rootclaim - Estimating the Probability of Conspiracy vs. LHO Acted Alone

[Bill Fite]

Hi Bill,

Yes, I see where you're coming from. You might want to read this:

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kenne...aa-verdict

I understand what you're trying to do. I just don't think its useful at all. We don't have to construct elaborate mathematical proofs to understand that there was a conspiracy to assassinate JFK, that LHO was set up as a patsy and scapegoated, that a massive government cover up and disinformation effort (which continues to this day) was conducted to whitewash the entire episode and that the chief suspects were elements of the CIA-mob-Cuban exile nexus (which may includes as accessories Nazis since they were in close association with the CIA ). All of this has already been established to a high degree of confidence by the available evidence. I don't see how your approach would add anything to that or somehow convince doubters or reverse the government/media coverup and disinformation efforts.

And we certainly don't need to set up a LHO/lone-nut hypothesis even for the purposes of knocking it down as a straw man. That legend only lives on for those who refuse to take their heads out of the sand or who keep quiet because they have too much invested in it (careers, prestige, etc). Your mathematical proofs aren't going to change any of that.

Hi Phil

Thanks for the link.

As I understand it, I think you're confusing the NAA test applications when you say NAA is discredited.

In the linked article:

• NAA determines the percent antimony in a bullet
  
• The hypothesis is that that % identifies a bullet coming from a specific batch
  
• The hypothesis is rejected based on the statistical analysis indicating that the variance in the % of antimony in bullets in any given batch rules out identifying a bullet as coming from a batch. In other words other batches would contain bullets that would match.
  
• NAA in this case is assumed accurate and reliable but the chemical composition of a bullet can't be used to identify the bullet batch
  

In the paraffin / NAA test

• A paraffin test for nitrates is applied to LHO's cheek to assess whether or not he fired a rifle
  
• The test comes back negative
  
• The FBI performs a spectroscopy test on the paraffin
  
• This test also comes back negative
  
• The FBI then sends the paraffin to the Oak Ridge Lab for NAA
  
• The NAA test results: the paraffin cheek casting could not be associated with firing a rifle
  
• The FBI then had 7 agents fire the MC rifle and took paraffin castings of their cheeks and sent them to Oak Ridge for NAA
  
• All 7 NAA test results come back positive indicating that the agents had fired a rifle
  

As far as I know in neither case is the NAA discredited. In the first it is used to assess the chemical composition of the bullet. Unless I missed something that isn't rejected. But the batch identification hypothesis based on the variations in the concentrations of antimony in batches and individual bullets is rejected based on batch variation not on faulty NAA.

In the second NAA indicates with a high probability that LHO did not fire a rifle on the 22nd as the cast from his cheek showed no presence of nitrates.

That probability or not firing a gun would be 1 - probability of the NAA giving a false negative test, i.e. NAA would fail to find a chemical associated with firing a rifle in a sample. As far as I know NAA is extremely accurate.

I haven't been able to find the false positive rate for NAA. Assuming it's as high as 1 in 1000 that would make the probability that LHO did not fire a rifle 1 - 0.001 or 99.9%.

As for whether or not this would be useful, you're correct some but not all people look at the evidence and show that it points to LHO not having fired a rifle and a conspiracy. This group doesn't have to be convinced.

It's the rest that need convincing to reach a critical mass, if that is possible.

So far the evidence collected by researchers hasn't convinced everyone or those in the media that there was a conspiracy when presented in

• books
  
• articles
  
• mock trials
  
• conferences
  
• interviews on radio, tv, the net
  

I believe it would be much more difficult for journalists to ignore the probabilistic approach to the evidence as illustrated above. It would be equivalent to ignoring the DNA evidence in the OJ case or other murder cases.

I leave open the possibility that I am wrong about this and the possibility that I am looking at the approach incorrectly, but I do think it's worth exploring.

The item missing from the analysis so far is what you have stated -- 'established with a high degree of certainty'. If that is true, the certainty (probability) can be measured quantified objectively. So far the only assessment is the subjective 'high degree of certainty' which has failed to convince a significant portion of the population that people other than LHO were involved.

If the false negative rate for NAA test on the paraffin for gunpowder residue is extremely low it would supply almost irrefutable evidence and it would come in the form of a probability unless it is an absolute certainty.

Anyway, it doesn't appear anyone else is interested.