Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.  (Read 19870 times)

Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****

  • This Member Has Made
    A Forum Donation!
  • Posts: 5593
Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #130 on: August 28, 2018, 03:43:11 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Hilarious talk about desperate, not only are you trying to separate each piece of evidence against Oswald now you're separating each piece of individual evidence into something which has no alternate narrative and no real world equivalence.

What's desperate is you trying to pile an envelope onto your supposed "mountain" that cannot be connected to any particular Klein's order or any particular weapon.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #130 on: August 28, 2018, 03:43:11 PM »

Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****

  • This Member Has Made
    A Forum Donation!
  • Posts: 5593
Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #131 on: August 28, 2018, 03:51:08 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Ok. So let's say there is a finite probability that the microfilm showing the envelope and coupon together is not evidence that the coupon was in the envelope. Let's say that probability is x. Then you have the order sheet prepared by Klein's showing that C2766 was used to fill an order to be sent to Box 2915 Dallas.  Let's say that the probability that C2766 was NOT used to fill such an order is x.  etc.etc. Are you saying at the end of the day you have a probability of x that Oswald never purchased C2766?

Anyone can make up a value of x -- that isn't particularly useful.  What I'm saying is that none of these things show that Lee Oswald ever had possession of C2766.  At best, the unscientific and biased handwriting "analysis" of 2 block letters on a photo of a microfilm copy of a 2-inch order coupon, if accurate, just shows that Oswald filled out an order coupon for a 36-inch Italian carbine.

Offline Andrew Mason

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 494
    • SPMLaw
Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #132 on: August 29, 2018, 01:34:52 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
What's desperate is you trying to pile an envelope onto your supposed "mountain" that cannot be connected to any particular Klein's order or any particular weapon.
The point is that if the probability that each of two independent events occurred is x, the probability that both events occurred is x2.  And since x is always less than 1, the probability of all events actually occurring keeps going down exponentially as the number of events increases. You do not seem to appreciate this.

So you have a doubt that Oswald filled out the Klein's coupon and the envelope with his Dallas post box, even though it appears very similar to his handwriting and to the handwriting on the coupon he filled out to purchase the handgun that Marina herself as Oswald's.  Then you say you have a doubt that Klein's filled that order at all, despite the shipping order that was prepared showing that C2766 was used to fill the order. Then you say that you doubt that Oswald or anyone took out a money order to pay for this order.  Let's say that the probability of each doubts being fulfilled is x = .1 (I am being generous: that would mean that, contrary to their documents, 1 in 10 of Klein's orders were not ordered;  a 1 in 10 chance that items were not shipped; and a 1 in 10 chance that they would indicate that an order had been paid when payment had not been received). 

In order for Oswald not to have received the gun, all three doubts must be fulfilled. The probability of fulfilling all three doubts (i.e. for someone other than Oswald to have filled out the coupon rifle AND for Klein's not to have processed the order despite producing paperwork to that effect AND to have done so without being paid and falsely entering that payment had been made) is x3 or 1/1000.

Then you have a rifle photographed in Oswald's hands within a week of when the rifle would most likely have arrived in Oswald's post box. Then that rifle shows up in the very building that Oswald worked in and has prints that are not inconsistent with Oswald's prints and Oswald is seen carrying a long package to work that morning etc. The probability becomes exponentially lower.  Even if you put a probability of each piece being false at .5 the probability that ALL of this evidence being false becomes extremely small as the evidence mounts.  That is the problem with your position.

« Last Edit: August 29, 2018, 04:15:01 PM by Andrew Mason »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #132 on: August 29, 2018, 01:34:52 PM »

Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****

  • This Member Has Made
    A Forum Donation!
  • Posts: 5593
Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #133 on: August 29, 2018, 08:18:09 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The point is that if the probability that each of two independent events occurred is x, the probability that both events occurred is x2.  And since x is always less than 1, the probability of all events actually occurring keeps going down exponentially as the number of events increases. You do not seem to appreciate this.

The reason I don't appreciate it is because you're just making up probabilities.  And none of these things are independent events.

Quote
So you have a doubt that Oswald filled out the Klein's coupon and the envelope with his Dallas post box, even though it appears very similar to his handwriting

Correct.  Handwriting "analysis" is biased and unscientific and thus unreliable.  Especially in this case where even the supposed standards of the practice aren't met (tiny sample that's a copy).

Quote
and to the handwriting on the coupon he filled out to purchase the handgun that Marina herself as Oswald's.

On what basis could Marina have possibly differentiated one handgun from another?  Marina by her own account knew nothing about guns.  "You men. That is your business."

Quote
  Then you say you have a doubt that Klein's filled that order at all, despite the shipping order that was prepared showing that C2766 was used to fill the order.

There is no shipping order.  And there is nothing to tie that "order blank" that you erroneously call a shipping order with that particular order coupon.  For example, the coupon could have been made after the fact to match the "order blank".  The handwritten serial number could have been added to the "order blank" after the fact as well.  Did any of the other Klein's orders have "order blanks" with handwritten serial numbers on them?  Did any of the other Klein's orders have copies of the order coupons and envelopes, but not money orders?  No way to tell because the original microfilm disappeared.  Darn the luck.  I guess we just have to have faith.

Quote
Then you say that you doubt that Oswald or anyone took out a money order to pay for this order.

Even though his timesheet says he was at work all day?  So since we're invoking probabilities here, what are the odds that he snuck away from work walked over a mile away to the post office and back to buy and mail a money order and nobody noticed?

Quote
  Let's say that the probability of each doubts being fulfilled is x = .1 (I am being generous: that would mean that, contrary to their documents, 1 in 10 of Klein's orders were not ordered;  a 1 in 10 chance that items were not shipped; and a 1 in 10 chance that they would indicate that an order had been paid when payment had not been received).

As long as we're just making up numbers here, let's say x = .95.

But the thing is that these are not independent events.  All it takes is for the handwriting to be misidentified and the rest of the stuff doesn't matter.  What are the odds that a biased and unscientific process with no standards or controls on a tiny sample size on a copy would give you unreliable results?  Pretty darn high.

Quote
In order for Oswald not to have received the gun, all three doubts must be fulfilled.

Even if a gun did get shipped by Klein's to PO box 2915 (and there no evidence of such), and was not intercepted by the FBI who was monitoring his mail (what are the odds of that?), you still have the hurdle of showing that Oswald picked it up.

Quote
Then you have a rifle photographed in Oswald's hands within a week of when the rifle would most likely have arrived in Oswald's post box.

You have no idea when this "would most likely have arrived", because you don't actually have anything that shows when it would have been shipped.  That's like saying that the Seaport Traders revolver would most likely have arrived in January.  But instead it supposedly arrived on the same day as the rifle (what are the odds of that?).

Quote
Then that rifle shows up in the very building that Oswald worked in and has prints that are not inconsistent with Oswald's prints

"not inconsistent with Oswald's prints"?  LOL.  Is that what we're calling them now?

Quote
and Oswald is seen carrying a long package to work that morning etc.

You keep forgetting the part about "too short to hold the C2766 rifle".

Quote
The probability becomes exponentially lower.  Even if you put a probability of each piece being false at .5 the probability that ALL of this evidence being false becomes extremely small as the evidence mounts.  That is the problem with your position.

The problem with your rebuttal is it is not necessary for ALL of what you mentioned to be false in order to come to a false conclusion.  In fact none of it has to be false -- just incorrectly interpreted.

Even if you were able to prove that C2766 actually went through the mail and was picked up by Oswald, you still have to get it  in Oswald's hands at 12:30 shooting at the president.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2018, 08:22:20 PM by John Iacoletti »

Offline Andrew Mason

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 494
    • SPMLaw
Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #134 on: August 29, 2018, 09:32:07 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The reason I don't appreciate it is because you're just making up probabilities.  And none of these things are independent events.
I am not making up probabilities so much as I am putting an upward limit on the probability.  But in the end, it doesn't really matter what the probabilities are if there are enough independent events. 

I would agree that the converse of these events are NOT independent, but errors (i.e the source of your doubts) are IF there was no broad conspiracy to frame Oswald. 

For example, an order coupon comes in with Oswald's box number and there is also an envelope on which Oswald's box number is written and Klein's also records that it received a money order to pay for the item in the coupon.  These events would seem on the fact to be connected i.e Oswald sent in the order in the envelope with payment.  They are not independent if they are connected.

But you say they are not connected.  You say there are big doubts: the envelope may not have contained the coupon; Ok. That means that the envelope arrived for some reason completely unrelated to the coupon arrival.  And they arrived at about the same time and were processed in a way that caused Klein's to put them together.  eg. Klein's has to lose the envelope that accompanied the coupon and it has to misplace the coupon or whatever was in the envelope AND then some employee has to put the coupon and envelope together.  These events would seem to be independent.  So there you have 2 independent events that must occur in order for the coupon and envelope to be unrelated yet photographed together.  Unless you can conceive of a reason those two unrelated events would occur (a coupon with Oswald's box no appearing at Klein's and an envelope with Oswald's box no. appearing at Klein's but not together and both being unconnected to Oswald and then someone at Klein's putting them together rather than with the envelope/coupon that accompanied them) then they would seem to be random and independent.

Quote
Correct.  Handwriting "analysis" is biased and unscientific and thus unreliable.  Especially in this case where even the supposed standards of the practice aren't met (tiny sample that's a copy).
So if you are correct, someone else placed an order and put Oswald's box no. on it.  How do you explain that if there was no conspiracy operating in March 1963?

Quote
On what basis could Marina have possibly differentiated one handgun from another?  Marina by her own account knew nothing about guns.  "You men. That is your business."

There is no shipping order.  And there is nothing to tie that "order blank" that you erroneously call a shipping order with that particular order coupon.  For example, the coupon could have been made after the fact to match the "order blank".  The handwritten serial number could have been added to the "order blank" after the fact as well.  Did any of the other Klein's orders have "order blanks" with handwritten serial numbers on them?  Did any of the other Klein's orders have copies of the order coupons and envelopes, but not money orders?  No way to tell because the original microfilm disappeared.  Darn the luck.  I guess we just have to have faith.
Ok. And each of those independent events is improbable i.e. the probability that someone unrelated to Oswald sent in a blank envelope but with Oswald's box number and that it contained payment in the exact amount of a MC and scope. 

Quote
Even though his timesheet says he was at work all day?  So since we're invoking probabilities here, what are the odds that he snuck away from work walked over a mile away to the post office and back to buy and mail a money order and nobody noticed?
Most U.S. Post offices were open on Saturday. Did Oswald work on Saturday, March 23?

Quote
As long as we're just making up numbers here, let's say x = .95.
If the probability that Klein's mixed up orders they way you suggest was 95% they would have been out of business long before 1963.

Quote
But the thing is that these are not independent events.  All it takes is for the handwriting to be misidentified and the rest of the stuff doesn't matter.  What are the odds that a biased and unscientific process with no standards or controls on a tiny sample size on a copy would give you unreliable results?  Pretty darn high.
But it is not just the handwriting that ties it to Oswald.  The address was Oswald's.  These two events: the handwriting looking very much like Oswald's but not being Oswald's and a person with that handwriting accidentally putting a wrong address on their order and have it turn out to be Oswald's address - are independent.  And then there is the money order being tied to Oswald. And a similar gun in the hands of Oswald a few days after C2766 would have arrived in Dallas is also independent of whose handwriting it was on the coupon and envelope. These are independent events that have to occur in order for your doubts to materialize as fact.

Quote
Even if a gun did get shipped by Klein's to PO box 2915 (and there no evidence of such), and was not intercepted by the FBI who was monitoring his mail (what are the odds of that?), you still have the hurdle of showing that Oswald picked it up.
What hurdle is that?  He was shown a few days later holding a very similar - indistinguishable - gun.

Quote

Even if you were able to prove that C2766 actually went through the mail and was picked up by Oswald, you still have to get it  in Oswald's hands at 12:30 shooting at the president.
That is a much easier task since C2766 would then be Oswald's rifle.  His conduct after the assassination provides additional evidence that Oswald was involved.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #134 on: August 29, 2018, 09:32:07 PM »

Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****

  • This Member Has Made
    A Forum Donation!
  • Posts: 5593
Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #135 on: August 30, 2018, 12:05:15 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
But you say they are not connected.  You say there are big doubts: the envelope may not have contained the coupon; Ok. That means that the envelope arrived for some reason completely unrelated to the coupon arrival.  And they arrived at about the same time and were processed in a way that caused Klein's to put them together.  eg. Klein's has to lose the envelope that accompanied the coupon and it has to misplace the coupon or whatever was in the envelope AND then some employee has to put the coupon and envelope together.

I'm just saying that we don't know what we don't know.  All we have is a print allegedly from a single microfilm frame and the testimony of a vice-president who didn't process the orders.  Could there have been more than one order that day for the same item?  If you believe the deposit slip dated February 15 was actually supposed to be March 15 (why does every piece of evidence have some discrepancy associated with it?  What are the odds?), and the accompanying material then there was another $21.45 payment deposited that day.  What was that order?  We don't know because the microfilm is "missing".

Quote
Ok. And each of those independent events is improbable i.e. the probability that someone unrelated to Oswald sent in a blank envelope but with Oswald's box number and that it contained payment in the exact amount of a MC and scope. 

But now you have another discrepancy as the supposed order coupon says that $19.95 is enclosed.  Also, if this was ordered with a scope, why did Dial Ryder have to mount a scope on a rifle for "Oswald"?

Quote
Most U.S. Post offices were open on Saturday. Did Oswald work on Saturday, March 23?

Well, if you believe the stamp on the money order that was found in Virginia, it was purchased on Tuesday, March 12, 1963.

Quote
But it is not just the handwriting that ties it to Oswald.  The address was Oswald's.  These two events: the handwriting looking very much like Oswald's but not being Oswald's and a person with that handwriting accidentally putting a wrong address on their order and have it turn out to be Oswald's address - are independent.

Are you suggesting that only Oswald could possibly have received mail at PO box 2915?  Well, it would be nice to at least see who was authorized to receive mail there.  But, guess what?  MISSING!  If you believe the FBI, then they must have had the authorization card because they said that nobody else was authorized.  But Holmes jumped through a lot of verbal hoops to try to say that pretty much anybody could have gone to the window and picked up a package, authorized or not.  So why did it have to be Oswald?  And the question still remains, did a package ever actually arrive there?  The FBI was monitoring his mail.  Nobody remembers giving what would have been an unusually large package to a PO box holder.

Quote
  And then there is the money order being tied to Oswald.

Tied how?  Handwriting "analysis" again?

Quote
And a similar gun in the hands of Oswald a few days after C2766 would have arrived in Dallas is also independent of whose handwriting it was on the coupon and envelope.

Is "similar" good enough?  Some people think so.

Quote
His conduct after the assassination provides additional evidence that Oswald was involved.

Yeah, I know.  He wasn't chatty with the cab driver.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2018, 12:13:24 AM by John Iacoletti »

Offline Andrew Mason

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 494
    • SPMLaw
Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #136 on: August 30, 2018, 01:54:21 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm just saying that we don't know what we don't know.  All we have is a print allegedly from a single microfilm frame and the testimony of a vice-president who didn't process the orders.  Could there have been more than one order that day for the same item?
All you need is an officer from Klein's to say that the records were produced in the ordinary course of business and they are admissible as business records. The law recognizes that human beings are not expected to remember dealing with all the records they handle every day.

Quote
If you believe the deposit slip dated February 15 was actually supposed to be March 15 (why does every piece of evidence have some discrepancy associated with it?  What are the odds?), and the accompanying material then there was another $21.45 payment deposited that day.  What was that order?  We don't know because the microfilm is "missing".
I don't understand your point. We have You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login with Oswald's handwriting on it in the amount of $21.45 and date stamped March 12, 1963 by the Dallas post office. It is payable to Klein's Sporting Goods and is stamped on the back by Klein's for deposit to their bank. This money order did not exist on February 15, 1963.

Quote
But now you have another discrepancy as the supposed order coupon says that $19.95 is enclosed.  Also, if this was ordered with a scope, why did Dial Ryder have to mount a scope on a rifle for "Oswald"?
$19.95 was enclosed - with an additional $1.50 for shipping. 

Do you mean the Dial Ryder who worked on a rifle from a person named Oswald but couldn't remember what he did and couldn't be sure of how much he charged but he could have charged for a bore sighting? 

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #136 on: August 30, 2018, 01:54:21 PM »

Offline Jerry Organ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 614
    • Zapruder Frames
Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #137 on: August 30, 2018, 04:04:59 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Do you mean the Dial Ryder who worked on a rifle from a person named Oswald but couldn't remember what he did and couldn't be sure of how much he charged but he could have charged for a bore sighting?


Hilarious. Trolletti is willing to accept the Ryder claim without the need for verification through time-travel or movie-film footage.

Andrew, do you think defense attorneys and wrapped-up-in-a-neat-package ("CSI effect") TV shows have some bearing on the expectation (by increasing numbers of people, it would seem) that there's some "absolute" standard-of-proof that must be met?

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #137 on: August 30, 2018, 04:04:59 PM »

Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****

  • This Member Has Made
    A Forum Donation!
  • Posts: 5593
Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #138 on: August 30, 2018, 06:08:49 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
All you need is an officer from Klein's to say that the records were produced in the ordinary course of business and they are admissible as business records.

I don't care what's "admissible".  I care about what can be demonstrated to be actually true.

Quote
I don't understand your point.  We have You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login with Oswald's handwriting on it

We've already talked about the problems with declaring this to be "Oswald's handwriting".

Quote
in the amount of $21.45 and date stamped March 12, 1963 by the Dallas post office. It is payable to Klein's Sporting Goods and is stamped on the back by Klein's for deposit to their bank. This money order did not exist on February 15, 1963.

So when did Klein's deposit this particular money order (if they ever did)?

But my point if you'll recall is how did Oswald buy this money order when he was at work all day long (on a Tuesday, not a Saturday as you surmised)?

Quote
$19.95 was enclosed - with an additional $1.50 for shipping. 

Then why doesn't the alleged order coupon say $21.45 enclosed?  And how do you even know what was enclosed?

Quote
Do you mean the Dial Ryder who worked on a rifle from a person named Oswald but couldn't remember what he did and couldn't be sure of how much he charged but he could have charged for a bore sighting?

Yes, that Dial Ryder.  Was he yet another one of the LN cavalcade of lying / mistaken witnesses?  Or was there another Oswald in Dallas who happened to have an Italian rifle?  Seems like that would have been something to follow up on...

Offline Jerry Organ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 614
    • Zapruder Frames
Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #139 on: August 30, 2018, 06:53:48 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Is namecalling really necessary?  Who are you, Richard Smith?


Perfect nickname. You're being recognized for all the effort you put in here.

Quote

Hilarious.  Jerry is more than willing to accept the claims of people who support his narrative without any verification.


What--other than time travel--would verify it enough in your eyes?

Quote

Ryder never said his customer was "our" Oswald, but I find it interesting that LNers aren't even curious to investigate anything that could be relevant to the case to look for an explanation.  They already have their "answer".


Andrew took an isolated cherry-pick that you casually threw his way and provided more detail and context. Like most LNers who bother to respond to your unrelenting nasty, provocative trolls.

Quote

Also hilarious:  Jerry thinks that weak, circumstantial and tainted evidence should just be accepted as true because there's no time travel.


So the lack of time-travel boosters your case.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #139 on: August 30, 2018, 06:53:48 PM »

 

Mobile View