29-06-2018, 02:16 AM
To the previous criticism of my statistical approach: considering that this criticism is coming from one of the most knowledgeable people on this site (judging by quality of information), I can only say that I would expect more specific analysis and criticism than "sorry".
Since the folks who lambaste the work of JVB only level criticisms such as "lies" etc., I might reply that at least my analysis has some objectivity. My aim here is to smoke out those people who seem obsessed on this issue, but have no specifics to refute JVB.
Obviously, if two books quoted the same list of names in the JFK case, there is no conflict over whether those people would be either suspects or witnesses. If you have two books which name the same 20 suspects, and the same 20 witnesses, it is absurd to argue that each book may be making opposite arguments about the same 20 suspects, or same 20 witnesses.
Let's say one book has a list of 20 persons who they claim WERE NOT INVOLVED in the JFK murder. And the other book has the same 20 persons who they claim WERE INVOLVED in the JFK murder. If that were the case, then you could draw some pretty obvious conclusions about those two books. And the book who listed the 20 persons as suspects would have more credibility than the one that excluded the same 20 persons with no list of its own.
And that is the apparent answer to the JV Baker controversy. Her critics claim that her unique list of suspects is invalid, yet they don't have any unique list themselves. Or, their list is the same as hers, but they say those suspects WERE NOT THE GUILTY ONES. In other words, they claim that she is a liar, but they don't claim to have the truth themselves.
If the suspects of JVB correlate 62% with Jim Garrison and Joan Mellen, then I would say her book was 62% accurate based on the best information available. And no two books on the JFK case have identical lists of suspects. In my research, there is almost always about a 50% overlap between the citations in two different JFK books. And sometimes a lot less.
I don't have any personal commitment to the particular theories of JVB. Like Colonel Fletcher Prouty, even if one grants both of them status as complete "insiders", their information is woefully incomplete, almost laughably so.
As many people know, my organization chart of the JFK plot has about 70 persons on it. I would be shocked if any other book cited even 20 or 30 of them with any frequency.
Being an accountant, I am a believer in quantitative analysis. I feel my statistical technique can be defended as a legitimate way to classify JFK books as to their theories. Their theories are a function of their list of suspects.
Let me repeat that---THE THEORY OF A BOOK ON THE JFK ASSASSINATION IS A FUNCTION OF THE PERSONS AND SUSPECTS THEY CITE IN THE BOOK. I don't see how anybody who lays claim to expertise in statistics can question that!
James Lateer
Since the folks who lambaste the work of JVB only level criticisms such as "lies" etc., I might reply that at least my analysis has some objectivity. My aim here is to smoke out those people who seem obsessed on this issue, but have no specifics to refute JVB.
Obviously, if two books quoted the same list of names in the JFK case, there is no conflict over whether those people would be either suspects or witnesses. If you have two books which name the same 20 suspects, and the same 20 witnesses, it is absurd to argue that each book may be making opposite arguments about the same 20 suspects, or same 20 witnesses.
Let's say one book has a list of 20 persons who they claim WERE NOT INVOLVED in the JFK murder. And the other book has the same 20 persons who they claim WERE INVOLVED in the JFK murder. If that were the case, then you could draw some pretty obvious conclusions about those two books. And the book who listed the 20 persons as suspects would have more credibility than the one that excluded the same 20 persons with no list of its own.
And that is the apparent answer to the JV Baker controversy. Her critics claim that her unique list of suspects is invalid, yet they don't have any unique list themselves. Or, their list is the same as hers, but they say those suspects WERE NOT THE GUILTY ONES. In other words, they claim that she is a liar, but they don't claim to have the truth themselves.
If the suspects of JVB correlate 62% with Jim Garrison and Joan Mellen, then I would say her book was 62% accurate based on the best information available. And no two books on the JFK case have identical lists of suspects. In my research, there is almost always about a 50% overlap between the citations in two different JFK books. And sometimes a lot less.
I don't have any personal commitment to the particular theories of JVB. Like Colonel Fletcher Prouty, even if one grants both of them status as complete "insiders", their information is woefully incomplete, almost laughably so.
As many people know, my organization chart of the JFK plot has about 70 persons on it. I would be shocked if any other book cited even 20 or 30 of them with any frequency.
Being an accountant, I am a believer in quantitative analysis. I feel my statistical technique can be defended as a legitimate way to classify JFK books as to their theories. Their theories are a function of their list of suspects.
Let me repeat that---THE THEORY OF A BOOK ON THE JFK ASSASSINATION IS A FUNCTION OF THE PERSONS AND SUSPECTS THEY CITE IN THE BOOK. I don't see how anybody who lays claim to expertise in statistics can question that!
James Lateer