26-04-2018, 08:54 PM
Bill Fite Wrote:[quote=Phil Dagosto]The probability that LHO acted alone is demonstrably zero. Evidence has established that shots were fired from more than one direction. That alone rules out any "lone nut", LHO or anyone else. The probability that two or more "lone nuts" acting completely independently of each other and without any knowledge of each other is effectively zero (allowing for the impossibility of definitively proving a negative).
Thus, the probability of a conspiracy is one. No fancy math or crowd sourcing required.
Then that would be demonstrated by assessing evidence and adjusting probabilities.
LOL, it already has been established!!!
Myself, I believe the Neutron Activation Analysis on the paraffin test on his cheek and the FBI test that failed to discredit NAA essentially clears him of shooting a rifle. But I am curious as to how that or any other piece of evidence affects the probabilities.
I'm confused. The paraffin test cleared Oswald of shooting a rifle. The FBI buried the evidence that their test shooters all had significant gun powder residue on their cheeks due to the leaky firing chamber of the MC rifle. I don't know what you mean by "the FBI test that failed to discredit NAA" and how that would clear LHO of firing a rifle (did you mean "that discredited" instead?). NAA has been shown to be junk science and since it was one of the key pieces of "evidence" cited by the WC to pin the crime on LHO. What is there to be curious about at this point?
There are other hypotheses that could be estimated:
-- What was LHO's role in the assassination:
1) Member of the conspiracy
2) Government operative that infiltrated the conspiracy and was set up as a patsy
3) No role - he was just a convenient defector who was framed
Well, OK that's worth discussing. I have always thought that the "I'm just a patsy!" remark as well as the look on LHO's face when he was informed that he had, in fact, been charged with the JFK murder strongly implies some knowledge of the plot and the realization that he was set up. My feeling is that choice number 2 is most likely the case and I strongly doubt both 1 and 3.
but even in this case, it might be necessary to have the 4th possibility -- LHO acted alone -- and let the evidence estimate its probability as 0.[/QUOTE
Well, no, its clearly not. Even if you want to disregard the shots from multiple directions argument (I can't imagine what reasonable grounds you would have, but whatever...) there are many lines of well-established evidence that invalidate LHO as the lone assassin (not present at the presumed location the shots were fired from, can't be proved to own the gun in question, the gun in question was defective to the point of being unusable, no evidence that LHO purchased or possessed ammunition for the gun in question, the impossibility of the SBT, etc, etc.)
If you want to waste your time on this nonsense its your business. But I agree with Peter's comment about this being "mental masturbation"