30-06-2018, 12:31 AM
Your approach is based on a number of questionable assumptions:
I'm sure every book on the case mentions Lee Harvey Oswald. However, the WC defenders cite him as not only a suspect but the only suspect. On the flip side, just about every book supporting a conspiracy cites LHO as a patsy. What is the value of this information? We can't really conclude anything about LHO's involvement or guilt merely from the number of times he's cited in books. Obviously most authors have an agenda and only some are supported by the actual facts of the case since the guy is either guilty or he's not (he's not!).
Regarding suspects like the Mob, Mossad, LBJ what we really have is speculation rather than hard evidence irrespective of how many authors have decided to mention these people or entities as suspects. So I don't really see any value in calculating statistics on the number of citations for this group.
The only thing that actually matters is hard evidence. Citations in books may or may not have some degree of correlation with the identities of the actual suspects but without an evaluation of the quality of the evidence the author is relying on it seems like a rather shaky basis for determining the guilty parties.
- Each author has independent evidence for each name cited and aren't just repeating what others have written.
- The information each author has regarding each name mentioned is accurate and unbiased.
- The identities of all of the major suspects are known.
- A significant majority of the authors are in agreement about the guilt or innocence of the persons mentioned.
I'm sure every book on the case mentions Lee Harvey Oswald. However, the WC defenders cite him as not only a suspect but the only suspect. On the flip side, just about every book supporting a conspiracy cites LHO as a patsy. What is the value of this information? We can't really conclude anything about LHO's involvement or guilt merely from the number of times he's cited in books. Obviously most authors have an agenda and only some are supported by the actual facts of the case since the guy is either guilty or he's not (he's not!).
Regarding suspects like the Mob, Mossad, LBJ what we really have is speculation rather than hard evidence irrespective of how many authors have decided to mention these people or entities as suspects. So I don't really see any value in calculating statistics on the number of citations for this group.
The only thing that actually matters is hard evidence. Citations in books may or may not have some degree of correlation with the identities of the actual suspects but without an evaluation of the quality of the evidence the author is relying on it seems like a rather shaky basis for determining the guilty parties.