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> We must distinguish between unnatural and natural
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> deaths. The failed to do so. In its attempt to

> > > > > > > > > >>>>> dismis=
> s
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> the London Sunday Time=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > s
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> actuary=3D3D3D92s 100, 000 TRILLION to 1 odds of 18
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> witness death=3D3D
> > > > > s in
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> t=3D3D3D

> > > > > > > hree
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> years after the assassination, the HSCA made the

> > > > > > > > > >>>>> followin=3D

> > > g
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> fundamental errors:
> >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> Are you even aware that the SUNDAY TIMES *admitted*

> > > > > > > > > >>>> th=
> at
> > > > > > > > > >>>> t=3D

> > > he
> > > > > > > > > >>>> analysis was nonsense?
> >
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> 1) considered just 21 of 46 suspicious deaths from

> > > > > > > > > >>>>> No=
> v
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> 1963-F=3D3D

> > > > > eb
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> 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

> > > > > > > > > >>>>> a=
> nd
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> MOTIVATIO=3D3D3D

> > > > > > > N
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> for their elimination
> >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> The connection was absurdly tenuous in virtually

> > > > > > > > > >>>> every cas=3D

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

> > > > > > > > > >>>>> was UNKNOWAB=3D3D

> > > > > LE
> >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> Huh?
> >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> Kindly specify what the universe of witnesses was?
> >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> Give us a number!
> >
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> 6) ignored the KNOWN UNIVERSE of 552 Warren

> > > > > > > > > >>>>> Commissio=
> n
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> witnesses:=3D3D3D

> > > > > > > 14
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> unnatural, 10 suspicious deaths
> >
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> 7) ignored the SUSPICIOUS deaths in 1977 of 7 top

> > > > > > > > > >>>>> FBI officia=3D3D

> > > > > ls
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> called to testify at HSCA
> >

> > > > > > > > > >>>> Nonsense. =3D3D3DA0There were no "7 top FBI
> > > > > > > > > >>>> officials" calle=3D

> > > d.
> >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> If you think so, name them.
> >
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> 8) did not question why no one at the London Times

> > > > > > > > > >>>>> kn=
> ew
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> t=3D

> > > he
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> actuary's name
> >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> They probably did, but wanted to spare him
> > > > > > > > > >>>> embarrassment.
> >
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> 9) failed to show the actuary's ASSUMPTIONS and

> > > > > > > > > >>>>> calculati=3D
> > > on
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> METHO=3D3D3D

> > > > > > > D
> >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> How could they, when the SUNDAY TIMES failed to

> > > > > > > > > >>>> publis=

> h
> > > > > > > > > >>>> them?
> >
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> 10) did not consider using the POISSON distribution

> > > > > > > > > >>>>> function =3D3D

> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> calculate probabilities
> >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> They could not calculate probabilities without

> > > > > > > > > >>>> knowing the univers=3D3D3D

> > > > > > > e
> > > > > > > > > >>>> of "connected" people.
> >
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> The HSCA succeeded in misinforming the public by

> > > > > > > > > >>>>> inferrin=3D
> > > g
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> th=3D3D
> > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> t=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > he
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> actuary=3D3D3D92s odds were not proof of a
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> conspiracy=

> .
> >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> But the actuary's "odds" were not proof of anything.

> > > > > > > > > >>>> =3D3D3DA0They told =3D3D3D

> > > > > > > him
> > > > > > > > > >>>> to calculate the probability of 17 named people
> > > > > > > > > >>>> dying.
> >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> They did *not* tell him to calculate the probability

> > > > > > > > > >>>> o=
> f
> > > > > > > > > >>>> 17 out of =3D3D3D

> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > >>>> thousand (ot ten thousand) people dying.
> >
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> The key to calculating the probability of a given

> > > > > > > > > >>>>> number (n) =3D3D

> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> unnatural deaths occurring in a given group (N)

> > > > > > > > > >>>>> =3D3D3DA0in=3D
> > > =A0a
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> giv=3D3D
> > > > > en
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> tim=3D3D3D

> > > > > > > e
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> period (T) is to recognize that it is based on the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> difference between expected and actual
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> unnatural deaths. The larger the discrepancy

> > > > > > > > > >>>>> between the actua=3D
> > > l
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> observed and expect=3D3D
> > > > > ed
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> number o=3D3D3D

> > > > > > > f
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> deaths, the lower the probability.
> >
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> These are the relevant probability input

> > > > > > > > > >>>>> parameters: N=3D3D3D3D total number of witnesses
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> n=3D3D3D3D number of observed unnatural deaths
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> T=3D3D3D3D time period in years
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> R=3D3D3D3D unnatural mortality rate

> >
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> The tables in the JFK Witness Spreadsheet Database

> > > > > > > > > >>>>> displa=3D

> > > y
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> unnatural death probabilities for 552 Warren

> > > > > > > > > >>>>> Commissi=
> on
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> a=3D

> > > nd
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> 1400 material witnesses based on unnatural,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> weighted and homicide mortality rates over 3, 7 and

> > > > > > > > > >>>>> 14 year ti=
> me
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> intervals=3D3D

> > > > > .
> >
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> 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 yea=
> rs
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> after the assassination. T=3D3D

> > > > > he
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> equivalent Warren Commission rate was 0.0024

> > > > > > > > > >>>>> =3D3D3D3=
> D
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> 4/(552*3) =3D3D
> > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> 240=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > =3D3DA0per

> > > > > > > > > >>>>> 100,000 (40 times the national rate).
> >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> But most of the people on the list were *not* Warren

> > > > > > > > > >>>> Commissio=3D3D
> > > > > n
> > > > > > > > > >>>> witnesses. =3D3D3DA0Was the Mayor of New Orleans a
> > > > > > > > > >>>> WC witnes=3D
> > > s?
> > > > > > > > > >>>> =3D3D3D=3D3D
> > > > > A0He's
> > > > > > > > > >>>> o=3D3D3D

> > > > > > > n the
> > > > > > > > > >>>> silly list.
> >
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> If the 5 accidental deaths and 1 suicide in the

> > > > > > > > > >>>>> three yea=3D

> > > r
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> period were actually homicides, then the equivalent

> > > > > > > > > >>>>> Warre=3D
> > > n
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> Commission ra=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > te
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> was 0.006038 =3D3D3D3D=3D3D3D3D 10/(552*3) or 603
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> per=
> 100,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> 000=3D
> > > =A0(100
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> ti=3D3D

> > > > > mes
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> the national average).
> >
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> The Poisson Distribution calculates the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> probabilities of rare events over time.
> >

> > > > > > > > > >>>>> We =3D3D3DA0must first calculate E, the expected
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> numb=
> er
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> of unnatu=3D3D
> > > > > ral
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> deaths: E=3D3D3D3D N*R*T

> >
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> The probability of EXACTLY n unnatural deaths is: P

> > > > > > > > > >>>>> =3D3D3D=3D
> > > 3D
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> POI=3D3D
> > > > > SSON
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> (=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > n,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> E, false).
> >
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> The probability of AT LEAST n deaths is P =3D3D3D3D
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> 1=
> -
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> POIS=3D
> > > SON
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> (n=3D3D

> > > > > -1,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> E, true)
> >
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> EXAMPLE:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> The probability of AT LEAST 14 Warren Commission

> > > > > > > > > >>>>> witness homicide=3D3D3D

> > > > > > > s
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> in the 14 years from 1964-77:

> > > > > > > > > >>>>> E =3D3D3D3D 0.479 =3D3D3D3D N*T*R =3D3D3D3D
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> 552*14*0.=
> 000062
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> P =3D3D3D3D 1 - Poisson (13, 0.479, true)
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> P =3D3D3D3D 4.44E-16 =3D3D3D3D 1 in 2,251,799,813,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> 685=
> ,248
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> P =3D3D3D3D 1 in 2251 trillion

> >
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> View the witness database and the probability

> > > > > > > > > >>>>> sensitivity tables.=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > ..
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=3D3D3D3D
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>0A=
> jAk1
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>JU=3D
> > > WDMy
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>Rd=3D3D
> > > > > DFSU
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>3N=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > Vd2
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> 9xWWN yekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#gid=3D3D3D3D1

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

> > > > > > > > > >>>> the absur=3D

> > > d
> > > > > > > > > >>>> critera buffs use.
> >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> Indeed, most of the people on the list were not

> > > > > > > > > >>>> "connected=3D
> > > "
> > > > > > > > > >>>> at all=3D3D3D

> > > > > > > !
> >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> Was the Chief steward on JFK's Air Force One

> > > > > > > > > >>>> connected=

> ?
> >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> If he was a conspirator, why not have him poison

> > > > > > > > > >>>> JFK's foo=3D

> > > d?
> >
> > > > > > > > > >>>> .John
> > > > > > > > > >>>> --------------
> > > > > > > > > >>>>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
> >
> > > > > > > > > >> .John
> > > > > > > > > >> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
> >
> > > > > > > > > > Why didn't you post Tom's original statement?

> > > > > > > > > > =3D3D3DA0It=
> 's
> > > > > > > > > > in =3D

> > > ACJ
> > > > > > > > > > if one's want to know.
> >
> > > > > > > > > It is against the rules of this newsgroup to post
> > > > > > > > > messages from another newsgroup. Why don't you LINK to
> > > > > > > > > it?
> >
> > > > > > > > now that you mention it john;
> >
> > > > > > > > there is very little about tis case that you're willing to

> > > > > > > > tl=
> k
> > > > > > > > about.=3D3D
> > > > > ..
> >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > --------------------http://NewsReader.Com/-----------------
> > > > > > > > --=
> -
> > > > > > > > Usenet Newsgroup Service =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0
> > > > > > > > =3D3D3=
> DA0
> > > > > > > > =3D3D3DA0 =3D
> > > =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0
> > > > > > > > =3D3D
> > > > > =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0
> > > > > > > > =3D3D3DA0$=3D3D3D

> > > > > > > 9.95/Month 30GB
> >
> > > > > > > Que?
> >
> > > > > > > Concerned 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

> > > > > > >/W=
> H_
> > > > > > >Vo=3D
> > > l.
> > > > > > >..
> > > > > > > 14=3D3D3D 4a.htm

> >
> > > > > > > X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!
> >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > --------------------http://NewsReader.Com/--------------------

> > > > > > Usenet Newsgroup Service =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0
> > > > > > =3D3DA0 =
> =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0
> > > > > > =3D
> > > =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0
> > > > > > =3D3DA0$=3D3D
> > > > > 9.95/Month 30GB
> >

> > > > > No one would want to work their way thru THAT deluded stodge,

> > > > > tomnl=

> n.
> >
> > > > > No one in their right mind, that is...
> >
> > > > > Say, don't YOU have multiple copies for sale at @ least $200

> > > > > apiece=

> ?
> >
> > > > > Given that Penn Jones is dead, maybe you should put them online
> > > > > so that others could be DAZZLED by the <snicker> BRILLIANCE of

> > > > > his pro=

> se
> > > > > if you think it is so important.
> >
> > > > > More likely you will simply choose to line your pockets, tomnln.
> >
> > > > > Quite the record of JFK-CTers doing THAT, tomnln. You included.
> >
> > > > > Informative 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_
> > > > >Vo=
> l.
> > > > >..
> > > > > 14=3D3D 4a.htm
> >
> > > > > X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!
> >

> > > > HOW MUCH OF "YOUR" JFK LIBRARY HAVE YOU GIVEN AWAY FOR FREE? ? ?
> >
> > > > WE ALREADY KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT ONE, DON'T WE YOU CHEAP

> > > > COCKSUCKER=

> .
> >
> > > > BTW;
> >
> > > > YOU'VE GIVEN THE TERM "MOTHERFUCKER" A WHOLE NEW MEANING.
> >
> > > > WHAT DID YOUR KID BROTHER BUY YOU FOR FATHER'S DAY? ? ?
> >
> > > > PS;

> > > > THERE ARE SINGLE CPOIES OF "FORGIVE mY gRIE4S FOUND ON =3DA0THE
> > > > INTER=
> NET
> > > > SELLINFG FOR AS MUCH AS $400.00 "USED" =3DA0MINE ARE ALL BRAND NEW
> > > > TO=
> O
> > > > RICH=3D
> > > =A0FOR

> > > > AN ASSHOLE ON WELFARE LIKE YOU ANYWAY...
> >
> > > > --
> > > > --------------------http://NewsReader.Com/--------------------

> > > > Usenet Newsgroup Service =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0
> > > > =
> =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0
> > > > =3DA0$=3D
> > > 9.95/Month 30GB
> >

> > > Wow! I can see why Anton Batey would be so interested in putting you
> > > on the radio, Tom.
> >
> > > I mean who would want to miss a show featuring you?
> >
> > PROBABLY BECAUSE SO MANY PEOPLE GOT AN EDUCATION AS TO WHAT IS IN THE
> > EVIDENCE/TEWSTIMONY IN THE 26 VOLUMES OF THE WARREN COMMISSION.
> >
> > EZCEPT OF COURSE THOSE LN'S, THEY AREN'T CAPABLE OF LEARNING A DAMNED
> > THING! ! !
> >
> > > KUTGW!
> >
> > > Admiring 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_Vol.
> > >..
> > > 14=3D 4a.htm
> >
> > > X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!
> >

> > --
> > --------------------http://NewsReader.Com/--------------------
> > Usenet Newsgroup Service =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0
> > =A0$=
> 9.95/Month 30GB
>

> The evidence/tewstimony?!
>
> The EVIDENCE/TEWSTIMONY?!!
>
> CLASSIC clownnln on display!
>
> KUTGW, Tommy!
>
> We'd go MILES for better COMEDY entertainment!! :-)
>
> LMFAO 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_0

> 14= 4a.htm
>
> X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!

timm also admires whores.

the most expensive book on the jfk case is by gerald "rudolph ford selling
at $889.00

you fucking hookers gotta stick together ya know ! ! !

--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------

timstter

unread,

May 27, 2013, 2:04:10 AM5/27/13

> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol...

> > 14= 4a.htm
>
> > X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!
>
> timm also admires whores.
>
> the most expensive book on the jfk case is by gerald "rudolph ford selling
> at $889.00
>
> you fucking hookers gotta stick together ya know ! ! !
>
> --

> --------------------http://NewsReader.Com/--------------------
> Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB

Having any luck arranging your new radio appearance, clownnln?

What a phucken MAROON, LOL!

KUTGW, CLOWNNLN!

TB

tom...@cox.net

unread,

May 28, 2013, 7:00:36 PM5/28/13

timstter <tims...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 27, 4:01=A0pm, tom...@cox.net wrote:
> > timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > On May 27, 11:36=3DA0am, tom...@cox.net wrote:
> > > > timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > On May 27, 11:23=3D3DA0am, tom...@cox.net wrote:
> > > > > > timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > On May 24, 11:01=3D3D3DA0am, tom...@cox.net wrote:
> > > > > > > > So, john;
> >
> > > > > > > > Did you read all four volumes of "Forgive My Grief" by Penn

> > > > > > > > JOnes=3D
> > > ?
> > > > > > > > ? =3D3D

> > > > > ?
> > > > > > > > ? or, NOT? ? ? ?
> >
> > > > > > > > timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > On May 21, 12:06=3D3D3D3DA0pm, tom...@cox.net wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > 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? =3D3D3D3DA0Afraid to try to mix
> > > > > > > > > > > >> i=
> t up
> > > > > > > > > > > >> w=3D
> > > ith
> > > > > > > > > > > >> pe=3D3D
> > > > > ople
> > > > > > > > > > > >> w=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > ho
> > > > > > > > > > > >> kno=3D3D3D3D

> > > > > > > > > w
> > > > > > > > > > > >> 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 wrot=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > e:
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/05/15/j
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>fk=
> -w
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>it=3D
> > > ne
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>ss=3D3D
> > > > > -d
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>ea=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > th
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>s-=3D3D3D3D

> > > > > > > > > c
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> alcul ating-the-probabilities/
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> We must distinguish between unnatural and
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> natural deaths. The failed to do so. In its

> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> attempt to dismis=3D
> > > s
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> the London Sunday Time=3D3D3D3D
> > > > > > > > > s
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> actuary=3D3D3D3D92s 100, 000 TRILLION to 1 odds
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> o=
> f 18
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> witness death=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > s in
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> t=3D3D3D3D

> > > > > > > > > hree
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> years after the assassination, the HSCA made

> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> the followin=3D3D

> > > > > g
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> fundamental errors:
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Are you even aware that the SUNDAY TIMES

> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> *admitted=
> *
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> th=3D
> > > at
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> t=3D3D

> > > > > he
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> analysis was nonsense?
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> 1) considered just 21 of 46 suspicious deaths

> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> fro=
> m
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> No=3D
> > > v
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> 1963-F=3D3D3D

> > > > > > > eb
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> 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

> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> ca=
> se
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> a=3D
> > > nd
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> MOTIVATIO=3D3D3D3D

> > > > > > > > > N
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> for their elimination
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> The connection was absurdly tenuous in virtually

> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> every cas=3D3D

> > > > > e.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> 4) ignored the need to utilize UNNATURAL

> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> MORTALIT=

> Y
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> RATES
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> 5) falsely stated that the UNIVERSE of

> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> witnesses was UNKNOWAB=3D3D3D

> > > > > > > LE
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Huh?
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Kindly specify what the universe of witnesses
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> was?
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Give us a number!
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> 6) ignored the KNOWN UNIVERSE of 552 Warren

> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Commissio=3D
> > > n
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> witnesses:=3D3D3D3D

> > > > > > > > > 14
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> unnatural, 10 suspicious deaths
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> 7) ignored the SUSPICIOUS deaths in 1977 of 7

> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> top FBI officia=3D3D3D

> > > > > > > ls
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> called to testify at HSCA
> >

> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Nonsense. =3D3D3D3DA0There were no "7 top FBI
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> officials" calle=3D3D

> > > > > d.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> If you think so, name them.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> 8) did not question why no one at the London

> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Time=
> s
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> kn=3D
> > > ew
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> t=3D3D

> > > > > he
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> actuary's name
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> They probably did, but wanted to spare him
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> embarrassment.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> 9) failed to show the actuary's ASSUMPTIONS and

> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> calculati=3D3D
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> METHO=3D3D3D3D

> > > > > > > > > D
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> How could they, when the SUNDAY TIMES failed to

> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> publis=3D

> > > h
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> them?
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> 10) did not consider using the POISSON

> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> distributi=
> on
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> function =3D3D3D

> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> calculate probabilities
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> They could not calculate probabilities without

> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> knowing the univers=3D3D3D3D

> > > > > > > > > e
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> of "connected" people.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> The HSCA succeeded in misinforming the public

> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> by inferrin=3D3D
> > > > > g
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> th=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> t=3D3D3D3D
> > > > > > > > > he
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> actuary=3D3D3D3D92s odds were not proof of a
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> conspiracy=3D

> > > .
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> But the actuary's "odds" were not proof of

> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> anythin=
> g.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> =3D3D3D3DA0They told =3D3D3D3D

> > > > > > > > > him
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> to calculate the probability of 17 named people
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> dying.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> They did *not* tell him to calculate the

> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> probabili=
> ty
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> o=3D
> > > f
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> 17 out of =3D3D3D3D

> > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> thousand (ot ten thousand) people dying.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> The key to calculating the probability of a

> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> given number (n) =3D3D3D

> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> unnatural deaths occurring in a given group (N)

> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> =3D3D3D3DA0in=3D3D
> > > > > =3DA0a
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> giv=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > en
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> tim=3D3D3D3D

> > > > > > > > > e
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> period (T) is to recognize that it is based on

> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> th=

> e
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> difference between expected and actual
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> unnatural deaths. The larger the

> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> discrepancy between the actua=3D3D
> > > > > l
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> observed and expect=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > ed
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> number o=3D3D3D3D

> > > > > > > > > f
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> deaths, the lower the probability.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> These are the relevant probability input

> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> parameters: N=3D3D3D3D3D total number of
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> witnesse=
> s
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> n=3D3D3D3D3D number of observed unnatural
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> deaths T=3D3D3D3D3D time period in years
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> R=3D3D3D3D3D unnatural mortality rate

> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> The tables in the JFK Witness Spreadsheet

> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Databas=
> e
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> displa=3D3D

> > > > > y
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> unnatural death probabilities for 552 Warren

> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Commissi=3D
> > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> a=3D3D

> > > > > nd
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> 1400 material witnesses based on unnatural,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> weighted and homicide mortality rates over 3, 7

> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> a=
> nd
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> 14 year ti=3D
> > > me
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> intervals=3D3D3D

> > > > > > > .
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> 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 yea=3D
> > > rs
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> after the assassination. T=3D3D3D

> > > > > > > he
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> equivalent Warren Commission rate was 0.0024

> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> =3D3D3D3D3=3D
> > > D
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> 4/(552*3) =3D3D3D
> > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> 240=3D3D3D3D
> > > > > > > > > =3D3D3DA0per

> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> 100,000 (40 times the national rate).
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> But most of the people on the list were *not*

> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Warr=
> en
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Commissio=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > n
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> witnesses. =3D3D3D3DA0Was the Mayor of New
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Orleans=
> a
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> WC witnes=3D3D
> > > > > s?
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> =3D3D3D3D=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > A0He's
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> o=3D3D3D3D

> > > > > > > > > n the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> silly list.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> If the 5 accidental deaths and 1 suicide in the

> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> three yea=3D3D

> > > > > r
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> period were actually homicides, then the

> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> equivale=
> nt
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Warre=3D3D
> > > > > n
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Commission ra=3D3D3D3D
> > > > > > > > > te
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> was 0.006038 =3D3D3D3D3D=3D3D3D3D3D 10/(552*3)
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> or=
> 603
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> per=3D
> > > =A0100,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> 000=3D3D
> > > > > =3DA0(100
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> ti=3D3D3D

> > > > > > > mes
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> the national average).
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> The Poisson Distribution calculates the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> probabilities of rare events over time.
> >

> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> We =3D3D3D3DA0must first calculate E, the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> expecte=
> d
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> numb=3D
> > > er
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> of unnatu=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > ral
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> deaths: E=3D3D3D3D3D N*R*T

> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> The probability of EXACTLY n unnatural deaths

> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> is:=
> P
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> =3D3D3D3D=3D3D
> > > > > 3D
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> POI=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > SSON
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> (=3D3D3D3D

> > > > > > > > > n,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> E, false).
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> The probability of AT LEAST n deaths is P

> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> =3D3D3D=
> 3D3D
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> 1=3D
> > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> POIS=3D3D
> > > > > SON
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> (n=3D3D3D

> > > > > > > -1,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> E, true)
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> EXAMPLE:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> The probability of AT LEAST 14 Warren

> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Commission witness homicide=3D3D3D3D

> > > > > > > > > s
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> in the 14 years from 1964-77:

> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> E =3D3D3D3D3D 0.479 =3D3D3D3D3D N*T*R
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> =3D3D3D3D3D 552*14*0.=3D
> > > 000062
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> P =3D3D3D3D3D 1 - Poisson (13, 0.479, true)
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> P =3D3D3D3D3D 4.44E-16 =3D3D3D3D3D 1 in 2,251,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> 799=
> ,813,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> 685=3D
> > > ,248
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> P =3D3D3D3D3D 1 in 2251 trillion

> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> View the witness database and the probability

> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> sensitivity tables.=3D3D3D3D
> > > > > > > > > ..
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=3D3D
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>3D=
> 3D3D
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>0A=3D
> > > jAk1
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>JU=3D3D
> > > > > WDMy
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>Rd=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > DFSU
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>3N=3D3D3D3D
> > > > > > > > > Vd2
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> 9xWWN yekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#gid=3D3D3D3D3D1

> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> You don't seem to understand that there must be

> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> 10=

> ,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> 000 people "connected" with the assassination,

> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> giv=
> en
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> the absur=3D3D

> > > > > d
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> critera buffs use.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Indeed, most of the people on the list were not

> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> "connected=3D3D
> > > > > "
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> at all=3D3D3D3D

> > > > > > > > > !
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Was the Chief steward on JFK's Air Force One

> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> connected=3D

> > > ?
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> If he was a conspirator, why not have him poison

> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> JFK's foo=3D3D

> > > > > d?
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> .John
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> --------------
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> .John
> > > > > > > > > > > >> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Why didn't you post Tom's original statement?

> > > > > > > > > > > > =3D3D3D3DA0It=3D
> > > 's
> > > > > > > > > > > > in =3D3D

> > > > > ACJ
> > > > > > > > > > > > if one's want to know.
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > It is against the rules of this newsgroup to post
> > > > > > > > > > > messages from another newsgroup. Why don't you LINK
> > > > > > > > > > > to it?
> >
> > > > > > > > > > now that you mention it john;
> >
> > > > > > > > > > there is very little about tis case that you're willing

> > > > > > > > > > t=
> o
> > > > > > > > > > tl=3D
> > > k
> > > > > > > > > > about.=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > ..
> >
> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > --------------------http://NewsReader.Com/-------------
> > > > > > > > > > --=
> --
> > > > > > > > > > --=3D
> > > -
> > > > > > > > > > Usenet Newsgroup Service =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3DA0
> > > > > > > > > > =3D3D3D3=
> DA0
> > > > > > > > > > =3D3D3D3=3D
> > > DA0
> > > > > > > > > > =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D
> > > > > =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3DA0
> > > > > > > > > > =3D3D3D
> > > > > > > =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3D3DA0
> > > > > > > > > > =3D3D3D3DA0$=3D3D3D3D

> > > > > > > > > 9.95/Month 30GB
> >
> > > > > > > > > Que?
> >
> > > > > > > > > Concerned Regards,
> >
> > > > > > > > > Tim Brennan
> > > > > > > > > Sydney, Australia
> > > > > > > > > *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
> >
> > > > > > > > > *...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the

> > > > > > > > > hea=

> d
> > > > > > > > > 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/
> > > > > > > > >ht=
> ml
> > > > > > > > >/W=3D
> > > H_
> > > > > > > > >Vo=3D3D
> > > > > l.
> > > > > > > > >..
> > > > > > > > > 14=3D3D3D3D 4a.htm

> >
> > > > > > > > > X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!
> >
> > > > > > > > --

> > > > > > > > --------------------http://NewsReader.Com/-----------------
> > > > > > > > --=
> -
> > > > > > > > Usenet Newsgroup Service =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0
> > > > > > > > =3D3D3=
> DA0
> > > > > > > > =3D3D3DA0 =3D
> > > =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0
> > > > > > > > =3D3D
> > > > > =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0 =3D3D3DA0
> > > > > > > > =3D3D3DA0$=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > 9.95/Month 30GB
> >

> > > > > > > No one would want to work their way thru THAT deluded stodge,

> > > > > > > tomnl=3D

> > > n.
> >
> > > > > > > No one in their right mind, that is...
> >
> > > > > > > Say, don't YOU have multiple copies for sale at @ least $200

> > > > > > > apiece=3D

> > > ?
> >
> > > > > > > Given that Penn Jones is dead, maybe you should put them
> > > > > > > online so that others could be DAZZLED by the <snicker>

> > > > > > > BRILLIANCE of his pro=3D

> > > se
> > > > > > > if you think it is so important.
> >
> > > > > > > More likely you will simply choose to line your pockets,

> > > > > > > tomnln=

> .
> >
> > > > > > > Quite the record of JFK-CTers doing THAT, tomnln. You
> > > > > > > included.
> >
> > > > > > > Informative 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
> > > > > > >/W=
> H_
> > > > > > >Vo=3D
> > > l.
> > > > > > >..
> > > > > > > 14=3D3D3D 4a.htm
> >
> > > > > > > X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!
> >

> > > > > > HOW MUCH OF "YOUR" JFK LIBRARY HAVE YOU GIVEN AWAY FOR FREE? ?
> > > > > > ?
> >
> > > > > > WE ALREADY KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT ONE, DON'T WE YOU CHEAP

> > > > > > COCKSUCKER=3D

> > > .
> >
> > > > > > BTW;
> >
> > > > > > YOU'VE GIVEN THE TERM "MOTHERFUCKER" A WHOLE NEW MEANING.
> >
> > > > > > WHAT DID YOUR KID BROTHER BUY YOU FOR FATHER'S DAY? ? ?
> >
> > > > > > PS;
> > > > > > THERE ARE SINGLE CPOIES OF "FORGIVE mY gRIE4S FOUND ON

> > > > > > =3D3DA0THE INTER=3D
> > > NET
> > > > > > SELLINFG FOR AS MUCH AS $400.00 "USED" =3D3DA0MINE ARE ALL
> > > > > > BRAND =
> NEW
> > > > > > TO=3D
> > > O
> > > > > > RICH=3D3D
> > > > > =3DA0FOR

> > > > > > AN ASSHOLE ON WELFARE LIKE YOU ANYWAY...
> >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > --------------------http://NewsReader.Com/--------------------

> > > > > Wow! I can see why Anton Batey would be so interested in putting

> > > > > yo=

> u
> > > > > on the radio, Tom.
> >
> > > > > I mean who would want to miss a show featuring you?
> >
> > > > PROBABLY BECAUSE SO MANY PEOPLE GOT AN EDUCATION AS TO WHAT IS IN
> > > > THE EVIDENCE/TEWSTIMONY IN THE 26 VOLUMES OF THE WARREN COMMISSION.
> >
> > > > EZCEPT OF COURSE THOSE LN'S, THEY AREN'T CAPABLE OF LEARNING A
> > > > DAMNED THING! ! !
> >
> > > > > KUTGW!
> >
> > > > > Admiring 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_
> > > > >Vo=
> l.
> > > > >..
> > > > > 14=3D3D 4a.htm
> >
> > > > > X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!
> >

> > > > --
> > > > --------------------http://NewsReader.Com/--------------------
> > > > Usenet Newsgroup Service =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0
> > > > =
> =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0
> > > > =3DA0$=3D
> > > 9.95/Month 30GB
> >

> > > The evidence/tewstimony?!
> >
> > > The EVIDENCE/TEWSTIMONY?!!
> >
> > > CLASSIC clownnln on display!
> >
> > > KUTGW, Tommy!
> >
> > > We'd go MILES for better COMEDY entertainment!! :-)
> >
> > > LMFAO 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_Vol.
> > >..
> > > 14=3D 4a.htm
> >
> > > X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!
> >

> > timm also admires whores.
> >
> > the most expensive book on the jfk case is by gerald "rudolph ford

> > =A0sel=

> ling
> > at $889.00
> >
> > you fucking hookers gotta stick together ya know ! ! !
> >
> > --
> > --------------------http://NewsReader.Com/--------------------

> > Usenet Newsgroup Service =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0
> > =A0$=
> 9.95/Month 30GB
>

> Having any luck arranging your new radio appearance, clownnln?
>
> What a phucken MAROON, LOL!
>
> KUTGW, CLOWNNLN!
>
> TB

remember pussy;
if vyou go to dallas for the 50th bring a self addressed body bag. ot,
you'll never get back home.

--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------

0 new messages