HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Offbeat » Creative Speculation (Group) » What is the probability t...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 12:26 AM

 

What is the probability that 15 witnesses would die unnaturally within 1yr of the JFK assassination?

http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/category/jfk/

11/63 Karyn Kupicinet Tv host's daughter who was overheard telling of JFK's death prior to 11/22/63 Murdered
12/63 Jack Zangretti Expressed foreknowledge of Ruby shooting Oswald Gunshot Victim
2/64 Eddy Benavides Lookalike brother to Tippit shooting witness, Domingo Benavides Gunshot to head
2/64 Betty MacDonald* Former Ruby employee who alibied Warren Reynolds shooting suspect. Suicide byhanging in Dallas Jail
3/64 Bill Chesher Thought to have information linking Oswald and Ruby Heart attack
3/64 Hank Killam* Husband of Ruby employee, knew Oswald acquaintance Throat cut
4/64 Bill Hunter* Reporter who was in Ruby's apartment on 11/24/63 Accidental shooting by policeman
5/64 Gary Underhill* CIA agent who claimed Agency was involved Gunshot in head ruled suicide
5/64 Hugh Ward* Private investigator working with Guy Banister and David Ferrie Plane crash in Mexico
5/64 DeLesseps Morrison* New Orleans Mayor Passenger in Ward's plane
8/64 Teresa Norton* Ruby employee Fatally shot
6/64 Guy Banister* x-FBI agent in New Orleans connected to Ferrie, CIA, Carlos Marcello & Oswald Heart attack
9/64 Jim Koethe* Reporter who was in Ruby's apartment on 11/24/63 Blow to neck
9/64 C.D. Jackson "Life" magazine senior Vicepresident who bought Zapruderfilm and locked it away Unknown
10/64 Mary Pinchot JFK "special" friend whose diary was taken by CIA chief James Angleton after her death Murdered

36 replies, 4397 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 36 replies Author Time Post
Reply What is the probability that 15 witnesses would die unnaturally within 1yr of the JFK assassination? (Original post)
Richard Charnin Dec 2011 OP
maddezmom Dec 2011 #1
Richard Charnin Dec 2011 #3
maddezmom Dec 2011 #5
Richard Charnin Dec 2011 #6
zappaman Dec 2011 #7
zappaman Dec 2011 #9
zappaman Dec 2011 #2
Richard Charnin Dec 2011 #4
zappaman Dec 2011 #8
Richard Charnin Dec 2011 #13
Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #30
Ghost in the Machine Dec 2011 #32
OnTheOtherHand Dec 2011 #33
Ghost in the Machine Dec 2011 #35
OnTheOtherHand Dec 2011 #36
jberryhill Dec 2011 #12
Richard Charnin Dec 2011 #14
jberryhill Dec 2011 #16
Richard Charnin Dec 2011 #26
Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #27
Richard Charnin Dec 2011 #28
Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #29
OnTheOtherHand Dec 2011 #34
Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #10
Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #11
Richard Charnin Dec 2011 #15
zappaman Dec 2011 #18
zappaman Dec 2011 #19
zappaman Dec 2011 #20
Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #23
zappaman Dec 2011 #17
Richard Charnin Dec 2011 #21
zappaman Dec 2011 #22
Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #24
zappaman Dec 2011 #25
Logical Dec 2011 #31

Response to Richard Charnin (Original post)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 12:44 AM

1. are there links anywhere for each person with the cause of death of each person? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maddezmom (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 12:46 AM

3. Try google

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Richard Charnin (Reply #3)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 12:57 AM

5. you've seem to come up with a conclusion...don't you have links or a

a post somewhere? don't think it's out of the ordinary to ask?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maddezmom (Reply #5)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 01:02 AM

6. The link is provided in the source..

 

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n2/deaths.html

I believe the list is correct. If you disagree, then prove it..
I am not going on a wild-goose chase for you.

I told you to google and do some research.
Until you do, you have nothing.

It is UP TO YOU TO PROVE THE DATA IS INCORRECT..
So go ahead. And when you come up with your facts, post the links..

A LOOK AT THE DEATHS OF THOSE INVOLVED*

Jim Marrs and Ralph Schuster

personal knowledge of the assassination of JFK have met
untimely deaths is reviewed by the authors, who provide
a overview of the evidence. It appears that many who
had personal knowledge of the assassination of JFK
have indeed met untimely deaths.]

In the three-year period which followed the murder of President Kennedy and Lee Harvey Oswald, 18 material witnesses died - six by gunfire, three in motor accidents, two by suicide, one from a cut throat, one from a karate chop to the neck, three from heart attacks and two from natural causes.

An actuary, engaged by the "London Sunday Times," concluded that on November 22, 1963, the odds against these witnesses being dead by February 1967, were one hundred thousand trillion to one. The above comment on the deaths of assassination witnesses was published in a tabloid companion piece to the movie "Executive Action," released in 1973. By that time, part of the mythology of the Kennedy assassination included the mysterious deaths of people who were connected with it. By the mid-1960s, people in Dallas already were whispering about the number of persons who died under strange or questionable circumstances.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Richard Charnin (Reply #6)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 01:08 AM

7. my link gave the causes of death n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Richard Charnin (Reply #6)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 01:14 AM

9. of course you wouldn't want anyone to see what the london sunday times actually admitted

The conspiracy literature occasionally still quotes a supposed study done by the London Sunday Times which found that "the odds against these witnesses being dead by February 1967, were one hundred thousand trillion to one." The House Select Committee on Assassinations asked the newspaper where they got that number. The paper replied with the following letter.

The Editor has passed me your letter of 25th April.

Our piece about the odds against the deaths of the Kennedy witnesses was, I regret to say, based on a careless journalistic mistake and should not have been published. This was realized by The Sunday Times' editorial staff after the first edition — the one which goes to the United States and which I believe you have — had gone out, and later editions were amended.

There was no question of our actuary having got his answer wrong. It was simply that we asked him the wrong question. He was asked what were the odds against 15 named people out of the population of the United States dying within a short period of time to which he replied — correctly — that they were very high. However, if one asks what are the odds against 15 of those included in the Warren Commission index dying within a given period, the answer is, of course, that they are much lower. Our mistake was to treat the reply to the former question as if it dealt with the latter — hence the fundamental error in our first edition report, for which we apologize.

None of the editorial staff involved in this story can remember the name of the actuary we consulted, but in view of what happened you will, I imagine, agree that his identity is hardly material.

Yours sincerely,
Antony Whitaker,
Legal Manager.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Richard Charnin (Original post)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 12:44 AM

2. what are the odds that this debunked crap has been floating around for almost 50 years?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #2)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 12:53 AM

4. Challenge: Try to refute a) the data and b) the math

 

This is what you should now do:

a) Check the math formula (Poisson probability distribution).

If you agree that the math is correct, then
b) check the data parameters (i.e. mortality, cause of deaths).

If both a) and b) are valid, then McAdams is finished.

1 in 167 trillion...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Richard Charnin (Reply #4)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 01:08 AM

8. yeah right...

The conspiracy literature occasionally still quotes a supposed study done by the London Sunday Times which found that "the odds against these witnesses being dead by February 1967, were one hundred thousand trillion to one." The House Select Committee on Assassinations asked the newspaper where they got that number. The paper replied with the following letter.

The Editor has passed me your letter of 25th April.

Our piece about the odds against the deaths of the Kennedy witnesses was, I regret to say, based on a careless journalistic mistake and should not have been published. This was realized by The Sunday Times' editorial staff after the first edition — the one which goes to the United States and which I believe you have — had gone out, and later editions were amended.

There was no question of our actuary having got his answer wrong. It was simply that we asked him the wrong question. He was asked what were the odds against 15 named people out of the population of the United States dying within a short period of time to which he replied — correctly — that they were very high. However, if one asks what are the odds against 15 of those included in the Warren Commission index dying within a given period, the answer is, of course, that they are much lower. Our mistake was to treat the reply to the former question as if it dealt with the latter — hence the fundamental error in our first edition report, for which we apologize.

None of the editorial staff involved in this story can remember the name of the actuary we consulted, but in view of what happened you will, I imagine, agree that his identity is hardly material.

Yours sincerely,
Antony Whitaker,
Legal Manager.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #8)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 01:27 AM

13. Still wating for a response the the challenge.

 

The problem is specific:

What is the probability that at least 15 witnesses out of the 1400 interviewed by the Warren Commission would die unnatural deaths within one year?

The London Times did NOT ask about UNNATURAL deaths.
That was a major flaw in the problem definition.

I asked you to specifically refute the Poisson formula.
You have not done so.

I asked you to specifically refute the cause of witness deaths.
You have not done so.

I asked you to specifically refute the statistics of unnatural witness deaths.
You have not done so.

I'm prepared to wait until hell freezes over for a response.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Richard Charnin (Reply #13)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 11:03 PM

30. We've been refuting the causes of "witness" deaths down below.

No need to wait.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #8)

Thu Dec 22, 2011, 08:41 PM

32. This doesn't raise any questions, or red flags, from you?

"None of the editorial staff involved in this story can remember the name of the actuary we consulted, but in view of what happened you will, I imagine, agree that his identity is hardly material."

Not one person can remember who they consulted? Not one single person?? They have no record of who they spoke to? Did the guy get paid?

Personally, I think his identity is extremely material. Shouldn't he be able to defend himself on this matter?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ghost in the Machine (Reply #32)

Thu Dec 22, 2011, 10:08 PM

33. "defend himself" about what?

There was no question of our actuary having got his answer wrong. It was simply that we asked him the wrong question.


Even if we assume that the legal manager was for some reason lying about the question, I don't see what there is for the actuary to defend.

I think the legal manager may have been fudging about the identity of the actuary, perhaps to protect him from "assassination researchers." But I don't see how his identity is material, either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnTheOtherHand (Reply #33)

Thu Dec 22, 2011, 11:54 PM

35. How about "confirm or refute this story"?

Does that work better for you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ghost in the Machine (Reply #35)

Fri Dec 23, 2011, 09:07 AM

36. yes, it does -- but it still doesn't seem very relevant

It's logically possible that the London Sunday Times could attempt to suppress the truth about the Kennedy assassination by misrepresenting a conversation with an actuary -- but it makes no sense. It's vaguely reminiscent of people who claim there is an establishment conspiracy of their method to trisect angles (or their rebuttal of global warming, or...). It is hard to imagine how such a conspiracy could operate, because too many people are capable of evaluating the evidence.

I wouldn't object to hearing from the actuary, if we could find him, but it's off point. I think the only reason to bring up the London Sunday Times here was to point out that this discussion has been going on for years

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Richard Charnin (Reply #4)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 01:26 AM

12. Actually, the odds against them having been born are greater


If each of those 15 people were the result of one out of a million sperm cells reaching an ovum, then we are talking about odds of 1 in 10^21.

That is 1 in a billion trillion against those individuals having been born.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #12)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 01:28 AM

14. Very funny..but does not address the specific problem...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Richard Charnin (Reply #14)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 01:35 AM

16. Yes it does


The joint probability of any ensemble of 15 persons doing any of innumerable things is, in general, infinitesimal.

I rode a train last week. The odds against that grouping of people who sat in the car with me actually BEING in that car are astronomical.

But as has already been pointed out, the computation does not even correspond to the correct proposition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #16)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 10:35 PM

26. Have you actually read the math proof?

 

Apparently, you either have not read it or fail to comprehend it.

I will repeat the basic problem for you.
Its really very simple.

Given:
a group of X individuals

Determine:
the probability that at least n of the X in the group would die UNNATURAL deaths in the same year.

Problem:
Determine the probability that any individual would an UNNATURAL death (i.e. gunshot, karate chop, airplane crash, automobile crash, etc.) in any given year.

Probability of an UNNATURAL death in 1 year
suicide….. 0.000107
homicide…. 0.000062
accidental.. 0.000359
undetermined 0.000014

Total probability= 0.000542

Solution:
You have a group of X =1400 persons
p = .000542 = PROBABILITY of of an UNNATURAL death in any given year.

Therefore, the expected number (a) of UNNATURAL deaths in a group of 1400 is equal to the probability of an unnatural death times the number of witnesses:

a = 0.7588 = p*N = 000542*1400
In other words, we can expect that 0.7588 (one) person out of 1400 would die UNNATURALLY IN ANY GIVEN YEAR.

The probability that m=15 of 1400 in a group would die UNNATURALLY in a given year is calculated using the Poisson probability function:
P (m) = a^m * exp (-a) / m!

Plugging into the formula:
P(15) = 0.7588^15* exp (-.7588)/15!

Now, you do the math.

Note: The London Times failed to analyze the probability of UNNATURAL DEATHS.
They did not correctly specify the problem.

It is not the number of deaths that needs to be modeled.
It's the number of UNNATURAL deaths that must be considered.

Ok, now do the math... or forever stick with the no-conspiracy theory that Oswald, the lone nut gunman, did it. But if Lee Harvey did it, then you would not have all those UNNATURAL DEATHS, now would you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Richard Charnin (Reply #26)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 10:42 PM

27. Why is it unnatural for people to die in automobile accidents?

Here's the bigger question: if these "unnatural deaths" have innocuous explanations beyond reasonable doubt, why do they get to count in your math?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #27)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 10:45 PM

28. I won't even bother to respond to that.

 

OK, very quick.

Last I heard, an auto accident is not a natural way to go.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Richard Charnin (Reply #28)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 11:01 PM

29. How about the bigger question? Unnatural but innocuous, why do they count? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #29)

Thu Dec 22, 2011, 10:50 PM

34. well...

I mostly agree with you. However, in principle, a sufficiently unusual cluster of deaths could be suspicious even if the deaths are facially innocuous -- and it might be hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a particular death was innocuous.

That said, the statistical analysis here facially isn't very persuasive, especially because it is post hoc and the expected mortality rates aren't well motivated with respect to the relevant population. (I'm not quite sure what the relevant population is: people mentioned in the Warren Commission report? Probably not representative of the U.S. population at large.) And I agree that given the identities and death narratives of the people on this list, it's really hard to believe that they were killed to silence them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Richard Charnin (Original post)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 01:20 AM

10. Eddy Benavides was shot in February 1965, not 1964.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Richard Charnin (Original post)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 01:23 AM

11. Heart attacks are not "dying unnaturally." And why do you get the Unknown?

Actually, C.D. Jackson died of a heart attack.

So now you're down to 11.

11 1,663,713,384

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #11)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 01:34 AM

15. Ok, two heart attacks and one unknown. That leaves 12. Here are the odds.

 

The odds of 12 dying unnaturally is 1 in 26,445,366,889

Check the formula.

n 1 in
0 1
1 2
2 6
3 24
4 132
5 892
6 7,195
7 67,346
8 718,040
9 8,593,044
10 114,073,493
11 1,663,713,384

12 26,445,366,889 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

13 455,051,758,699
14 8,427,523,639,942

15 167,145,910,421,722 <*****************************************

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Richard Charnin (Reply #15)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 01:41 AM

18. How was Teresa Norton a "witness"?

And is she actually dead?
Down to 9...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Richard Charnin (Reply #15)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 01:43 AM

19. How is DeLesseps Morrison, who was a mayor of New Orleans a "witness"?

Down to 8...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Richard Charnin (Reply #15)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 01:47 AM

20. Odds of a meteor landing on your house: 182,138,880,000,000 to 1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Richard Charnin (Reply #15)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 02:01 AM

23. Nope, 11. Eddy (as I noted above) is in February 1965, not 1964.

He's not within a year. And besides, the guy who shot him confessed and went to jail.

11.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #11)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 01:39 AM

17. How was Hugh Ward a "witness"?

Down to 10...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #17)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 01:48 AM

21. Nitpicking. They were related deaths...

 


Hugh Ward was a private investigator working with Guy Banister and David Ferrie who died in a plane crash in Mexico.

I'm sure you have heard of Bannister and Ferrie, right?

Teresa Norton was an employee of Jack Ruby who was fatally shot.
I'm sure you have heard of Jack Ruby, right?

Apparently, Ward and Norton do not qualify to you.
So be it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Richard Charnin (Reply #21)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 01:55 AM

22. Enlighten me how a mayor of New Orleans is connected to the JFK case

specifically, as you say, "a witness".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Richard Charnin (Reply #21)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 02:01 AM

24. Were all employees of Jack Ruby fatally shot? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Richard Charnin (Reply #21)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 02:04 AM

25. you say gary underhill was a CIA agent

he wasn't.
Surely, you know by now that is not true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Richard Charnin (Original post)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 06:16 PM

31. Jesus, not this stuff again......read Case Closed by Gerald Posner

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread