Home | Forums | Links | About Us / Rules | Admin Team | Donate



An oasis of independent thought

.... A New Day Is Dawning ...

 

 

JOIN THE BLUE REVOLUTION - Blue Donor stars for this year's fundrive!!  

 


Click here to view: The Impact of Violence in Gaza || Click here to donate to Gaza

Please donate
 Sat Jul 31st 2010, 07:06 AM (-8 GMT)
Top Top Forums General Discussion
Welcome to our newest member 4Kaster1847 registered members | First-time visitor? Please register
Probability 15 JFK witnesses die UNNATURALLY within one year [View all]
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Original Post: Probability 15 JFK witnesses die UNNATURALLY within one year
TruthIsAll Moderator Click to send a private message to this memberClick to view this member's profileClick to view posts by this memberClick to add this member to your buddy list
Member since Sep 14th 2005
1399 posts
Sun Nov-22-09 08:53 PM
Original Post
 
 
Edited by TruthIsAll on Tue Nov-24-09 05:52 PM

Mysterious JFK witness deaths: A probability analysis

This analysis calculates the probability of at least 15 witnesses dying UNNATURAL deaths within one year of the JFK assassination. The deaths were a combination of homicides, suicides, accidents and undetermined origin.

The data is from "A LOOK AT THE DEATHS OF THOSE INVOLVED"
written by Jim Marrs and Ralph Schuster
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n2/deaths.h...

The following comment on the deaths of assassination witnesses appeared at the end of the movie "Executive Action," released in 1973, starring Burt Lancaster and Robert Ryan:

"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 18 witnesses being dead by February 1967, were one hundred thousand trillion to one".


But in a reply to the 1977 House Select Committee on Assassinations, the Times editor tried to refute the probability calculation:
"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".

THERE WERE 42 DEATHS (33 UNNATURAL)IN THE THREE YEARS AFTER THE ASSASSINATION.

Marrs and Schuster conclude: "The House Committee made little or no attempt to seriously study the number of deaths which followed the JFK assassination."

The original probability calculation as stated was correct.

In any case, the Times Editor did not consider DEATH BY UNNATURAL CAUSES. He never calculated the probability of 15 UNNATURAL witness deaths out of approximately ONE THOUSAND witnesses within just ONE year of the assassination.

The probability is 1 in 21,230 TRILLION!
It is the same order of magnitude as the original calculation

Assuming there were 1,000 witnesses, the probability that at least 15 would die UNNATURAL deaths in the year following the assassination is 1 in 21,230 trillion.

Assuming there were 10,000 witnesses, the probability that at least 15 would die UNNATURAL deaths in the year following the assassination is 1 in 1,000

It's not likely that the 15 deaths were coincidental.

For the odds of death in each category, I used this table of 1999 mortality data:
http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm

Probability of:
........................1 year...Lifetime
suicide.................0.000107 0.008197
homicide................0.000062 0.004739
accidental death........0.000359 0.027778
undetermined death......0.000014 0.001101

Total...................0.000542 0.041815
The probability of an unnatural death is the sum of the probabilities

The Poisson Distribution

Although the Normal (Gaussian) probability distribution is by far the most important, there is another which has proven to be particularly useful - the Poisson Distribution. It is derived from and a special case of the Normal Distribution.

The Poisson Distribution applies when the probability "P" for success in any one trial is very small, but the number of trials N is so large that the expected number of successes (a=pN) is a moderate sized quantity.

The probability of m deaths: P(m) =a**m*exp(-a)/m!
In words, the Probability of EXACTLY m successes = a to the m'th power times the exponential function of (-a), divided by m factorial.
m! -15! = 15*14*13*12*11*10*9*8*7*6*5*4*3*2*1

Now lets use Poisson to determine the probability of a given number of witnesses meeting unnatural deaths within a year of the JFK assassination. The only assumption we are making is the number of witnesses.

Assume N= total witnesses = 1000
Let p= Probability of dying from UNNATURAL causes in a given year = 0.000542
Let a= Expected number of unnatural deaths = pN= 0.542
Let m= Actual number of unnatural deaths = 15

Then probability P(m) of exactly m=15 UNNATURAL deaths within a given year out of a predefined group of N = 1000 witnesses is:
P(m) =a**m*exp(-a)/m! or p(15)= 0.542**15*exp(-.542)/15!

Here are the probabilities for m=1 through m=15 deaths.
Prob(X=m) = probability of EXACTLY m DEATHS
Prob(X>=m) = probability of at AT LEAST m DEATHS (the one we want)

m Prob(X=m) Prob(X>=m)
1 3.15E-01 4.18E-01 Prob (X>=1 death)= 0.418
2 8.54E-02 1.03E-01
3 1.54E-02 1.78E-02
4 2.09E-03 2.34E-03
5 2.27E-04 2.49E-04 Prob (X>=5)= 1 in 4000
6 2.05E-05 2.22E-05
7 1.59E-06 1.70E-06
8 1.07E-07 1.14E-07
9 6.47E-09 6.84E-09
10 3.51E-10 3.69E-10 Prob (X>=10) = 1 in 2.8 billion
11 1.73E-11 1.81E-11
12 7.80E-13 8.14E-13
13 3.25E-14 3.38E-14
14 1.26E-15 1.31E-15
15 4.55E-17 4.71E-17 Prob (X>=15) = 1 in 21,230 trillion

For 15 or more deaths, the probability is:
Prob (X>=15) = 4.71e-17 = 0.000000000000000047101810079330
or 1 out of 21,230,606,601,227,800

Check the graph for a probability sensitivity analysis
Assume there were 10,000 witnesses.
The probability that at least 15 would die an unnatural death within one year is
P= .00096 = 9.6E-04 (1 in 1,000).



POISSON(x,mean,cumulative)
X is the number of events.

Mean is the expected numeric value.
Cumulative is a logical value that determines the form of the probability distribution returned.

If Cumulative is TRUE, POISSON returns the cumulative Poisson probability that the number of random events occurring will be between zero and x inclusive;
if FALSE, it returns the Poisson probability mass function that the number of events occurring will be exactly x.

http://progressiveindependent.com/dc/dcboard.php?a...



These FACTS are never discussed in the media.
- election fraud
- undecided voters break for the challenger, especially if the incumbent is unpopular. Bush was at 48%.
- Many newly registered voters are not included in LV (likely voter) polls.
- Since 1988, Democrats have won 60-70% of new voters. In 2008, Obama had 71%+.
- MILLIONS of mostly (70-80%) Democratic votes are uncounted in every election
- The 2004/2006/2008 Final National Exit Polls indicated there were millions of returning phantom Bush voters from the prior election (more than were alive).
- The Final National and State exit polls are always FORCED TO MATCH the recorded vote.
- By definition, the RECORDED VOTE never reflects the TRUE VOTE since millions of votes are UNCOUNTED in EVERY election.
- Uncounted votes alone provide overwhelming evidence that elections were stolen in 1968, 1988, 2000 and 2004.
- 1968: 6 million net uncounted votes.
Nixon won the recorded vote by 500,000.
- 1988: 10.6 million net uncounted votes. Bush won the recorded vote by 7m.
- 2000: 5.4 million net uncounted votes. Gore won the recorded vote by 540,000.
- 2004: Nearly 4 million uncounted votes.
Bush won the recorded vote by 3.0 million.
Kerry won the True Vote by 10m.
Approximately 5 million were switched from Kerry to Bush on UNVERIFIABLE voting machines.

- 2006 midterms: Democrats won by more than double the recorded 52-46%% margin.
10-20 House seats were stolen.

- 2008: Obama won by more than double his recorded 9.5m margin.

1988-2008: the average Democratic TRUE VOTE margin was reduced from 10% to a 4% RECORDED MARGIN by Election Fraud.

VOTER FRAUD was virtually non-existent.

Alert Printer-friendly copy | Permalink | | Reply

42 replies to this thread:
Probability 15 JFK witnesses die UNNATURALLY within one year [View all] , TruthIsAll, Sun Nov-22-09 08:53 PM
#1: The assumption must be that either all witnesses are dead or, Dhalgren, Nov 23rd 2009
#2: Perception is also tricky, Kid of the Black Hole, Nov 23rd 2009
#3: Not true, TruthIsAll, Nov 23rd 2009
#4: Dead OR effectively silenced? How about both?, TruthIsAll, Nov 23rd 2009
#5: The problem is that none of this matters. Not in the system we, Dhalgren, Nov 23rd 2009
#6: Please read your history, chlamor, Nov 23rd 2009
#7: You are way off base..., TruthIsAll, Nov 23rd 2009
#8: Deleted., Dhalgren, Nov 23rd 2009
#9: The numbers have nothing to do with JFK. They are an indictment of the system., Kid of the Black Hole, Nov 24th 2009
#10: ok, Two Americas, Nov 24th 2009
#12: That is sort of why my dander is up here, Kid of the Black Hole, Nov 24th 2009
#13: yep, Two Americas, Nov 24th 2009
#15: I am surprised at your reaction..., TruthIsAll, Nov 24th 2009
#16: I'm a wee bit surprised too, PinkoCommie, Nov 24th 2009
#17: You guys just don't get it..., TruthIsAll, Nov 24th 2009
#18: Hey daddio, PinkoCommie, Nov 24th 2009
#19: I am not disputing that, Two Americas, Nov 24th 2009
#20: Already you are retreating..., TruthIsAll, Nov 24th 2009
#30: hardly, Two Americas, Nov 25th 2009
#23: I am listening (though I wish I wasn't)..., anaxarchos, Nov 24th 2009
#25: One time dhal and I were rapping about Diogenes, Kid of the Black Hole, Nov 25th 2009
#27: I'll have to see if I can find the thread, I thought we were talking, Dhalgren, Nov 25th 2009
#28: Oh no! Hazy recollection could be my undoing!, Kid of the Black Hole, Nov 25th 2009
#29: His "history" survived while others were lost..., anaxarchos, Nov 25th 2009
#33: I wasn't trying to overstate the matter, Kid of the Black Hole, Nov 25th 2009
#34: My motivation: What this is all about..., TruthIsAll, Nov 25th 2009
#35: response, Two Americas, Nov 25th 2009
#36: 1/infinity? That is your ZERO possibility?, Kid of the Black Hole, Nov 25th 2009
#38: Let's not get to purist..., TruthIsAll, Nov 25th 2009
#37: two important points, Two Americas, Nov 25th 2009
#39: "Take the receipt. It can't hurt; it could help"., TruthIsAll, Nov 25th 2009
#11: damn it all to hell, Two Americas, Nov 24th 2009
#14: I really would like to see if TIA has the balls to do this., Dhalgren, Nov 24th 2009
#21: BAT.SHIT.CRAZY., Dhalgren, Nov 24th 2009
#22: SAT.QUIT.LAZY, TruthIsAll, Nov 24th 2009
#26: TIA, I think that the website, Dhalgren, Nov 25th 2009
#24: Oh brother, runs with scissors, Nov 24th 2009
#31: probability, Two Americas, Nov 25th 2009
#32: Some of the claims were pretty ludicrous, Kid of the Black Hole, Nov 25th 2009
#40: Stick to the SCORES of DIVERSIFIED JFK witnesses in the article., TruthIsAll, Nov 25th 2009
#41: Let's stop this. It is just becoming embarrassing., Dhalgren, Nov 25th 2009
#42: it is awful, Two Americas, Nov 25th 2009
Previous Topic | Next Topic

Important Notice: By participating on this discussion board, you agree to respect the rules of this website. Messages posted on Progressive Independent are the opinions of their authors and do not represent the opinions of Progressive Independent, LLC.

Home | Discussion Forums | Multimedia | Reference | Links | Donate

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.