Article: 10011 of sci.skeptic
Path: ns-mx!iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu!ceres.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!xn.ll.mit.edu!xn!srf
From: srf@claudius.juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Steve Feinstein)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: JFK: List of Convenient Deaths
Message-ID: <SRF.91Mar25191057@claudius.juliet.ll.mit.edu>
Date: 26 Mar 91 01:10:57 GMT
Sender: usenet@xn.ll.mit.edu
Distribution: sci.skeptic
Organization: M.I.T. Lincoln Lab - Group 43
Lines: 433
Here is the much requested list of people associated with the JFK
assassination whose deaths are called convenient. Bear in mind that
this is a terse summary of each individual's circumstances in relation
to the case. Therefore, you may not get the full appreciation of why
a particular death is suspicious. An asterisk indicates that a death is
particularly suspicious. Some
These deaths were part of why the House Select Committee on Assassinations
investigation got started. However, they concluded that due to the highly
varied backgrounds of people involved, a proper actuarial study was not
possible.
Aside from the likelihood of x number of deaths over a period of time
of people connected with an invenstigation, there is also the trend that
the number of deaths actually increased closer to the time of these
investigations. The listing below is grouped by investigation. Note that
in 1977, for example, before the HSCA investigation kicked off, six top
FBI officials scheduled to appear before the HSCA died. William C. Sullivan,
for example, was out hunting, when he was shot by a man with a high-powered
rifle who said he mistook Sullivan for a deer. This was *not* investigated
by anyone. And so it goes.
Some of the causes of death listed appear on the surface to be natural.
Keep in mind that the CIA developed methods to "make it look like an
accident". This was documented through the testimony of CIA technicians
to the Church committee who told of TWEP technology (Termination With
Extreme Prejudice) in 1975. These methods are designed to not be detected
in postmortem examinations. I have a couple of exerpts of declassified
CIA documents to demonstrate the case. One of the techniques involves
the injection of cancer cells, heart attack inducement, as well as non-
chemical techniques which require no special equipment. Based on the
strange circumstances of Jack Ruby's death in prison (he died from lung
cancer but the cancer cells were not the type that originate in the
respiratory system). Ruby wrote notes and spoke to several people saying
that jfk was killed by a conspiracy and that he had been maneuvered into
killing Oswald who was a fall guy. He claimed to have been injected with
cancer cells when treated with shots for a cold. He died just before he
was to testify in Congress. He had told congressional investigators that
he wanted to talk but he needed protection.
This list does not include the names of the many people who claimed that
their lives were threatened physically and verbally, as well as the many
people questioned by the FBI who were intimidated and forced to change their
testimony to agree with the official lone-gunman version.
This list is not meant to be proof of a conspiracy. I believe a conspiracy
took place based on a plethora of circumstantial evidence, many involving
questions that are very strange if we are to believe the lone-gunman theory.
Many of the points I have raised can be rationally explained, but it is the
confluence of many aspects of the case which make me doubt the official
version of events more than anything else.
The Warren Commission
date name connection with case cause of death
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
11/63 karyn kupcinet* tv host's daughter overheard murdered
telling of jfk's death prior
to 11/22/63
12/63 jack zangretti* expressed foreknowlege of gunshot victim
ruby shooting oswald
2/64 eddy benavides* look-alike brother to gunshot to head
tippit shooting witness,
domingo benavides
2/64 betty mcdonald* former ruby employee who suicide by hanging
alibied warren reynolds in dallas jail
shooting suspect
3/64 bill chesher thought to have information heart attack
linking oswald and ruby
3/64 hank killam* husband of ruby employee, throat cut
knew oswald acquaintance
4/64 bill hunter* reporter who was in ruby's accidental shooting
apartment on 11/24/63 by policeman
5/64 gary underhill* cia agent who claimed agency gunshot in head ruled
was involved suicide
5/64 hugh ward* private investigator working plane crash in mexico
with guy bannister and david
ferrie
5/64 delesseps * new orleans mayor passenger in ward's
morrison plane
8/64 teresa norton* ruby employee fatally shot
6/64 guy banister* ex-fbi agent in new orleans heart attack
connected to ferrie, cia,
carlos marcello, oswald
9/64 jim koethe* reporter who was in ruby's blow to neck
apartment on 11/24/63
9/64 c.d.jackson life mag senior vp who unknown
bought zapruder film and
locked it away
10/64 mary pinchot* jfk mistress whose diary murdered
meyer was taken by cia chief
james angleton after her
death
1/65 paul mandal life writer who told of jfk cancer
turning to rear when shot in
throat
3/65 tom howard* ruby's first lawyer, was in heart attack
ruby's apartment on 11/24/63
5/65 maurice gatlin* pilot for guy banister fatal fall
8/65 mona b. saenz* texas employment clerk who hit by dallas bus
interviewed oswald
?/65 david goldstein dallasite who helped fbi trace natural causes
oswald's pistol
9/65 rose cheramie* knew of assassination in hit/run victim
advance, told of riding to
dallas with cubans
11/65 dorothy * columnist who had private drug overdose
kilgallen interview with ruby, pledged
to "break jfk case"
11/65 mrs earl smith* close friend to dorothy kil- unknown
gallen, died two days after
columnist, may have kept notes
12/65 william whaley* cab driver who reportedly drove motor collision (the
oswald to oak cliff only dallas taxi driver
to die on duty
1966 judge joe brown presided over ruby's trial heart attack
1966 karen "little ruby employee who last talked gunshot victim
lynn" carlin* with ruby before oswald
shooting
1/66 earline roberts oswald's landlady heart attack
2/66 albert bogard* car salesman who said oswald suicide
test drove new car
6/66 capt. frank dallas police captain who cancer
martin witnessed oswald slaying, told
warren commission, "there's
alot to be said but probably
be better if i don't say it."
8/66 lee bowers,jr.* witnessed man behind picket motor accident
fence on grassy knoll
9/66 marilyn ruby dancer shot by husband
"delilah"* after one month
walle of marriage
10/66 william pitzer* jfk autopsy photographer who gunshot, ruled
described his duty as a suicide
"horrifying experience"
11/66 jimmy levens fort worth nightclub owner natural causes
who hired ruby employees
11/66 james worrell* saw man flee rear of texas motor accident
schoolbook depository
1966 clarence oliver d.a. investigator who worked unknown
ruby case.
12/66 hank suydam life mag official in charge heart attack
of jfk stories
The Garrison Inquiry
date name connection with case cause of death
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1967 Leonard Pullin civilian navy employee who one-car crash
helped film "last two days"
about assassination
1/67 jack ruby* oswald's slayer lung cancer (he told
family he was injected
with cancer cells)
2/67 harold russell* saw escape of tippit killer killed by cop in
barroom brawl
2/67 david ferrie* acquaintance of oswald, blow to neck, ruled
garrison suspect, employee accidental
of guy bannister
2/67 eladio del anti-castro cuban associate gunshot wound, ax wound
valle * of david ferrie being sought to head
by garrison
3/67 dr. mary ferrie associate working on died in fire, possibly
sherman * cancer research shot
1/68 a.d. bowie asst dallas d.a. prosecuting cancer
ruby
4/68 hiram ingram dallas deputy sheriff, close cancer
friend to roger craig
5/68 dr. nicholas new orleans coroner who ruled heart attack
chetta on death of ferrie
8/68 philip geraci* friend of perry russo, told electrocution
of oswald/shaw conversation
1/69 henry delaune* brother-in-law to coroner chetta murdered
1/69 e.r. walthers* dallas deputy sheriff who was shot by felon
involved in depository search,
claimed to have found .45
caliber slug
1969 charles filmed rifle other than heart attack
mantesana mannlicher-carcano being taken
from depository
4/69 mary bledsoe neighbor to oswald, also new natural causes
ferrie
4/69 john crawford* close friend to both ruby and crash of private plane
wesley frazier, who gave ride
to oswald on 11/22/63
7/69 rev. clyde scheduled to testify about clay fatally shot
johnson * shaw oswald connection
1970 george mcmann* underworld figure connected murdered
to ruby's friends; wife took
film in dealey plaza
1/70 darrel garner arrested for shooting warren drug overdose
reynolds, released after
alibi from betty mcdonald
8/70 bill decker dallas sheriff who saw bullet natural causes
hit street in front of jfk
8/70 abraham took famous film of jfk assass, natural causes
zapruder
12/70 salvatore mobster linked to hoffa, murdered
granello* trafficante,castro assassination
plots
1971 james plumeri* mobster tied to mob-cia murdered
assassination plots
3/71 clayton fowler ruby's chief defense atty. unknown
4/71 gen. charles cia deputy director connected collapsed and died
cabell * to anti-castro cubans after physical at
fort myers
The Church Committee Investigation
date name connection to case cause of death
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1972 hale boggs* house majority leader, member disappeared on alaskan
of warren commission who began plane flight
to publicly express doubts
about findings
5/72 j edgar hoover* fbi director who pushed "lone heart attack (no
assassin" theory autopsy)
9/73 thomas davis* gun runner connected to both electrocuted trying
ruby and cia to steal wire
2/74 j.a. milteer* miami right-winger who heater explosion
predicted jfk's death and
capture of scapegoat to a
police informant
1974 dave yaras* close friend to both Hoffa murdered
and jack ruby
7/74 earl warren chief justice who reluctantly heart failure
chaired warren commission
8/74 clay shaw* prime suspect in garrison possible cancer
case, reportedly a cia
contact with ferrie and
e. howard hunt
1974 earle cabell mayor of dallas on 11/22/63 natural causes
whose brother, gen charles
cabell, was fired from cia
by jfk
6/75 sam giancana* chicago mafia boss slated to murdered
tell about cia-mob death
plots to senate committee
1975 clyde tolson j edgar hoovers asst and natural causes
roommate
7/75 allan sweatt dallas deputy sheriff involved natural causes
in investigation
12/75 gen. earl contact between cia and jfk unknown
wheeler
1976 ralph paul ruby's business partner heart attack
connected with crime figures
4/76 dr. charles gov john connally's physician heart attack
gregory
6/76 william harvey* cia coordinator for cia-mob complications of
assassination plans against heart surgery
castro
7/76 john roselli* mobster who testified to stabbed and stuffed
senate, was to appear again in metal drum
House Select Committee on Assassinations
date name connection with case cause of death
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/77 william pawley* former brazilian embassador gunshot, ruled suicide
connected to anti-castro cubans
and crime figures
3/77 george * close friend to both oswald and gunshot wound, ruled
demohrenschildt bouvier family (jackie kennedy's suicide
parents), cia contract agent
3/77 carlos prio* formerly cuban president, gunshot wound, ruled
soccaras money man for anti-castro cubans suicide
3/77 paul raigorodsky business friend of george natural causes
demohrenschildt and wealthy
oilman
5/77 lou staples* dallas radio talk show host gunshot wound to head
who told friends he would ruled suicide
break assassination case
6/77 louis nichols former number-3 man in fbi heart attack
worked on jfk assassination
8/77 alan belmont fbi official who testified to "long illness"
warren commission
8/77 james cadigan fbi document expert who fall in home
testified to warren commission
8/77 joseph ayres* chief steward on jfk's air shooting accident
force one
8/77 francis powers* u-2 pilot downed in russia in helicopter crash (he
1960 reportedly ran out
of fuel
9/77 kenneth jfk's closest aide natural causes
o'donnell
10/77 donald kaylor fbi fingerprint chemist heart attack
10/77 j.m. english former head of fbi forensic heart attack
sciences laboratory
11/77 william former number-3 man in fbi, hunting accident
sullivan * headed division 5, counter-
espionage and domestic intelligence
1978 c.l. "lummie" dallas deputy sheriff who natural causes
lewis arrested mafia man braden in
dealey plaza
9/78 garland slack man who said oswald fired at unknown
his target at rifle range
1/79 bill lovelady depository employee said to complications from
be man in doorway in ap heart attack
photo
6/80 jesse curry dallas police chief at time of heart attack
assassination
6/80 dr. john psychiatrist who testified ruby heart attack, but pills
holbrook was not insane and notes found
1/81 marguerite mother of accused assassin cancer
oswald
10/81 frank watts chief felony prosecutor for natural causes
dallas d.a.
1/82 peter gregory original translator for marina natural causess
oswald and secret service
5/82 dr. james pathologist allowed to see jfk died while jogging,
weston autopsy material for hsca ruled natural causes
8/82 will griffin fbi agent who said oswald cancer
"definitely an informant"
10/82 w. marvin fbi official who helped natural causes
gheesling supervise jfk investigation
3/84 roy kellerman secret service agent in charge unknown
of jfk limousine
Source: "Crossfire", Jim Marrs, Carroll and Graf, 1989.
--
Steve Feinstein
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| INTERNET: srf@juliet.ll.mit.edu |
| USmail: S. Feinstein, MIT Lincoln Lab, 29 Hartwell Ave., |
| Lexington, MA 02173 USA |
| VOICE: (617) 981-4017 |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Article: 10013 of sci.skeptic
Path: ns-mx!iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu!ceres.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!spool.mu.edu!
news.nd.edu!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!purdue!haven!umd5!emanon.cs.jhu.edu!arromdee
From: arromdee@cs.jhu.edu (Kenneth Arromdee)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: JFK: List of Convenient Deaths
Message-ID: <10474@emanon.cs.jhu.edu>
Date: 26 Mar 91 04:26:30 GMT
References: <SRF.91Mar25191057@claudius.juliet.ll.mit.edu>
Reply-To: arromdee@cs.jhu.edu (Kenneth Arromdee)
Distribution: sci.skeptic
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Lines: 18
In article <SRF.91Mar25191057@claudius.juliet.ll.mit.edu> srf@claudius.juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Steve Feinstein) writes:
>
> Here is the much requested list of people associated with the JFK
>assassination whose deaths are called convenient. Bear in mind that
Here's a project for you: Count how many people are associated with the JFK
assasination, either dead or alive.
Now figure how many of those people should have been expected, according to
statistics, to die in the 20 year period referred to.
Now compare to the size of your list.
--
"If God can do anything, can he float a loan even he can't repay?"
--Blair Houghton, cross-posting
Kenneth Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
INTERNET: arromdee@cs.jhu.edu)
Article: 10016 of sci.skeptic
Path: ns-mx!iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu!ceres.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!mit-eddie!xn.ll.mit.edu!xn!srf
From: srf@claudius.juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Steve Feinstein)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: JFK: List of Convenient Deaths
Message-ID: <SRF.91Mar26091329@claudius.juliet.ll.mit.edu>
Date: 26 Mar 91 15:13:29 GMT
References: <SRF.91Mar25191057@claudius.juliet.ll.mit.edu><10474@emanon.cs.jhu.edu>
Sender: usenet@xn.ll.mit.edu
Distribution: sci.skeptic
Organization: M.I.T. Lincoln Lab - Group 43
Lines: 49
In-Reply-To: arromdee@cs.jhu.edu's message of 26 Mar 91 04:26:30 GMT
In article <10474@emanon.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@cs.jhu.edu (Kenneth Arromdee) writes:
> Here's a project for you: Count how many people are associated with the JFK
> assasination, either dead or alive.
>
> Now figure how many of those people should have been expected, according to
> statistics, to die in the 20 year period referred to.
>
> Now compare to the size of your list.
This is exactly the vacuous CIA response. Having typed in over 400 lines, if
you're going to respond, the least you can do is read it and not just count the
names. I'm sure I don't have to explain the difference between natural
causes and death by murder or suspected murder near the time of testimony.
What you should do is count how many people were in Jack Ruby's apartment
the day he killed Oswald and how many of them died within 1 to 2 years of
that day. The answer is all three of them.
The FBI interviewed 25,000 people, attempting to find everyone remotely
involved in the case. Many people were connected who were not a threat
to the conspirators, either because they lacked damaging information or
they kept their mouths shut. The thing to look at is how many people died
who had damaging information, how many were willing to share the information
with the public, and how many of them would you expect to die during a given
period. And, how many of those deaths would you expect to be by "natural
causes", accidents and murders, neglecting for the moment that the first
two causes can be faked. The number of people who were dangerous to the
alleged conspirators was certainly less than 25,000. The HSCA did not even
attempt this analysis, saying it was too difficult to come up with meaningful
numbers. They just accepted the line that 100 deaths out of 25,000 is not
high for the given period. But how many people knew about the Ruby-Oswald
connection, and spoke about it? About the same number who died. How many
people had foreknowledge of the assassination, communicated it and were to
answer questions about it -- people like Milteer and Cheramie? How many of
those people died suspiciously? Too many for me to not be *skeptical* about
the official version of events.
All I can say is that for a group that calls itself skeptical, there are
alot of people who seem to believe the Warren Commission's conclusions.
That's no way to get a good reputation.
--
Steve Feinstein
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| INTERNET: srf@juliet.ll.mit.edu |
| USmail: S. Feinstein, MIT Lincoln Lab, 29 Hartwell Ave., |
| Lexington, MA 02173 USA |
| VOICE: (617) 981-4017 |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Article: 10026 of sci.skeptic
Path: ns-mx!uunet!europa.asd.contel.com!sura.net!haven!umd5!emanon.cs.jhu.edu!arromdee
From: arromdee@cs.jhu.edu (Kenneth Arromdee)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: JFK: List of Convenient Deaths
Message-ID: <10477@emanon.cs.jhu.edu>
Date: 26 Mar 91 18:26:47 GMT
References: <SRF.91Mar26091329@claudius.juliet.ll.mit.edu>
Reply-To: arromdee@cs.jhu.edu (Kenneth Arromdee)
Distribution: sci.skeptic
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Lines: 56
In article <SRF.91Mar26091329@claudius.juliet.ll.mit.edu> srf@claudius.juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Steve Feinstein) writes:
>> Here's a project for you: Count how many people are associated with the JFK
>> assasination, either dead or alive.
>> Now figure how many of those people should have been expected, according to
>> statistics, to die in the 20 year period referred to.
>> Now compare to the size of your list.
>This is exactly the vacuous CIA response. Having typed in over 400 lines, if
>you're going to respond, the least you can do is read it and not just count the
>names. I'm sure I don't have to explain the difference between natural
>causes and death by murder or suspected murder near the time of testimony.
You know what?
I never saw the CIA response.
Which means that, according to you, I have found the exact same flaw in your
data that the CIA did, despite having no contact with them and not reading
what they said. It would be very curious were the CIA to make something up,
and then when I look for flaws in your argument I see the exact same flaw that
the CIA supposedly made up, even though I looked at it totally independently
of the CIA. Perhaps the flaw is really there, and that's why both I and the
CIA can find it without consulting each other?
How can you separate out "suspected murder" from natural causes? You can't
find statistics saying that in 25000 people so and so many die by murder, so
and so die by suspected murder, and so and so die by natural causes. If you
want to say that more people in this group were murdered than the statistics
predict, you don't get to count the "suspected" murders.
>... The number of people who were dangerous to the
>alleged conspirators was certainly less than 25,000. The HSCA did not even
>attempt this analysis, saying it was too difficult to come up with meaningful
>numbers. They just accepted the line that 100 deaths out of 25,000 is not
>high for the given period. But how many people knew about the Ruby-Oswald
>connection, and spoke about it? About the same number who died. How many
>people had foreknowledge of the assassination, communicated it and were to
>answer questions about it -- people like Milteer and Cheramie? How many of
>those people died suspiciously? Too many for me to not be *skeptical* about
>the official version of events.
Imagine that you are wrong. Oswald killed Kennedy. But also, I come along
and want to promote a conspiracy theory that is false. What can I do? Well,
I can look at those 25000 people and see that 100 of them died. Then, I can
decide, after the fact, that all 100 of those people must have been dangerous
to the conspirators. Then I can shout "look here, 100 of 100 potential
victims were killed! Must be a conspiracy!"
Do you really have any reason to consider those 100 people special _other_
than "I can pick people as 'special' based on their deaths. Then I can
conclude a conspiracy because the deaths were all of 'special' people"?
--
"If God can do anything, can he float a loan even he can't repay?"
--Blair Houghton, cross-posting
Kenneth Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
INTERNET: arromdee@cs.jhu.edu)
Article: 10038 of sci.skeptic
Path: ns-mx!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ncar!gatech!prism!gt6392b
From: gt6392b@prism.gatech.EDU (Mark D. Fisher)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: JFK: List of Convenient Deaths
Message-ID: <25079@hydra.gatech.EDU>
Date: 27 Mar 91 15:52:53 GMT
References: <SRF.91Mar25191057@claudius.juliet.ll.mit.edu> <10474@emanon.cs.jhu.edu>
Distribution: sci.skeptic
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology
Lines: 22
In article <10474@emanon.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@cs.jhu.edu (Kenneth Arromdee) writes:
>Here's a project for you: Count how many people are associated with the JFK
>assasination, either dead or alive.
>
>Now figure how many of those people should have been expected, according to
>statistics, to die in the 20 year period referred to.
>
>Now compare to the size of your list.
That would not have any meaning unless the people he had listed included
everyone that was connected to the assasination, or a randomly pick sample of
that population. However these are people that were placed on the list because
they were dead. Suppose one million people were connected to the event in a
way at least as strong as the connections that the people on the list were and
that the list included every one of them that died. Then no matter how
unlikely it was for any individual person on that list to die when they did
statistics would indicate it to be safer to be connected to the incedent.
Therefore the list really doesn't prove anything one way or another.
As always,
Fish
Article: 10039 of sci.skeptic
Path: ns-mx!uunet!spool.mu.edu!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!batcomputer!cornell!uw-beaver!mit-eddie!xn.ll.mit.edu!xn!srf
From: srf@claudius.juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Steve Feinstein)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: JFK: List of Convenient Deaths
Message-ID: <SRF.91Mar27102634@claudius.juliet.ll.mit.edu>
Date: 27 Mar 91 15:26:34 GMT
References: <SRF.91Mar26091329@claudius.juliet.ll.mit.edu>
<10477@emanon.cs.jhu.edu>
Sender: usenet@xn.ll.mit.edu
Distribution: sci.skeptic
Organization: M.I.T. Lincoln Lab - Group 43
Lines: 150
Posted: Wed Mar 27 09:26:34 1991
In-Reply-To: arromdee@cs.jhu.edu's message of 26 Mar 91 18:26:47 GMT
In article <10477@emanon.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@cs.jhu.edu (Kenneth Arromdee) writes:
>You know what?
>I never saw the CIA response.
>Which means that, according to you, I have found the exact same flaw in your
>data that the CIA did, despite having no contact with them and not reading
>what they said. It would be very curious were the CIA to make something up,
>and then when I look for flaws in your argument I see the exact same flaw that
>the CIA supposedly made up, even though I looked at it totally independently
>of the CIA. Perhaps the flaw is really there, and that's why both I and the
>CIA can find it without consulting each other?
>
>How can you separate out "suspected murder" from natural causes? You can't
>find statistics saying that in 25000 people so and so many die by murder, so
>and so die by suspected murder, and so and so die by natural causes. If you
>want to say that more people in this group were murdered than the statistics
>predict, you don't get to count the "suspected" murders.
>[...]
>Imagine that you are wrong. Oswald killed Kennedy. But also, I come along
>and want to promote a conspiracy theory that is false. What can I do? Well,
>I can look at those 25000 people and see that 100 of them died. Then, I can
>decide, after the fact, that all 100 of those people must have been dangerous
>to the conspirators. Then I can shout "look here, 100 of 100 potential
>victims were killed! Must be a conspiracy!"
>
>Do you really have any reason to consider those 100 people special _other_
>than "I can pick people as 'special' based on their deaths. Then I can
>conclude a conspiracy because the deaths were all of 'special' people"?
>
To repeat my earlier comments, the list does not prove that a
conspiracy exists/existed. What it proves is that there were
a number of deaths which are *suspicious* for some combination
of reasons, not all of which are elaborated on, obviously.
It is not necessary to prove anything more than that *one*
person was killed because of such reasons. Such proof
would imply that someone other than Oswald needed
to hide information to such a degree that they would
commit murder. Now, for argument's sake, suppose we
had such proof, yet in 28 years since the assassination,
this was the only person connected with the case to
die. Does that prove there was no conspiracy? Of course
not, because we know a priori that an assassination-
related murder occurred (note that this is not a
"suspicious" death, but a death definitely linked to
the case).
What is actually contained in this list? There is no
proof that a single person actually was killed for what
they knew about the assassination. However, there are
*individual* cases which should not be buried in
aggregate statistical arguments -- use aggregate statistics
when you have no more information than numbers of people,
or when you goal is to obfuscate the truth, which, hopefully,
in this case is not true. This is the point of providing the
list. The flaw in the presentation is that it's hard to flush
out so many details. But let's look at a couple.
Joseph Milteer: This is a man who was *tape recorded* by
a police informant on 11/6/63 describing the assassination
plot against Kennedy in Miami in detail (that he would be
hit from an office building with a high-powered rifle and
that someone would be picked up afterwards to "throw the
public off"). When the Miami motorcade was canceled, he
later called the same informant from Dallas on 11/22/63
saying that Kennedy would be hit. The tape was turned
over to Miami police who forwarded it to the FBI. The
Secret Service in Dallas apparently never got wind of
this information. On 11/27/63, Milteer denied making the
remarks attributed to him when questioned by the FBI. He was
called in for more questioning, but died before he could
make it in. The cause of death was "burns received from
a heater explosion in his vacation cabin". Milteer was
known to be a right-wing extremist with connections to
anti-Castro Cubans.
You cannot tell me that this is not suspicious. Of course,
it's not *proof*, but if we were to find several "equally
suspicious" cases, we would certainly want to look into
them further. Let's take another case.
Dorothy Kilgallen: One of the only reporters to interview
Jack Ruby during his trial, claimed to be carrying a message
to Ruby from a mutual friend. Ruby and Kilgallen met
privately for eight minutes behind the judge's bench without
the four sheriff's deputies who always accompanied him.
This nationally syndicated columnist did not write about
this meeting. Her biographer suggested that "either a) she
was saving the material for her book "Murder One", b) he
furnished her with a lead which she was pursuing, c) that
he exacted a promise of confidentiality from her, or
d) that she was acting merely as a courier. Each
possibility puts her in the thick of things."
Another possible source of information for Kilgallen was her
drinking friend, Joan Crawford, who was a principal owner of
Pepsi-Cola, for whom Richard Nixon was an attorney. Both
Nixon and Crawford were in Dallas during the assassination
and there is information which opens the possibility that
Nixon and Crawford were privy to some information. Among
Nixon's lifelong connections to the mob is Jack Ruby himself
who used to work for Nixon. Or did you believe that Nixon
"was no crook"?
Back to Kilgallen, she told attorney Mark Lane, "They've
killed the President, the government is not prepared to tell
us the truth..." and that she planned to "break the case".
She told others, "this *has* to be a conspiracy! The Warren
Commission is laughable...I'm going to break the real story
and have the biggest scoop of the century". Her last
column appeared on 9/3/65 in which she wrote, "this story
isn't going to die as long as there's a real reporter
alive -- and there are alot of them." Kilgallen was found
dead in her home on 11/8/65, originally called a heart
attack, then changed to a drug and alcohol overdose,
circumstances undetermined. Her biographer wrote
After three years of investigating Dorothy's
death, it is clear to me that she did not die
accidentally and that a network of varied activies,
impelled by disparate purposes, conspired effectively
to obfuscate the truth.
Dorothy's close friend, Mrs. Earl Smith, was thought to
have kept Kilgallen's notes. Smith died two days after
Kilgallen, cause of death unknown. No notes were ever
found.
Again, you will never convince me that this is not
suspicious. I could go on.
As long as there are strong suggestions of multiple
assassination-related deaths, listing those deaths
supports, but in no way proves, that a conspiracy
took place. That is the purpose of the list that
I posted.
The fact that you and the CIA came up with the same
lame reasoning to write off all of these cases, only
proves that people independently will play on the
same misconceptions in the same way, either honestly
or dishonestly, to further their respective causes.
--
Steve Feinstein
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| INTERNET: srf@juliet.ll.mit.edu |
| USmail: S. Feinstein, MIT Lincoln Lab, 29 Hartwell Ave., |
| Lexington, MA 02173 USA |
| VOICE: (617) 981-4017 |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Article: 10042 of sci.skeptic
Path: ns-mx!uunet!europa.asd.contel.com!sura.net!haven!umd5!emanon.cs.jhu.edu!arromdee
From: arromdee@cs.jhu.edu (Kenneth Arromdee)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: JFK: List of Convenient Deaths
Message-ID: <10479@emanon.cs.jhu.edu>
Date: 27 Mar 91 19:47:46 GMT
References: <SRF.91Mar27102634@claudius.juliet.ll.mit.edu>
Reply-To: arromdee@cs.jhu.edu (Kenneth Arromdee)
Distribution: sci.skeptic
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Lines: 28
In article <SRF.91Mar27102634@claudius.juliet.ll.mit.edu> srf@claudius.juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Steve Feinstein) writes:
>As long as there are strong suggestions of multiple
>assassination-related deaths, listing those deaths
>supports, but in no way proves, that a conspiracy
>took place. That is the purpose of the list that
>I posted.
If you have one death without proof of assassination, and then you find another
death without proof of assassination, what you now have is two deaths without
proof of assassination.
Pointing to "suspiciousness" as evidence has the same problem as pointing to
deaths as evidence: in 25000 people, just like you could expect a certain
number of deaths, you could expect a number of deaths that occur under unusual
circumstances. You can then select those people for special consideration and
say "look how suspicious these are" when in a group of that size you should
really expect events that appear suspicious but have nothing behind them.
(The fallacy often appears in reference to more explicitly-stated statistics.
If the odds are 100 to 1 against something being caused by chance, it could
still very well be chance if you had to look through a hundred things to find
it.)
--
"If God can do anything, can he float a loan even he can't repay?"
--Blair Houghton, cross-posting
Kenneth Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
INTERNET: arromdee@cs.jhu.edu)
Article: 10048 of sci.skeptic
Path: ns-mx!iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu!maverick.ksu.ksu.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!psych.toronto.edu!daniel
From: daniel@psych.toronto.edu (Daniel Read)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: JFK: List of Convenient Deaths
Message-ID: <1991Mar28.000446.10856@psych.toronto.edu>
Date: 28 Mar 91 00:04:46 GMT
References: <SRF.91Mar27102634@claudius.juliet.ll.mit.edu> <10479@emanon.cs.jhu.edu>
Distribution: sci.skeptic
Organization: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto
Lines: 26
In article <10479@emanon.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@cs.jhu.edu (Kenneth Arromdee) writes:
>
>If you have one death without proof of assassination, and then you find another
>death without proof of assassination, what you now have is two deaths without
>proof of assassination.
>
>Pointing to "suspiciousness" as evidence has the same problem as pointing to
>deaths as evidence: in 25000 people, just like you could expect a certain
>number of deaths, you could expect a number of deaths that occur under unusual
>circumstances. You can then select those people for special consideration and
>say "look how suspicious these are" when in a group of that size you should
>really expect events that appear suspicious but have nothing behind them.
>
>(The fallacy often appears in reference to more explicitly-stated statistics.
>If the odds are 100 to 1 against something being caused by chance, it could
>still very well be chance if you had to look through a hundred things to find
>it.)
>--
This is not a fallacy. You are arguing that the original poster has
insufficient data to prove their claim. Granted, this is true.
You, however, have no data and an alternative hypothesis. I think
you should get the data to refute your opponent and stop doing
thought experiments.
daniel
Article: 10051 of sci.skeptic
Path: ns-mx!iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu!ceres.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!
decwrl!mcnc!uvaarpa!haven!umd5!emanon.cs.jhu.edu!arromdee
From: arromdee@cs.jhu.edu (Kenneth Arromdee)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: JFK: List of Convenient Deaths
Message-ID: <10484@emanon.cs.jhu.edu>
Date: 28 Mar 91 03:05:29 GMT
References: <1991Mar28.000446.10856@psych.toronto.edu>
Reply-To: arromdee@cs.jhu.edu (Kenneth Arromdee)
Distribution: sci.skeptic
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Lines: 22
In article <1991Mar28.000446.10856@psych.toronto.edu> daniel@psych.toronto.edu (Daniel Read) writes:
>>(The fallacy often appears in reference to more explicitly-stated statistics.
>>If the odds are 100 to 1 against something being caused by chance, it could
>>still very well be chance if you had to look through a hundred things to find
>>it.)
>This is not a fallacy. You are arguing that the original poster has
>insufficient data to prove their claim. Granted, this is true.
>You, however, have no data and an alternative hypothesis. I think
>you should get the data to refute your opponent and stop doing
>thought experiments.
I gave my hypothesis. It's the null hypothesis.
If the other poster wishes to make a claim, he should prove it. If he cannot
prove it (and you admit he can't), I have no obligation to _dis_prove it in
order to object to it.
--
"If God can do anything, can he float a loan even he can't repay?"
--Blair Houghton, cross-posting
Kenneth Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
INTERNET: arromdee@cs.jhu.edu)
Article: 10056 of sci.skeptic
Path: ns-mx!iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu!maverick.ksu.ksu.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ncar!asuvax!ukma!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!abvax!iccgcc!kambic
From: kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: JFK: List of Convenient Deaths
Message-ID: <4010.27f1d606@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com>
Date: 28 Mar 91 16:39:50 GMT
References: <SRF.91Mar25191057@claudius.juliet.ll.mit.edu> <10474@emanon.cs.jhu.edu> <SRF.91Mar26091329@claudius.juliet.ll.mit.edu>
Distribution: sci.skeptic
Lines: 33
In article <SRF.91Mar26091329@claudius.juliet.ll.mit.edu>, srf@claudius.juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Steve Feinstein) writes:
>> Now figure how many of those people should have been expected, according to
>> statistics, to die in the 20 year period referred to.
>>
> The FBI interviewed 25,000 people, attempting to find everyone remotely
> involved in the case. Many people were connected who were not a threat
> to the conspirators, either because they lacked damaging information or
> they kept their mouths shut. The thing to look at is how many people died
> who had damaging information, how many were willing to share the information
> with the public, and how many of them would you expect to die during a given
> period. And, how many of those deaths would you expect to be by "natural
> causes", accidents and murders, neglecting for the moment that the first
> two causes can be faked.
The list is interesting. I think though that it points more to the convoluted
theory required to support the conspiracy. One of the implications of this
theory is that everything has gone *exactly* right for the alleged conspiracy
over the years, while all attempts to investigate it have been sidetracked, or
eliminated. What is the size of the conspiracy required to interview 25K
people, filter all their reports, exclude the "nuts" and only eliminate only
those right ones, while keeping all of the "good guys" in the police, FBI,
Congress, and Warren commission at bay and in the dark, unless all of those
groups were in on it from the beginning completely.
Look - thanks for actually posting the data - it sure indicates you're serious,
but right now....I are still skeptical. Why? See above. Forgot Alvarez
again. After Easter.
GXKambic
standard disclaimer
> those people died suspiciously? Too many for me to not be *skeptical* about
> the official version of events.
>
Article: 10057 of sci.skeptic
Path: ns-mx!iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu!maverick.ksu.ksu.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!mit-eddie!xn.ll.mit.edu!xn!srf
From: srf@claudius.juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Steve Feinstein)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: JFK: List of Convenient Deaths
Message-ID: <SRF.91Mar28125044@claudius.juliet.ll.mit.edu>
Date: 28 Mar 91 18:50:44 GMT
References: <SRF.91Mar27102634@claudius.juliet.ll.mit.edu><10479@emanon.cs.jhu.edu>
Sender: usenet@xn.ll.mit.edu
Distribution: sci.skeptic
Organization: M.I.T. Lincoln Lab - Group 43
Lines: 157
In-Reply-To: arromdee@cs.jhu.edu's message of 27 Mar 91 19:47:46 GMT
>If you have one death without proof of assassination,and then you find another
>death without proof of assassination, what you now have is two deaths without
>proof of assassination.
If you have one death that is linked in numerous ways to the assassination,
you can assign a probability that that death is related (to the assassination).
If you have two such deaths, the probability that either or both were related
is higher than the probability of each being related.
>
>Pointing to "suspiciousness" as evidence has the same problem as pointing to
>deaths as evidence: in 25000 people, just like you could expect a certain
>number of deaths, you could expect a number of deaths that occur under unusual
>circumstances. You can then select those people for special consideration and
>say "look how suspicious these are" when in a group of that size you should
>really expect events that appear suspicious but have nothing behind them.
>
The selection of these people is hardly arbitrary. If other people who didn't
die lived to provide as damaging information as those who did die, we'd
have alot of evidence that was damaging to somebody. But we don't have that
because they were silenced. Let me elaborate.
Of the 25000, let's categorize as follows:
1. People who had no information to contradict official version.
2. People who had information to contradict official version.
a. those who were blunted, i.e. ignored or tricked.
b. those who changed their story.
c. those who kept their story but didn't have
threatening info to would-be conspirators.
d. those who kept their story which was damaging to would-be
conspirators.
i. those who had talked, were talking, or were about to talk.
ii. those who kept their mouths shut.
This is simplistic, but I can still make my point. Now, we have alot of
information available to suggest what kind of breakdown would be reasonable
as far as the number of people in each category. For example, most people in
Dealey Plaza who had contradictory testimony contradicted it by saying they
were sure that shots were fired from the Grassy Knoll or from behind the
picket fence, etc. These kinds of contradictions were easily dealt with by
the Warren Commission, and although they were never fully squashed, they're
not considered conclusive. Even if they were, they wouldn't threaten anyone
enough to cause a murder, since they didn't identify any people who might
have been involved. Other kinds of contradictory stories were dealt with
similarly, as documentation shows, for example, the woman who had to wait in
traffic behind a van under the Triple Underpass while a man took a long
brown bag possibly with a rifle in it and headed toward the Grassy Knoll.
(11:30am 11/22/63). Many such stories were left out of the report, or
the witnesses were not even called. There is ample evidence to suggest
that many people were convinced to change their story. So we can say that
categories 1 and 2a-c are sizeable. 2d is made up of people who have
threatening information to conspirators if they exist. We are assuming
for the moment that they do. To have threatening information means that
personal relationships are understood and verified by the witness which
connect people, with critical knowledge, or actions connected with the
assassination. For example, a waitress who can verify or at least
corroborate a story that shows that Ruby and Oswald knew each other well
before the assassination. If many pieces of info of this kind are
found, the situation for conspirators is hurt. What kind of people
would have such information? Not the average guy or gal in Dealey Plaza
on his/her lunch break. These would be people who would have had prior
contact with conspirators in some way. People who found themselves on
the periphery of the plot somehow. For example, an FBI official who
smells a rat, a reporter who has the right connections, a man who can
verify that Oswald was not where he was said to be at such and such time,
etc. Knowing how gangland business happens, threats often preceed
action. Therefore we can also say that of the people in 2d, many would
have good reason to not talk. "JFK is not coming back from the dead, why
should I join him?"
Let's assume that given a conspiracy, the conspirators would only murder
people in the 2.d.ii. category. Let's also assume that when someone
known to have info mysteriously dies, others who know of the
circumstances are less likely to talk. We know that rumors were indeed
rampant about these deaths. We also know of individual cases like Ruby's
waitress who was in fact quite bold, was killed, and whose two
waitress friends respectively disappeared and refused to utter a syllable,
understandably.
Now regardless of the exact numbers we assign to each category, and
I can assure you that 2.d.ii. is small compared to the total, how
could we decide on the likelihood that a conspiracy took place?
We have to try to isolate the set of data which would be affected by
the presence of a conspiracy or lack thereof. We cannot know who
is in 2.d.i. However, we can estimate who is in 2.d.ii. by
realizing that a relationship exists between those in 2.d.ii. and
those whose stories we find out about. By definition of "telling
a story" we can figure that someone is listening. Given that several
researchers have spent years digging up such stories and investigating
these deaths, we can figure that almost all of these stories have
been told in at least partial detail. The question then becomes
how to estimate the number of people in 2.d.ii with a given level
of confidence given a conspiracy. Then, having established the
relevant population, find the expected number of deaths for such a group
given no conspiracy and hence no JFK related deaths, and compare it to
the actual number of deaths for this group.
I have not done this analysis, nor am I aware of anyone doing such
an analysis. But let's assume that of 25000, 95% fall into categories
1, 2a, 2b, and 2c, leaving 5% in 2d. We assume that most people are
smart enough not to make trouble for themselves and don't talk, esp.
after a threat or rumor. However, let's say that 1% of people in
2d go the dumb route and try to cross powerful people who are scared
for their own lives. Then of the 25000, we are down to 125 who need
to be dealt with. Let's assume that the conspirators are smart, don't
want to have to kill 125 people and make things look too suspicious,
so they kill critical ones, threaten the others, kill some more who
haven't stopped talking, threaten some more, etc. Perhaps 50
out of the total had to be killed. This is exactly the kind of
scenario described in the list. How do you tell this scenario from
the null hypothesis? By scrutinizing the individual cases to ascertain
who was causing trouble for would-be conspirators, and how many of them
got killed or shut up in other ways. SINCE ALL OR MOST OF THOSE KNOWN
TO BE TROUBLE WERE SILENCED, WE CAN ASSUME THAT IN THAT POPULATION,
THEY WOULDN'T HAVE NORMALLY ALL DIED. Hence we are "suspicious".
What I have just postulated is that
1. The use of a complete population, say 25000, to base an analysis
is misguided since the majority of these people would not be affected
either way by the proof or disproof of the hypothesis under discussion.
2. We know which segment of the population to focus on; the task is
determine the likelihood that they were affected.
3. That group of people died in high numbers because we have not heard
of much seriously damaging testimony from people who survived and
continued to provide substantiation to investigation authorities.
The other way of looking at this is to note the following.
If one certain JFK-related death equals conspiracy, then if we assign a .5
probability that each of three deaths are JFK-related, the probability that
a JFK-related death occurred, i.e. that at least one of 3 was JFK-related,
is Pconsp=(2^3-1)/(2^3) = 0.875. Now, our dispute is over how to
pick our sample space. If the probability that Milteer was killed because of
what he said and was about to say is accepted as high, say .7, than there
is nothing wrong with saying that there is a .7 probability or better that
*anyone* was killed for said reason. You could assign a 0 probability to
the other 24,999 people, and Pconsp would still be .7.
Finding the most likely cases to be JFK-related in no way invalidates my
claim that there are such cases! Nor is it diminished in importance by
the fact that there were other people who died in unrelated ways.
You argue that there would have been suspicious deaths anyway, but you
disregard individual cases. You are concocting arguments which ignore reams
of information gathered over a number of years by many people, all for
the purpose of supporting your gut feeling. There are other very supicious
facts and behavior that add to the total suspicion and go beyond a first course
in probability.
--
Steve Feinstein
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| INTERNET: srf@juliet.ll.mit.edu |
| USmail: S. Feinstein, MIT Lincoln Lab, 29 Hartwell Ave., |
| Lexington, MA 02173 USA |
| VOICE: (617) 981-4017 |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Article: 10062 of sci.skeptic
Path: ns-mx!iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu!ceres.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!udel!haven!umd5!emanon.cs.jhu.edu!arromdee
From: arromdee@cs.jhu.edu (Kenneth Arromdee)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: JFK: List of Convenient Deaths
Message-ID: <10486@emanon.cs.jhu.edu>
Date: 28 Mar 91 19:52:55 GMT
References: <SRF.91Mar28125044@claudius.juliet.ll.mit.edu>
Reply-To: arromdee@cs.jhu.edu (Kenneth Arromdee)
Distribution: sci.skeptic
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Lines: 96
In article <SRF.91Mar28125044@claudius.juliet.ll.mit.edu> srf@claudius.juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Steve Feinstein) writes:
[Lots of stuff, most of which is true only under the assumption that the
conspiracy exists, and which therefore cannot be used as proof _for_ the
conspiracy.]
>>If you have one death without proof of assassination,and then you find another
>>death without proof of assassination, what you now have is two deaths without
>>proof of assassination.
>If you have one death that is linked in numerous ways to the assassination,
>you can assign a probability that that death is related (to the assassination).
>If you have two such deaths, the probability that either or both were related
>is higher than the probability of each being related.
This assumes independence of events.
If the events were not independent--if, for instance, you found one such event
by looking for the most suspicious handful from 25000 (or even 100) cases and
found the second event the same way--this does not apply.
"Without proof" means exactly that--it means you can't rule out some other
explanations, and those other explanations may apply to both events in a way
which prevents just combining probabilities like you wish to.
>>Pointing to "suspiciousness" as evidence has the same problem as pointing to
>>deaths as evidence: in 25000 people, just like you could expect a certain
>>number of deaths, you could expect a number of deaths that occur under unusual
>>circumstances. You can then select those people for special consideration and
>>say "look how suspicious these are" when in a group of that size you should
>>really expect events that appear suspicious but have nothing behind them.
>The selection of these people is hardly arbitrary. If other people who didn't
>die lived to provide as damaging information as those who did die, we'd
>have alot of evidence that was damaging to somebody. ...
What do you mean "provide as damaging information as those who did die"? You
mean that the people who died first provided damaging information? If you
meant that, surely you would have _shown_ us some of the information that
those people provided before they died.
No, what you mean is that these people did not provide any information, but
_if_ they had lived, they would have provided it. That's different.
Saying that someone "would have provided damaging information", and therefore
that there death is suspicious, is no better than just saying that their
death was suspicious; you can always point to _someone_ and say that they
_could_ have provided damaging information, since you have 100 people from
whom to choose that "someone" from.
>... How do you tell this scenario from
>the null hypothesis? By scrutinizing the individual cases to ascertain
>who was causing trouble for would-be conspirators, and how many of them
>got killed or shut up in other ways. SINCE ALL OR MOST OF THOSE KNOWN
>TO BE TROUBLE WERE SILENCED, WE CAN ASSUME THAT IN THAT POPULATION,
>THEY WOULDN'T HAVE NORMALLY ALL DIED. Hence we are "suspicious".
"Known to be trouble" is not well-defined. If there are 100 people who died,
you can always define "known to be trouble", after the fact, as just happening
to be that 100 people, and then the fact that all the deaths were of potential
troublemakers can be used to "prove" your case.
If you have some way to determine that a person is a potential troublemaker
independent of the fact that they died, you can then legitimately say that
more troublemakers died than expected. You haven't done this, though.
>1. The use of a complete population, say 25000, to base an analysis
>is misguided since the majority of these people would not be affected
>either way by the proof or disproof of the hypothesis under discussion.
Yes, they would. If the "hypothesis" is that you looked through the
cases and did a pick-and-choose to find the most suspicious looking cases,
the size of the complete population matters because the larger it is, the
more "suspicious" a case you could find this way.
>2. We know which segment of the population to focus on; the task is
>determine the likelihood that they were affected.
No, we do not know which segment.
>3. That group of people died in high numbers because we have not heard
>of much seriously damaging testimony from people who survived and
>continued to provide substantiation to investigation authorities.
It seems to be a persistent Usenet trait for people to join two otherwise
unrelated sentence by the word "because".
Not hearing damaging testimony from survivors proves nothing. Sure, if
people who could reveal a conspiracy all got killed, the survivors would
not give damaging testimony. But if there was no conspiracy, the survivors
_also_ would not give damaging testimony. In either case there is no
damaging testimony, and thus the lack of damaging testimony does not
distinguish between them.
--
"If God can do anything, can he float a loan even he can't repay?"
--Blair Houghton, cross-posting
Kenneth Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
INTERNET: arromdee@cs.jhu.edu)
Article: 10063 of sci.skeptic
Path: ns-mx!iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu!ceres.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ncar!gatech!prism!ejaska
From: ejaska@msd.gatech.edu (Esko A. Jaska)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: JFK: List of Convenient Deaths
Message-ID: <25163@hydra.gatech.EDU>
Date: 28 Mar 91 20:52:12 GMT
References: <SRF.91Mar28125044@claudius.juliet.ll.mit.edu>
Sender: news@prism.gatech.EDU
Distribution: sci.skeptic
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology
Lines: 12
In <SRF.91Mar28125044@claudius.juliet.ll.mit.edu> ( Steve Feinstein) writes:
>If you have one death that is linked in numerous ways to the assassination,
>you can assign a probability that that death is related (to the assassination).
>If you have two such deaths, the probability that either or both were related
>is higher than the probability of each being related.
If several people saw a co-worker in your office, and later you found a book
on the floor, you can assign a probability of that person having thrown the
book on the floor. But, if the whole bookcase is dumped you can be absolutely
certain that particular person is guilty.
--
Article: 10064 of sci.skeptic
Path: ns-mx!iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu!ceres.physics.uiowa.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ncar!gatech!prism!ejaska
From: ejaska@msd.gatech.edu (Esko A. Jaska)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: JFK: List of Convenient Deaths
Message-ID: <25168@hydra.gatech.EDU>
Date: 28 Mar 91 21:08:23 GMT
References: <SRF.91Mar26091329@claudius.juliet.ll.mit.edu> <10477@emanon.cs.jhu.edu> <SRF.91Mar27102634@claudius.juliet.ll.mit.edu>
Sender: news@prism.gatech.EDU
Distribution: sci.skeptic
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology
Lines: 14
In article <SRF.91Mar27102634@claudius.juliet.ll.mit.edu> srf@claudius.juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Steve Feinstein) writes:
>To repeat my earlier comments, the list does not prove that a
>conspiracy exists/existed. What it proves is that there were
>a number of deaths which are *suspicious* for some combination
>of reasons, not all of which are elaborated on, obviously.
I would consider it suspicious if the people on the list died of old age or
some such natural causes. After all, what kind of people were associated
with the assassination: reporters, police, dancers, mobsters, etc. None of
these professionals were old enough to be retired, and thus not very likely
to die of old age. When younger people die, it's usually heart attacks, cancer,
murder, or some violent acccient.
--
Article: 10066 of sci.skeptic
Path: ns-mx!iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu!maverick.ksu.ksu.edu!kuhub.cc.ukans.edu!wuarchive!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!mcnc!taco!ccvr1!hes
From: hes@ccvr1.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: JFK: List of Convenient Deaths
Message-ID: <1991Mar28.230205.25830@ncsu.edu>
Date: 28 Mar 91 23:02:05 GMT
References: <SRF.91Mar28125044@claudius.juliet.ll.mit.edu> <25163@hydra.gatech.EDU>
Sender: news@ncsu.edu (USENET News System)
Reply-To: hes@ccvr1.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer)
Distribution: sci.skeptic
Organization: NCSU Computing Center
Lines: 9
In article <25163@hydra.gatech.EDU> ejaska@msd.gatech.edu (Esko A. Jaska) writes:
>In <SRF.91Mar28125044@claudius.juliet.ll.mit.edu> ( Steve Feinstein) writes:
>
>>If you have one death that is linked in numerous ways to the assassination,
>>you can assign a probability that that death is related (to the assassination).
Of course you can "assign" a probability, but what is the basis for
the value assigned?
--henry schaffer
Article: 10084 of sci.skeptic
Path: ns-mx!uunet!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utorvm!ryerson!syst8103
From: SYST8103@Ryerson.CA (Ron Wigmore)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: JFK: List of Convenient Deaths
Message-ID: <91088.093913SYST8103@Ryerson.CA>
Date: 29 Mar 91 14:39:13 GMT
References: <SRF.91Mar25191057@claudius.juliet.ll.mit.edu>
<10474@emanon.cs.jhu.edu>
Distribution: sci.skeptic
Lines: 37
In article <10474@emanon.cs.jhu.edu>, arromdee@cs.jhu.edu (Kenneth Arromdee)
says:
>In article <SRF.91Mar25191057@claudius.juliet.ll.mit.edu>
>srf@claudius.juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Steve Feinstein) writes:
>> Here is the much requested list of people associated with the JFK
>>assassination whose deaths are called convenient. Bear in mind that
>
>Here's a project for you: Count how many people are associated with the JFK
>assasination, either dead or alive.
Here's an even bigger project for Steve: Let's assume Ken is a big time
crime and drug lord. Now, let's also assume Steve is running around
saying that Ken had JFK killed, even though Ken is innocent. Me, I say
Ken thinks for about 1.3 seconds and concludes "Gee, if Steve keeps
saying these things about me, there going to be even MORE cops (and FBI
and CIA) messing around, digging into my *illegal* operations. Time for
Steve to have a 'mysterious' death".
The result: We have a death directly related to the JFK assassination
at the same time it had nothing to do with the assassination. Part of a
conspiracy? No! Just Ken, the evil crime/drug lord he is (:-)), doing
what he has to to protect his operations, independent of JFK's assassination.
>Now figure how many of those people should have been expected, according to
>statistics, to die in the 20 year period referred to.
You also need to make sure you consider that many of those involved were
people involved in high-risk (undercover cops, etc.) jobs.
>Now compare to the size of your list.
But not before we consider why it is that the FBI/CIA have not yet
killed off Steve, and the others who compiled these 'statistics'.
Ron,,,
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
When contemplating my opinions above, remember, *I* work for the government!
Article: 10075 of sci.skeptic
Path: ns-mx!iowasp.physics.uiowa.edu!maverick.ksu.ksu.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!batcomputer!cornell!uw-beaver!mit-eddie!xn.ll.mit.edu!xn!srf
From: srf@claudius.juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Steve Feinstein)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: JFK Convenient Deaths
Message-ID: <SRF.91Mar29105150@claudius.juliet.ll.mit.edu>
Date: 29 Mar 91 16:51:50 GMT
Sender: usenet@xn.ll.mit.edu
Distribution: sci.skeptic
Organization: M.I.T. Lincoln Lab - Group 43
Lines: 77
I think we can agree on the following: A number of suspicious deaths occurred
of people who, if there was a conspiracy, were in the thick of it. There is
no absolute proof of conspiracy, yet there are a plethora of details, not
nearly all of which I have mentioned, which are disturbing, but in no way
conclusive. Those questions should have been investigated by the HSCA when
the issued came to them. They chose not to investigate them.
Now, I'm not going to relate here the incredible story of the HSCA. Suffice
it to say that the first committee head was a go-getter who hungered for
getting to the bottom of things. Plenty of money was allocated for the task,
but after revealing the scope of his plans, he was removed and the committee
budget drastically reduced. The whole thing was a fisco considered by most
people who look at the story to be very strange. My point is this:
the deaths are suspicious enough to warrant serious investigation and somebody
or bodies in our government shut the committee's life support system off
when it looked like they might actually accomplish something. Why?
Like I've said, it's not one thing. It's not *a* list of deaths, set of
connections, or some contraditory accounts. It's many things put together
that you can't put numbers on.
Oswald is picked up and he immediately tells police he's been manipulated into
being a patsy. Ruby shoots Oswald, begs the police and Warren Commission for
protection and to question him about the conspiracy he hints at, they refuse,
Ruby, due for further testimony later on mysteriously dies in prison. Ruby's
waitresses are terrorized and killed after speaking out about Ruby and Oswald
being together several times in the month prior to the assassination. The
reporter who gets the exclusive interview with Ruby and says she's going to
break the big story of the century dies after saying this, her best friend
who probably had her notes dies two days later. Ruby tried to talk, the
Warren Commission refused to listen. They needed a nice tidy story so they
made it up. It's laughable.
Now think about it. If proof of a crime were a criterion for doing a
thorough investigation, nothing would ever get investigated. Not only
were these deaths never investigated by our government, investigations
like the Garrison trial were thwarted. My disputatious friends, something
is awry here, and you cannot use thought games to deny it. Jack Ruby is
not being discussed arbitrarily. He killed the main suspect. He worked
for the Chicago mob who hated Kennedy. He knew Oswald before hand. He
was an FBI informant. He was in debt to the mob. If there was ever a line
of questioning for the commission, it was with Ruby. But they ignored him.
And Jack Ruby died of lung cancer due to stomach cancer cells in his lungs.
He had no stomach cancer. You have to go beyond labels like suspicious and
look at the details.
You say it's incredible that so many organizations had elements involved?
When we talk about elements in the CIA and FBI, LBJ, anti-Castro Cubans,
and certain oilmen like the Hunts, we're talking about people who have already
had years of working together. LBJ was basically a mobster himself. He
dealt with mobsters, took large sums of money from them, killed anti-mob
legislation, and allegedly ordered at least one killing himself. The mob
and CIA had already been collaborating for years on assassination plots.
The anti-Castro Cubans were involved in these plots. And all of these people
hated Kennedy and felt betrayed by him, either because of the Bay of Pigs,
the deportation of Carlos Marcello, the war against Jimmy Hoffa and other
mobsters, the oil depletion tax which would have killed huge oil comany
profits, or some combination of reasons. In a huge network of people, Kennedy
made bitter enemies of all of them.
Motives. Means. Opportunity. All three elements were there for a conspiracy.
Cover-ups. Destruction of evidence. Fabrication of evidence. Intimidation
of witnesses. Convenient deaths. Suspicious behavior...
Are you really telling me you don't smell a rat? I do.
--
Steve Feinstein
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| INTERNET: srf@juliet.ll.mit.edu |
| USmail: S. Feinstein, MIT Lincoln Lab, 29 Hartwell Ave., |
| Lexington, MA 02173 USA |
| VOICE: (617) 981-4017 |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Article 1217 of alt.conspiracy:
Path: ns-mx!uunet!samsung!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jarthur!uci-ics!ucla-cs!pierce
From: pierce@florian.cs.ucla.edu
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: 1977 FBI kill-off?
Message-ID: <33363@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>
Date: 22 Mar 90 11:18:26 GMT
Sender: news@CS.UCLA.EDU
Reply-To: pierce@CS.UCLA.EDU (Brad Pierce)
Distribution: alt
Organization: UCLA Computer Science
Lines: 33
According to _Crossfire: The Plot that Killed Kennedy_ by Jim Marrs, (1989,
Carroll & Graf Publishers, New York) pp. 564-565 here are six top FBI
officials that died shortly before they were scheduled to testify before the
House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1977.
6/77 Louis Nicholas - Heart attack. Former number-three man in FBI, worked
on JFK case. [or Louis Nichols?] Hoover's liaison to
Warren Commission.
8/77 Alan Belmont - "Long illness". FBI official that testified to Warren
Commission. Special assistant to Hoover.
8/77 James Cadigan - Fall in home. FBI document expert that testified to
Warren Commission.
10/77 Donald Kaylor - Heart attack. FBI fingerprint chemist. Examined
prints from assassination scene.
10/77 J.M.English - Heart attack. Former head of FBI Forensic Sciences
Laboratory. Headed lab that tested Oswald's alleged
rifle and pistol.
11/77 William Sullivan - Hunting accident. Former number-three man in FBI,
headed Division 5, counterespionage and domestic
intelligence.
Sullivan was shot after attending a preliminary meeting with
investigators. He was shot near his home by a man that claimed to
have mistaken him for a deer. The man was charged with a misdemeanor
and released without further investigation.
-- Brad
Article 1223 of alt.conspiracy:
Path: ns-mx!uunet!sco!hiramc
From: hiramc@sco.COM (Hiram Clawson)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: 1977 FBI kill-off?
Message-ID: <5347@scolex.sco.COM>
Date: 23 Mar 90 16:23:48 GMT
References: <33363@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>
Reply-To: hiramc@sco.COM (Hiram Clawson)
Distribution: alt
Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Lines: 35
In article <33363@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> pierce@CS.UCLA.EDU (Brad Pierce) writes:
>
>According to _Crossfire: The Plot that Killed Kennedy_ by Jim Marrs, (1989,
>Carroll & Graf Publishers, New York) pp. 564-565 here are six top FBI
>officials that died shortly before they were scheduled to testify before the
>House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1977.
[...]
>
>-- Brad
While I agree with you Brad that there are many mysterious circumstances
surrounding the JFK murder and I have often seen these various
lists of people that died that were associated with the whole
story, I have to make a call for objectivity for a moment.
Let's suppose one could make up a list of ALL the people involved
in the story. Catagorize it if that would be helpful, but what
I'm looking for is all the other people that belong on the
list that are/were not dead at some point in time. Now, you
have the sample population, out of that, check the mortality
statistics of this sample group. Compare with general mortality
statistics to see if the JFK sample has a higher than expected
rate. Then I might be inclined to put more faith in these
lists of people that "mysteriously" died.
Another reference that I found to be credible:
Contract on America - The Mafia Murder of President John F. Kennedy
David E. Scheim, introduction by John H. Davis
Zebra Books published by Kensington Publishing Corp. New York
Copyright (c) 1988
624 total pages, 380 pages text, 221 pages notes and appendix, 10 pages
bibliography, index
--Hiram [uunet!sco!hiramc || hiramc@sco.COM]