JFK Assassination Computer Analysis Video!

[Dan O'meara]

More than 60 years of investigations - by multiple generations of Americans inside the government and out - and after all of that no credible/serious evidence of a conspiracy was found (no, the HSCA's conclusions of "probably" one doesn't meet my standard). How much more is needed? How many more investigations? Do we just dismiss all of those investigations. The ones done by the government and the media? The same media that exposed the CIA's crimes? They missed it? As Seymour Hersh said, the idea that the CIA was behind the assassination is absurd.

I guess Hersh and all of the subsequent investigations were part of coverups too? After all, as you said it's obvious there was a conspiracy. If it's obvious than the Warren Commission and FBI and HSCA and Church Committee and the NY Times and CBS and PBS and Seymour Hersh and Tim Weiner and on and on have been covering it up. That was Seymour Hersh, someone who knows something about how the CIA works.

Here we are and the conspiracy believers can't agree on anything other than there was a conspiracy. By the CIA. No it was the Mob. No it was LBJ. No it was anti-Castro Cubans. No it was the Birchers. No it was the Pentagon. No it was rich Texas oilmen. After all this time you folks can't agree on anything.

So who has been covering it all up all of these decades? Any original assassins are long dead. So you think a current generation of Americans, many of whom weren't even alive at the time, are covering it up? Even today? That makes no sense at all. Even more unlikely, as we know Democrats and Republicans hate each other like two sects in a religious war. The idea that they could get together to cover this up is...well, sorry, it's not believable.

Do we just dismiss all of those investigations.

That's exactly what you did when you dismissed the HSCA investigation because it didn't meet your standard!!
How many more lies, fabrications, manipulations and omissions have to be pointed out in the Warren Commission's 'conclusions' before they are discarded?
The biggest mystery in all this is how the Warren Commission can still be taken seriously. How has that happened? It is utterly baffling.

[Patrick Davies]

That is a good point. It is very easy to cherry pick.
Analyses suggest that around 100 to 200 individuals could be considered key witnesses—those who had direct knowledge of events surrounding the assassination, the accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald, Jack Ruby, or other related matters.
While exact percentages depend on how "key witness" is defined, some researchers estimate that between 10% and 25% of potential witnesses died under suspicious circumstances—a rate far above statistical norms. This is often cited as one of the strongest arguments for a cover-up.
In common sense terms, imagine if you had 100 friends and between 10 and 25 of them independently died in unusual ways over the course of a few short years, you might start to appreciate the probability. To put this in context, across the 25–64 age group, the average annual death rate in the US is about 0.3% 3 in 1,000 people per year.

[Patrick Davies]

Here's statistical graph of the estimated excess mortality rate of what might be considered key witness compared to the normal distribution.

[Tom Graves]

Do we just dismiss all of those investigations.

That's exactly what you did when you dismissed the HSCA investigation because it didn't meet your standard!!
How many more lies, fabrications, manipulations and omissions have to be pointed out in the Warren Commission's 'conclusions' before they are discarded?
The biggest mystery in all this is how the Warren Commission can still be taken seriously. How has that happened? It is utterly baffling.

It's obvious to me that you've been utterly brainwashed by 60-plus years of KGB* disinfo ops.

Can you say Joachim Josten, Thomas G. Buchanan, Mark Lane, the Communist-owned Italian newspaper Paese Sera, Jim Garrison, Oliver Stone, and Jimmy "I Never Met a Communist I Didn't Cherish" DiEugenio, et al. ad nauseam?

*Today's SVR and FSB

[Patrick Davies]

I am a mathematician so I can look into the statistical significance further...

If we assume 30 suspicious deaths in a pool of 100-150 witnesses, when only a few should have occurred naturally, the excess death rate is well beyond the expected standard deviation.
If we estimate a 5-standard-deviation event (or more), the probability of this occurring randomly is less than 1 in a million (p < 0.000001).
If we go further out on the tail (e.g., 6 or 7 standard deviations), the probability is so small it effectively approaches zero.

The probability that the observed cluster of witness deaths happened purely by chance approaches zero.

This strongly suggests a non-random cause, meaning that at least some of these deaths were likely the result of foul play, intimidation, or cover-up efforts rather than natural causes alone.

[Tom Graves]

I am a mathematician so I can look into the statistical significance further...

If we assume 30 suspicious deaths in a pool of 100-150 witnesses, when only a few should have occurred naturally, the excess death rate is well beyond the expected standard deviation.
If we estimate a 5-standard-deviation event (or more), the probability of this occurring randomly is less than 1 in a million (p < 0.000001).
If we go further out on the tail (e.g., 6 or 7 standard deviations), the probability is so small it effectively approaches zero.

The probability that the observed cluster of witness deaths happened purely by chance approaches zero.

This strongly suggests a non-random cause, meaning that at least some of these deaths were likely the result of foul play, intimidation, or cover-up efforts rather than natural causes alone.

Witnesses to what?

The actual shooting?

Oswald's getting a haircut a month or two earlier?

[Patrick Davies]

No. A wider pool of people who may have held key information.