30-06-2018, 07:23 PM
In my experience working with accounting information, you first run the numbers and the numbers tell their own story, i.e. reveal information that you don't know before you run the numbers.
I am amazed that so many people this website think that you start with your own pet theory and then try to prove it through arranging evidence. As for my own theory, it did not emerge in my mind until I had read at least 100 out of the 150 or so book I read preparing for my own publication.
My statistical factor analysis was not done to prove which book was accurate or had the correct theory. Rather, it was done purely to see what factors would appear by using the books as the variable.
(It is also possible to flip the matrix and use individual people as the variable, which I also did. Using individuals actually did tend to identify certain individual suspects).
My main take-way is that some books are loaded or correlated on as many as four factors. Caufield, Prouty and Hepburn are mostly in that category. The merely tells me that those authors went way beyond just looking at Warren Commission evidence or simplistically blamed one group or faction.
THINK ABOUT THAT! What if we (in the US) had a Bureau of Political Assassination just before 1963? And then assume that the US Bureau of Assassinations carried out the Kennedy murder. That were the case, then you would have a book with a list of names which would be the employees of that Assassination Bureau. Ditto if the JFK murder were carried by the Italian Mafia and only the Italian Mafia. Then the names in the book would only be names of members of the Italian Mafia. Outside of the books oriented only to the Warren Commission evidence, there is no consensus in the total book information about the guilt of ANY ONE GROUP OR ORGANIZATION. And even the Warren Commission investigated people from several organizitions, such as Dallas Solidarists, Dallas Police, FPCC, etc.
But the names in almost all of the books cut across a gamut of organizations. That would include such as groups as the Mafia, Cubans, FBI (Hoover), world leaders, etc. So, to me, it's very very unlikely that a book which is limited to blaming the only CIA, Military Intelligence, Southern Segregationists, etc. has gotten the right picture.
Beyond that, LET THE READER DECIDE what the factors mean and what the groupings of the various books together signify. That is the purpose of the exercise. I don't pretend to have all the answers.
James Lateer
I am amazed that so many people this website think that you start with your own pet theory and then try to prove it through arranging evidence. As for my own theory, it did not emerge in my mind until I had read at least 100 out of the 150 or so book I read preparing for my own publication.
My statistical factor analysis was not done to prove which book was accurate or had the correct theory. Rather, it was done purely to see what factors would appear by using the books as the variable.
(It is also possible to flip the matrix and use individual people as the variable, which I also did. Using individuals actually did tend to identify certain individual suspects).
My main take-way is that some books are loaded or correlated on as many as four factors. Caufield, Prouty and Hepburn are mostly in that category. The merely tells me that those authors went way beyond just looking at Warren Commission evidence or simplistically blamed one group or faction.
THINK ABOUT THAT! What if we (in the US) had a Bureau of Political Assassination just before 1963? And then assume that the US Bureau of Assassinations carried out the Kennedy murder. That were the case, then you would have a book with a list of names which would be the employees of that Assassination Bureau. Ditto if the JFK murder were carried by the Italian Mafia and only the Italian Mafia. Then the names in the book would only be names of members of the Italian Mafia. Outside of the books oriented only to the Warren Commission evidence, there is no consensus in the total book information about the guilt of ANY ONE GROUP OR ORGANIZATION. And even the Warren Commission investigated people from several organizitions, such as Dallas Solidarists, Dallas Police, FPCC, etc.
But the names in almost all of the books cut across a gamut of organizations. That would include such as groups as the Mafia, Cubans, FBI (Hoover), world leaders, etc. So, to me, it's very very unlikely that a book which is limited to blaming the only CIA, Military Intelligence, Southern Segregationists, etc. has gotten the right picture.
Beyond that, LET THE READER DECIDE what the factors mean and what the groupings of the various books together signify. That is the purpose of the exercise. I don't pretend to have all the answers.
James Lateer