A mathematical reason to study the JFK assassination

[Steve Minnerly]

Shannons work on information theory says that "information content is inversely proportional to probability".

In other words rare events contain more information than common events.

The JFK assassination is a very rare event so it should contain a LOT of information and I'd say that anybody thats looked into it can see thats true.

[Charles Drago]

Shannons work on information theory says that "information content is inversely proportional to probability".

In other words rare events contain more information than common events.

The JFK assassination is a very rare event so it should contain a LOT of information and I'd say that anybody thats looked into it can see thats true.

Agreed.

[David Josephs]

Shannons work on information theory says that "information content is inversely proportional to probability".

In other words rare events contain more information than common events.

The JFK assassination is a very rare event so it should contain a LOT of information and I'd say that anybody thats looked into it can see thats true.

{sigh}

In the world of that time, with the cast of characters we KNOW were involved... this was not so rare an event - the killing of a person of importance standing in the way of our fight against Communism (and the expansion of the desires of the USA to control the drug, oil and weapons industries of the world).

When one strips away the moutain of BS info related to the investigation and that left by the conspirators to bog us down for years... It was really a quite simple thing, with a quite simple plan.

There was a conspiracy... 100% probability... so that in turn would mean next to no information related to that conspiracy SHOULD be found.. inverse proportion to 100% is 0% isn't it?

The RARE part of the event is the Lone Nut part.. next to 0% probability for THAT with TONS of info content (per Salandria)


Guess we have to define the EVENT we are referring to..

DJ

[Charles Drago]

Shannons work on information theory says that "information content is inversely proportional to probability".

In other words rare events contain more information than common events.

The JFK assassination is a very rare event so it should contain a LOT of information and I'd say that anybody thats looked into it can see thats true.

{sigh}

In the world of that time, with the cast of characters we KNOW were involved... this was not so rare an event - the killing of a person of importance standing in the way of our fight against Communism (and the expansion of the desires of the USA to control the drug, oil and weapons industries of the world).

When one strips away the moutain of BS info related to the investigation and that left by the conspirators to bog us down for years... It was really a quite simple thing, with a quite simple plan.

There was a conspiracy... 100% probability... so that in turn would mean next to no information related to that conspiracy SHOULD be found.. inverse proportion to 100% is 0% isn't it?

The RARE part of the event is the Lone Nut part.. next to 0% probability for THAT with TONS of info content (per Salandria)


Guess we have to define the EVENT we are referring to..

DJ

While we're sighing:

The regicide of John Fitzgerald Kennedy stands as one of history's rarest events. It is properly considered within the context of the murders of the Gracchi brothers, Jesus Christ, Lincoln, Gandhi, and King.

Which is to say that while the "fight against Communism (and the expansion of the desires of the USA to control the drug, oil and weapons industries of the world)" clearly motivated many of the Facilitators of JFK's assassination, they likely were of small concern to the Sponsors.

Failure to recognize, study, and come to grips with these very deep deep political truths virtually guarantees that contemporary inabilities to define and bring about justice in this case will be in place come the 100th anniversary of November 22, 1963.

As for your assessment of the assassination conspiracy as "a quite simple thing, with a quite simple plan" ... Well then by all means share with us, in the small space you'll apparently need, the full story.

Because with all due respect I must note, David, that that statement of yours shatters credulity into a thousand pieces and scatters it to the winds.

[Albert Rossi]

This is all interesting, and I don't want to throw a pedantic wrench into the discussion, but for the sake of accuracy, I believe the phrase quoted above is slightly misleading.

What is inversely proportional to probability in information theory is what is called the "surprisal" or surprise value of an event. In the formula developed by Shannon this is given by "-log(p)" (p=probability of an outcome).

The information content of a probability space (random variable) is actually the probabilistically weighted sum of all the surprisal values. The formula for this resembles Boltzmann's formula for thermodynamic entropy, so Shannon called this idea entropy as well. It turns out, from that formula, that maximum entropy, meaning the greatest uncertainty, and hence the system which carries the greatest information content (or requires the greatest amount of information to resolve that uncertainty -- the concepts are analogous), is one where all the surprisals are of equal probability: that is, the system is totally random.

This is directly related to the representation of such a sequence of events. Shannon used "bit strings" (hence the choice of log2). The maximum length of that string is equal to the maximum entropy achievable for that sequence of events. For instance, if you wanted to represent a single coin toss, the most you would need, if the coin is fair, is (a string of) 1 bit (e.g., on = head and off = tail). Entropy in this case = 1. If the coin is not fair (heads has higher probability, tails lower, or vice versa), the event becomes more predictable, and its entropy less than 1. The limit of the system is entropy = 0, i.e., total predictability.

See the illustration of this from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(in...on_theory) (good discussion there):

[ATTACH=CONFIG]5092[/ATTACH]

"Entropy H(X) (i.e. the expected surprisal) of a coin flip, measured in bits, graphed versus the fairness of the coin Pr(X=1), where X=1 represents a result of heads. Note that the maximum of the graph depends on the distribution. Here, at most 1 bit is required to communicate the outcome of a fair coin flip (2 possible values), but the result of a fair die (6 possible values) would require at most log[SUB]2[/SUB]6 bits."

In a maximal entropy string, the presence of each bit is necessary. If the entropy/information were not maximal, you could find a way to eliminate bits. Algorithms which do compression are based on this concept.

So, in terms of information, it's not really rarity that counts, it's randomness.

[Charles Drago]

Albert,

Would I be correct, then, if I rewrote "information content is inversely proportional to probability" thusly:

"Information content is inversely proportional to randomness."

[Albert Rossi]

Albert,

Would I be correct, then, if I rewrote "information content is inversely proportional to probability" thusly:

"Information content is inversely proportional to randomness."

No, actually it is the opposite. The greater the randomness, the greater the entropy, which is a measure of information.

The problem here is that Shannon and Information Theory use the concept of information in a rather counter-intuitive way. Common usage of the term would suggest that random = meaningless. But "information" is not the same as "meaning" in the context of this theory. I sometimes fall into the same trap and have to correct myself. Information theory was invented to model systems of communication, and is not a theory of semantics.

[Albert Rossi]

Albert,

Would I be correct, then, if I rewrote "information content is inversely proportional to probability" thusly:

"Information content is inversely proportional to randomness."

No, actually it is the opposite. The greater the randomness, the greater the entropy, which is a measure of information.

The problem here is that Shannon and Information Theory use the concept of information in a rather counter-intuitive way. Common usage of the term would suggest that random = meaningless. But "information" is not the same as "meaning" in the context of this theory. I sometimes fall into the same trap and have to correct myself. Information theory was invented to model systems of communication, and is not a theory of semantics.

Another way of thinking about that difference is the idea of "structure" vs "information". Semantic content seems to be closely associated with structure, but structure is somewhat different from the notion of information content in Shannon's sense. A really interesting read, if you are inclined to read such things, which deals with this interaction, and with the notion of "complexity" (with a special view to the problem of the evolution of complexity from very simple processes) is by the Nobel Prize winning physicist:

Murray Gell-Mann, The Quark and the Jaguar: Adventures in the Simple and the Complex. (see http://www.amazon.com/The-Quark-Jaguar-A...0805072535 -- not a suggestion to buy it there, though).

[Charles Drago]

Albert,

Would I be correct, then, if I rewrote "information content is inversely proportional to probability" thusly:

"Information content is inversely proportional to randomness."

No, actually it is the opposite. The greater the randomness, the greater the entropy, which is a measure of information.

The problem here is that Shannon and Information Theory use the concept of information in a rather counter-intuitive way. Common usage of the term would suggest that random = meaningless. But "information" is not the same as "meaning" in the context of this theory. I sometimes fall into the same trap and have to correct myself. Information theory was invented to model systems of communication, and is not a theory of semantics.

Another way of thinking about that difference is the idea of "structure" vs "information". Semantic content seems to be closely associated with structure, but structure is somewhat different from the notion of information content in Shannon's sense. A really interesting read, if you are inclined to read such things, which deals with this interaction, and with the notion of "complexity" (with a special view to the problem of the evolution of complexity from very simple processes) is by the Nobel Prize winning physicist:

Murray Gell-Mann, The Quark and the Jaguar: Adventures in the Simple and the Complex. (see http://www.amazon.com/The-Quark-Jaguar-A...0805072535 -- not a suggestion to buy it there, though).

Thanks much, Albert. I think that I get it.

I'm especially grateful for the recommendation, of which I'll take full advantage right now. Bezos, here I come!

[David Josephs]

Shannons work on information theory says that "information content is inversely proportional to probability".

In other words rare events contain more information than common events.

The JFK assassination is a very rare event so it should contain a LOT of information and I'd say that anybody thats looked into it can see thats true.

{sigh}

In the world of that time, with the cast of characters we KNOW were involved... this was not so rare an event - the killing of a person of importance standing in the way of our fight against Communism (and the expansion of the desires of the USA to control the drug, oil and weapons industries of the world).

When one strips away the moutain of BS info related to the investigation and that left by the conspirators to bog us down for years... It was really a quite simple thing, with a quite simple plan.

There was a conspiracy... 100% probability... so that in turn would mean next to no information related to that conspiracy SHOULD be found.. inverse proportion to 100% is 0% isn't it?

The RARE part of the event is the Lone Nut part.. next to 0% probability for THAT with TONS of info content (per Salandria)


Guess we have to define the EVENT we are referring to..

DJ

While we're sighing:

The regicide of John Fitzgerald Kennedy stands as one of history's rarest events. It is properly considered within the context of the murders of the Gracchi brothers, Jesus Christ, Lincoln, Gandhi, and King.

Which is to say that while the "fight against Communism (and the expansion of the desires of the USA to control the drug, oil and weapons industries of the world)" clearly motivated many of the Facilitators of JFK's assassination, they likely were of small concern to the Sponsors.

Failure to recognize, study, and come to grips with these very deep deep political truths virtually guarantees that contemporary inabilities to define and bring about justice in this case will be in place come the 100th anniversary of November 22, 1963.

As for your assessment of the assassination conspiracy as "a quite simple thing, with a quite simple plan" ... Well then by all means share with us, in the small space you'll apparently need, the full story.

Because with all due respect I must note, David, that that statement of yours shatters credulity into a thousand pieces and scatters it to the winds.

And once again we find ourselves on opposite sides of the discussion.... I fail to see what you mean by RARE EVENT....
How many others were crucified with Jesus? (That Paul et al went on to spread the word has little bearing on the practice and number of of crucifixtions at the time)
How many Black leaders?
Doesn't Lincoln go along with Garfield, Madison and JFK?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assassinations there are a LOT of people on this page alone CD... so please explain why you believe JFK was a RARE event....


In the context of "POTUS' assassinated... by the 35th president's death, he became the 4th president to be assassinated... that's 11.4% of ALL the presidents to that point.
Not exactly a RARE event... Of the people the CIA/Military wanted to kill between 1954 and 1970 - how many are still alive? No Charles, IN CONTEXT I don't see how this was a rare event at all.

Let me understand you correctly Charles... you are saying that the OIL, WEAPONS and DRUG businesses of the world were of "small concern" to the Sponsors of the assassination?
That the NEED to engage in mass brainwashing of the populace to believe that nothing sinister is EVER going on ANYWHERE is borne from the desire to control... WHAT? just the hearts and minds for no good reason???

Hearts and minds are controlled as a by product of the need to expand and grow the empire at any and all costs.
"People" do not need to be lied to and convinced of no wrong doing if no wrong doing is being done...

While the "people" were grieving and openly accusing their government of lying - the Sponsors got their drugs, oil and weapons... riches and power expands...
along with a preoccupied population both scared of what they think they know and frightened to the point of immobility if they truly believed they were right about it.
Or the "people" simply put their head in the sand and hoped it would pass while watching the Kardashians.


Charles, how about looking into the deep deep truths of HUMANITY - never mind political/economic/social/etc truths which all result FROM this core truth about HUMANITY.

hu·man·i·ty
1. Humans considered as a group; the human race.2. The condition or quality of being human.
3. The quality of being humane; benevolence.
4. A humane characteristic, attribute, or act.




Replace any existing system with any other system or version 2.0
Now, staff this new paradym with HUMAN BEINGS... unless you are talking about a society where ALL ARE EQUAL.. ALL CONTRIBUTE... ALL ARE CARED FOR... http://www.thevenusproject.com/
there are going to be have's and have nots... winners, losers, greed and benevolence... and the entire range of human emotions and actions come to bear... deep deep political truths begin to form again - and they need to be hidden again... you know, for the good of the rest of us....

I'm just as angry and disappointed at the situation as you are... but you write as if these "political truths" are somehow seperate and distinct from HUMANITY... that they simply manifest themselves to be thrust upon unwitting, unwilling HUMANS who have no other option but to do as their NATURE tells them.... Political Truths are a direct result of the dark side of HUMANITY and all its manifestations...

Does your understanding of the DEEP DEEP political truths - the WHY of the assassination - help you formulate a plan for the NEXT iteration of human society that can minimize human frailty and its most negative of traits, behaviors and beliefs? I mean WE GET IT CHARLES... very powerful people with very deep rooted agendas have the means and opportunity to TAKE what they consider as theirs, regardless of the cost to the rest of HUMANITY. Sadly I do not see how JUSTICE can prevail in the JFK assassination when justice can't prevail for 9/11... or any of the many other "black ops" perpetrated on the world. ... or just a simple case of poverty and hunger in Alabama.

Maybe you see a different world potential that I do - I would LOVE to hear your thoughts on what the world looks like AFTER the justice is over....

------

you wrote:
"As for your assessment of the assassination conspiracy as "a quite simple thing, with a quite simple plan" ... Well then by all means share with us, in the small space you'll apparently need, the full story.
Because with all due respect I must note, David, that that statement of yours shatters credulity into a thousand pieces and scatters it to the winds"

The Plan:
3-5 teams of men - shooter/spotter/protection
Slow JFK down as much as possible in the most accessible location as possible
Remove his protection as effectively as possible
Control ALL the evidence to create the HISTORY for the event which forever clouds the reality of the event

Charles - a single statement does not "destroy credulity" but a concentrated and sustained effort to present information that is WRONG while vociferously defending it at all costs destroys credulity...
I have never done anything like that in the many years I've publically discussed this case. I'm truly surprised you can read Salandria yet not take his words to heart...

"The tyranny of power is here. Current events tell us that those whokilled Kennedy can only perp[B]etuate their power[/B] by promoting social upheavalboth at home and abroad. And that will lead not to revolution but torepression. I suggest to you, my friend, that the interests of those whokilled Kennedy now transcend national boundaries and national priorities. No do[B]ubt we are dealing now with an international conspiracy. [/B] Wemust face that fact -- and not waste any more time micro-analyzing theevidence. That's exactly what they want us to do. They have kept usbusy for so long. And I will bet, buddy, that is what will happen toyou. They'll keep you very, very busy and, eventually, they'll wear youdown."

please explain how what I offer below "scatters my credibility to the wind in a 1000 pieces" (nice turn of a phrase btw)

Perpetuate the power to DO WHAT ? are you saying this is NOT to strip the world of its resources, and focus on the greatest profit potential commodities on the planet: Oil, Weapons, Drugs.
An international conspiracy to ACCOMPLISH WHAT? NOT the complete control of the resources, money supply and politics of every nation on the planet?

None Dare Call It THAT though... right?

I will continue to let what I post and how I defend it represent my CREDIBILITY here... if you believe I am not credible - make your case.

It was a simple plan, with a simple result. The cover-up(s) that followed were designed to make it appear ANYTHING BUT SIMPLE... to keep you and I very busy chasing shadows.
You SEEM to want to change the dynamic of what it means to be HUMAN... and live in a world dominated exclusively by the benevolent...

Is there a period of time in all of history that you can point to when that condition existed? When the HUMANS of the world lived in harmony and there were no deep deep agendas?

Who is going to take the place of all the current bad guys, when we've locked 'em up and thrown away the key... You and me... or a guy named Romney...? Will it REALLY make any difference?


"Won't Get Fooled Again"

We'll be fighting in the streets
With our children at our feet
And the morals that they worship will be gone
And the men who spurred us on
Sit in judgement of all wrong
They decide and the shotgun sings the song

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again

The change, it had to come
We knew it all along
We were liberated from the fold, that's all
And the world looks just the same
And history ain't changed
'Cause the banners, they are flown in the next war

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
No, no!

I'll move myself and my family aside
If we happen to be left half alive
I'll get all my papers and smile at the sky
Though I know that the hypnotized never lie
Do ya?

There's nothing in the streets
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Are now parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again
No, no!

Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss