JFK Assassination Computer Analysis Video!

[Tom Sorensen]

Rephrasing:

It only takes a handful of those connected to the assassination who held material knowledge of the events died within a few years of the assassination to have been killed for the probability of a cover-up, implying a conspiracy, become extremely high.
 
If, out of a group of 50 people, 5 of them win the lottery in the same year, you can conclude that it is almost certain, beyond reasonable doubt, there is foul play. The fact that the other 45 do not win, does not alter this.

Considering the witnesses who did not die, one can assume that it was not necessary for them to be to killed. If all witnesses were, suspicions would be overwhelming and the scheme would collapse.

Mathematical consideration of probabilities prevents us jumping to conclusions – Just because something "feels" true doesn't mean it is. Probability helps us weigh different explanations and decide which is most likely, objectively. When we use logic, we rely on facts and structured arguments. This helps avoid emotional thinking and keeps discussions focused on evidence. This is how, for example and NTSB investigation would be run, where finding probable cause is crucial to future safety.

It only takes a handful of those connected to the assassination who held material knowledge of the events died within a few years of the assassination to have been killed for the probability of a cover-up, implying a conspiracy, become extremely high.

This doesn't make sense to me as we're way above a handful. Unless the conspirators didn't have a clue about statistics they would soon back off but that didn't happen. They happily moved past "extremely high" toward "overwhelming" probability of a conspiracy.

[Patrick Davies]

It only takes a handful of those connected to the assassination who held material knowledge of the events died within a few years of the assassination to have been killed for the probability of a cover-up, implying a conspiracy, become extremely high.

This doesn't make sense to me as we're way above a handful. Unless the conspirators didn't have a clue about statistics they would soon back off but that didn't happen. They happily moved past "extremely high" toward "overwhelming" probability of a conspiracy.

"Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action.” Ian Fleming, Goldfinger

[Tom Graves]

"Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action.” Ian Fleming, Goldfinger

One would think that if your theory is correct the witnesses would have been killed within one week of the assassination.

[Patrick Davies]

That's what one might think but arguments against that would be:

1. If a very large number of witnesses were killed very early on, it would blow the whole operation as it would be so clear that a dramatic cover-up would be underway.
2. Other, less visible methods of silencing would be use where possible, such as blackmail, threats to family or bribery.
3. Awareness of others being disposed of would be a powerful tool to pressurise.

Therefore, the expectation would be that only a fraction would be killed and spread over a length of time, when needs must.

[Tom Sorensen]

"Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action.” Ian Fleming, Goldfinger

Or, we're dealing with a group of witnesses to a high-profile murder case who were harassed by FBI agents, Dallas PD detectives, etc., and within this group the death rate is acceptable. I'll say you can't use the average across the country death rate as a reference. Smokers had abnormal death rates for a reason, not because of a conspiracy, initially at least.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Conspiracy believers simply start with their conspiracy belief ("Oswald couldn't have done this!!") and then select that information that supports their theory. This is, they reverse engineer a theory. Theory first and then fit the facts to support that theory. The assassination, then, is really a mirror, a Rohrschach test that reveals who the conspiracy believer disfavors.

It's why there are so many different theories as to who was behind the act: viz., the CIA, the Pentagon, the mob, anti-Castro Cubans, Birchers, the Mossad, LBJ, rich Texas oilmen, Castro, the Soviets, the South Vietnamese (for the killing of Diem). It's a long list. Heck, they can't even agree on a basic question as to who Oswald was.

Why are there so many widely different theories after 60 plus years? Conspiracists never seem to want to ask that question.

[Tom Sorensen]

@Steve M. Galbraith

Funny, that's what the Warren Commission did, working their way backward from "We need to convince the public that Oswald fired the shots and acted alone," trying to make the evidence fit. Didn't really work, even though the FBI fed them tainted evidence to help them out. You should read their report.