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

[Bill Fite]

Hi

I'm interested in the math aspect of the JFK assassination - angles, physics, probabilities, etc.

I've come across an interesting site that assesses the probabilities of competing mutually exclusive hypotheses using a Bayesian approach and crowdsourced evidence.

https://www.rootclaim.com/

If you go to the site you will see that they have assessed probabilities of several interesting and several trivial topics.

If enough people would find a JFK topic interesting, perhaps they would incorporate it and run it through their process.

I'm thinking of suggesting a topic with these hypotheses:

Topic: Was JFK murdered by LHO acting alone or by a conspiracy?

Hypothesis 1: LHO murdered JFK acting alone.

Hypothesis 2: A conspiracy was responsible for the murder. LHO had no knowledge of the conspiracy.

Hypothesis 3: LHO either was a member or infiltrated the conspiracy to murder JFK>

If you go to the site, you can see some of their model results.

Does anyone else think this could be an interesting exercise?

Would you register to 'upvote' it at the site?

-- Anyway you might find the assessments of who is responsible for the chemical attacks in Syria interesting examples.

[Peter Lemkin]

Hi

I'm interested in the math aspect of the JFK assassination - angles, physics, probabilities, etc.

I've come across an interesting site that assesses the probabilities of competing mutually exclusive hypotheses using a Bayesian approach and crowdsourced evidence.

https://www.rootclaim.com/

If you go to the site you will see that they have assessed probabilities of several interesting and several trivial topics.

If enough people would find a JFK topic interesting, perhaps they would incorporate it and run it through their process.

I'm thinking of suggesting a topic with these hypotheses:

Topic: Was JFK murdered by LHO acting alone or by a conspiracy?

Hypothesis 1: LHO murdered JFK acting alone.

Hypothesis 2: A conspiracy was responsible for the murder. LHO had no knowledge of the conspiracy.

Hypothesis 3: LHO either was a member or infiltrated the conspiracy to murder JFK>

If you go to the site, you can see some of their model results.

Does anyone else think this could be an interesting exercise?

Would you register to 'upvote' it at the site?

-- Anyway you might find the assessments of who is responsible for the chemical attacks in Syria interesting examples.

I think it is a useless and destructive exercise. Things did or did not happen a certain way...and setting L.V. odds on them - which is what you seem to be doing to me is just a way of diversion from seeking the Truth, with a capital T. It doesn't matter if only one person has the correct information/idea/concept on something and 1000 or a million or 100 million think some other alternate version is correct - that one person is the only one who is correct or approximating the Truth - and the 100 million wrong. The number of people or % of people who believe X vs. Y may have some interest, but it says nothing of the veracity of the answer vis-a-vis the Truth....and the Truth can be known and one doesn't have to play dice with it or take bets or odds on it. Sorry, but I find this a very strange notion.

[Phil Dagosto]

The probability that LHO acted alone is demonstrably zero. Evidence has established that shots were fired from more than one direction. That alone rules out any "lone nut", LHO or anyone else. The probability that two or more "lone nuts" acting completely independently of each other and without any knowledge of each other is effectively zero (allowing for the impossibility of definitively proving a negative).

Thus, the probability of a conspiracy is one. No fancy math or crowd sourcing required.

[Bill Fite]

The probability that LHO acted alone is demonstrably zero. Evidence has established that shots were fired from more than one direction. That alone rules out any "lone nut", LHO or anyone else. The probability that two or more "lone nuts" acting completely independently of each other and without any knowledge of each other is effectively zero (allowing for the impossibility of definitively proving a negative).

Thus, the probability of a conspiracy is one. No fancy math or crowd sourcing required.

Then that would be demonstrated by assessing evidence and adjusting probabilities.

Myself, I believe the Neutron Activation Analysis on the paraffin test on his cheek and the FBI test that failed to discredit NAA essentially clears him of shooting a rifle. But I am curious as to how that or any other piece of evidence affects the probabilities.

There are other hypotheses that could be estimated:

-- What was LHO's role in the assassination:

1) Member of the conspiracy
2) Government operative that infiltrated the conspiracy and was set up as a patsy
3) No role - he was just a convenient defector who was framed

but even in this case, it might be necessary to have the 4th possibility -- LHO acted alone -- and let the evidence estimate its probability as 0.

[Peter Lemkin]

The probability that LHO acted alone is demonstrably zero. Evidence has established that shots were fired from more than one direction. That alone rules out any "lone nut", LHO or anyone else. The probability that two or more "lone nuts" acting completely independently of each other and without any knowledge of each other is effectively zero (allowing for the impossibility of definitively proving a negative).

Thus, the probability of a conspiracy is one. No fancy math or crowd sourcing required.

Then that would be demonstrated by assessing evidence and adjusting probabilities.

Myself, I believe the Neutron Activation Analysis on the paraffin test on his cheek and the FBI test that failed to discredit NAA essentially clears him of shooting a rifle. But I am curious as to how that or any other piece of evidence affects the probabilities.

There are other hypotheses that could be estimated:


-- What was LHO's role in the assassination:

1) Member of the conspiracy
2) Government operative that infiltrated the conspiracy and was set up as a patsy
3) No role - he was just a convenient defector who was framed

but even in this case, it might be necessary to have the 4th possibility -- LHO acted alone -- and let the evidence estimate its probability as 0.

I see some value in discussing 1,2,3 - although this has been gone through endlessly and some seem to want it to continue endlessly, so Americans don't come to any conclusions, and then feel they need to act. I see no value in 'estimates' of the 'chances' of these in mathematical percentages or odds or other terms. This is a parlor game and not deep political analysis. I find this very annoying and advancing little to nothing in getting to the truth, which is done by research, reading, debate, and comparing the veracity of different narratives/facts/evidence - and not in mathematical distancing from what the assassination did to the USA, and how it effected and effects the USA and World today - every day! This is mental masturbation, IMO, and can be found on most websites that are devoted to or have sections on the JFK assassination. I don't see where it fits in here, where we hope for deep political thinking, analysis, and conclusions. This is something along the line of 'prayerman' - what are the chances it is X or Y or Z. America is already a policestate and growing and you want to put odds on a commercial website or here about this.....?????!!!!! I think many do not understand the importance or consequences of Dallas AT ALL, they only endlessly 'play in the Plaza'. How is this going to make people ACT and stop the endless Dallas-like actions since? How does it inform about WHO was really behind the assassination and WHY? Oswald was not the focus nor key character in the charade/magic trick/covert op/coup d'etat. That role was written for him, yes, but by those who really planned and executed it. He was but a puppet dangling on many strings until on command from above Ruby cut them.

If Oswald was a 'member', he was tricked into being a 'member' or was infiltrating and pretending to be a 'member'. He was a government operative, but being manipulated as many government operatives are and didn't know who was pulling his strings or what his 'position' was. He was set up as the designated patsy, but in case something went awry, there were alternative patsies.

[Phil Dagosto]

[quote=Phil Dagosto]The probability that LHO acted alone is demonstrably zero. Evidence has established that shots were fired from more than one direction. That alone rules out any "lone nut", LHO or anyone else. The probability that two or more "lone nuts" acting completely independently of each other and without any knowledge of each other is effectively zero (allowing for the impossibility of definitively proving a negative).

Thus, the probability of a conspiracy is one. No fancy math or crowd sourcing required.

Then that would be demonstrated by assessing evidence and adjusting probabilities.

LOL, it already has been established!!!

Myself, I believe the Neutron Activation Analysis on the paraffin test on his cheek and the FBI test that failed to discredit NAA essentially clears him of shooting a rifle. But I am curious as to how that or any other piece of evidence affects the probabilities.

I'm confused. The paraffin test cleared Oswald of shooting a rifle. The FBI buried the evidence that their test shooters all had significant gun powder residue on their cheeks due to the leaky firing chamber of the MC rifle. I don't know what you mean by "the FBI test that failed to discredit NAA" and how that would clear LHO of firing a rifle (did you mean "that discredited" instead?). NAA has been shown to be junk science and since it was one of the key pieces of "evidence" cited by the WC to pin the crime on LHO. What is there to be curious about at this point?

There are other hypotheses that could be estimated:

-- What was LHO's role in the assassination:

1) Member of the conspiracy
2) Government operative that infiltrated the conspiracy and was set up as a patsy
3) No role - he was just a convenient defector who was framed

Well, OK that's worth discussing. I have always thought that the "I'm just a patsy!" remark as well as the look on LHO's face when he was informed that he had, in fact, been charged with the JFK murder strongly implies some knowledge of the plot and the realization that he was set up. My feeling is that choice number 2 is most likely the case and I strongly doubt both 1 and 3.

but even in this case, it might be necessary to have the 4th possibility -- LHO acted alone -- and let the evidence estimate its probability as 0.[/QUOTE

Well, no, its clearly not. Even if you want to disregard the shots from multiple directions argument (I can't imagine what reasonable grounds you would have, but whatever...) there are many lines of well-established evidence that invalidate LHO as the lone assassin (not present at the presumed location the shots were fired from, can't be proved to own the gun in question, the gun in question was defective to the point of being unusable, no evidence that LHO purchased or possessed ammunition for the gun in question, the impossibility of the SBT, etc, etc.)

If you want to waste your time on this nonsense its your business. But I agree with Peter's comment about this being "mental masturbation"

[James Lateer]

Here's my take on Lee Harvey Oswald:

1) Oswald may have been the most underrated person in American history.

2) With "but for" causation, LHO may have caused the assassination; ie. "but for Oswald, there would have been no assassination.

3) Oswald attended something like 12 schools in 10 years. By today's legal definition, he would have "no fixed place of abode" and the schools would have classified him as homeless.

4) He was thereby robbed of a normal adolescence (like Senator Joe McCarthy and Senator Pat McCarran). All three of these were political misfits and rejected conventional political beliefs.

5) Oswald's two brothers joined the Marines and his two first cousins joined the Jesuit Order and the CIA respectively. These were social outcasts looking for an immediate, tight-knit connected group. Lee Harvey Oswald went even farther, joining both the Marines and the Communist Party (Socialist Workers).

6) Oswald, Clay Shaw and David Ferrie were all three extremely talented operatives.

7) Oswald was the glue that tied together the Louisiana Segregationists, the American Nazi Party, the CIA, Naval Intelligence, the Dallas Solidarists, the Defense Industry, etc. Not everybody had the talent to be a "liason" or glue to bind these groups together.

8) The plan was for Oswald to be "shot while escaping" by Officer J D Tipitt. LHO had his own plan to defeat this strategy. He shot Tipitt and went to the Dallas Theater to be captured. He must have felt he had a decent chance to beat the plan to murder him on 11-22-63.

9) Like professional informant Roy Frankhouser and right-wing infiltrator Joseph Milteer, Oswald was a professional infiltrator. He really didn't work for anybody. He just wanted to infiltrate. That goes back to his stolen adolescence and his desire for the peer group he never had as a teenager.

10) Oswald may have been working under the personal direction of James O Eastland and/or Robert Kennedy. And all this accomplished by a 10th grade dropout.

It's not clear to me that, without Oswald, there would even have been a JFK assassination.

James Lateer

[Bill Fite]

.I see no value in 'estimates' of the 'chances' of these in mathematical percentages or odds or other terms. This is a parlor game and not deep political analysis. I find this very annoying and advancing little to nothing in getting to the truth, which is done by research, reading, debate, and comparing the veracity of different narratives/facts/evidence - and not in mathematical distancing from what the assassination did to the USA, and how it effected and effects the USA and World today - every day! This is mental masturbation, IMO, and can be found on most websites that are devoted to or have sections on the JFK assassination.

The 'parlor game' of Bayesian analysis has been used to assess likelihoods of outcomes in many real-world applications including but not limited to medical diagnosis, biological systems, spam mail filtering (turn it off and see what happens), fraud identification.

In fact, Bayesian analysis is one of the best ways in "comparing the veracity of different narratives/facts/evidence" and weighing their effect on the probability of each of the hypotheses being true.

And as far as getting at the truth... when one goes fishing its better to go to a place where there is a high probability of fish being present. Thus a Bayesian model could be used to assess competing hypotheses.

For example:

The role of an organization of former Nazis in the assassination:

H1: No Role
H2: Played a role in the assassination

As evidence comes in the original assessment of the probabilities of either would change.

This is mental masturbation, IMO, and can be found on most websites that are devoted to or have sections on the JFK assassination. I don't see where it fits in here, where we hope for deep political thinking, analysis, and conclusions. This is something along the line of 'prayerman' - what are the chances it is X or Y or Z.

Sorry, I thought this was a JFK Assassination section. I thought that with some of the other topics posted here (Anatomy of a Second Floor Lunch Room Encounter, for example) it might be interesting and productive. I didn't realize topics were limited to only Deep Politics themes.

America is already a policestate and growing and you want to put odds on a commercial website or here about this.....?????!!!!!

Not my thoughts at all... I would like to see the how the evidence as it enters changes the initial probabilities. It might give a result more in line with what conclusions the evidence really leads to that is much more in line with truth than the mock trial did. That ended up with a hung jury I believe. Out of curiousity, did you think the mock jury trial was mental masturbation?

For example, starting with some initial probabilities on hypotheses that LHO acted alone or conspiracy:

Evidence could be -- LHO's paraffin test was negative for having fired a rifle. That evidence with a factor for the reliability for the paraffin test would lower the LHO acted alone probability.

Then - The paraffin is sent to the Oak Ridge Lab for Neutron Activation Analysis -- the result is that there is no evidence from the paraffin of LHO having fired a rifle. Couple that with the reliability of the NAA and the lone assassin probability is further reduced.

Then - J Edgar has 7 agents fire the MC rifle, apply paraffin and sends that off to Oak Ridge. The NAA shows positive for all 7 having fired a rifle. The lone nut hypothesis probability is lowered again significantly.

This also has the effect of increasing the probability of a conspiracy, since the probabilities of Lone Nut + Conspiracy have to add up to 1.

I merelywant to use the website to illustrate an unbiased analysis of the evidence. It seems to me that is what they do as an illustration of how their implementation of Bayesian networks work.

Do you think that people are using the rootclaim probabilities of the source of the chemical attacks in Syria for betting purposes?

But OK, sorry, thought that this could be interesting and I'll pass along to my colleagues that are using Bayesian networks to identify fraudulent transactions that it's just a 'parlor game'.

[Bill Fite]

I'm confused. The paraffin test cleared Oswald of shooting a rifle. The FBI buried the evidence that their test shooters all had significant gun powder residue on their cheeks due to the leaky firing chamber of the MC rifle. I don't know what you mean by "the FBI test that failed to discredit NAA" and how that would clear LHO of firing a rifle (did you mean "that discredited" instead?). NAA has been shown to be junk science and since it was one of the key pieces of "evidence" cited by the WC to pin the crime on LHO. What is there to be curious about at this point?

There are other hypotheses that could be estimated:

-- What was LHO's role in the assassination:

1) Member of the conspiracy
2) Government operative that infiltrated the conspiracy and was set up as a patsy
3) No role - he was just a convenient defector who was framed

Well, OK that's worth discussing. I have always thought that the "I'm just a patsy!" remark as well as the look on LHO's face when he was informed that he had, in fact, been charged with the JFK murder strongly implies some knowledge of the plot and the realization that he was set up. My feeling is that choice number 2 is most likely the case and I strongly doubt both 1 and 3.

but even in this case, it might be necessary to have the 4th possibility -- LHO acted alone -- and let the evidence estimate its probability as 0.[/QUOTE

Well, no, its clearly not. Even if you want to disregard the shots from multiple directions argument (I can't imagine what reasonable grounds you would have, but whatever...) there are many lines of well-established evidence that invalidate LHO as the lone assassin (not present at the presumed location the shots were fired from, can't be proved to own the gun in question, the gun in question was defective to the point of being unusable, no evidence that LHO purchased or possessed ammunition for the gun in question, the impossibility of the SBT, etc, etc.)

If you want to waste your time on this nonsense its your business. But I agree with Peter's comment about this being "mental masturbation"

Hi Phil --

Please see the above post for a clarification/example of the paraffin -> NAA -> FBI tests. I hope that clears it up.

I don't want to disregard anything. I would include the LHO Lone Nut hypothesis in an analysis to be able to point to the probabilities and how the evidence moved them to show how unlikely it is that a Lone Nut was responsible.

The well-established lines of evidence would do just that, IMO. As each piece of evidence is entered, the probabilities will factor it in.

Once you have the evidence that you can eliminate LHO as a Lone Nut you can then move on to using the same approach to determine the probabilities of the various groups being part of the conspiracy:

For example -- Using Mr Lateer's Nazi connection the Hypothesis could be:

1) Multiple members of the Nazi Party were involved in the conspiracy to murder JFK
2) Nazi Party members weren't part of the conspiracy

Then enter the evidence of Nazi involvement and update the probabilities.

This could be done for any group -- the CIA, anti-Castro Cubans, right wingers, Castro, the Russians etc.

It might give evidence of where to prioritize research. Then again it might not.

[Phil Dagosto]

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.