Reply #32: I said I wouldn't be drawn in, but I can't resist.. [View All]

You say:
1. 15 of 1000 (1.5%) doesn't sound like a real high mortality to me. These are -not- a random sample; they are selected because they had some relation to the assassination. "INVESTGATIVE reporters, cops, night clubbers, etc" aren't the same population as 'housewives, teachers, preachers'. A useful comparison would be the mortality of the graduating class of some inner-city school.

If the sample is not random, the statistics are meaningless.

I say:
You are completely ignorant of the underlying mathematics here. This is above your level of understanding. If you had a course in basic probability and followed the full analysis, you would NOT make the statement that 15 out of 1000 dying in a given year is no big deal. How many of your high school graduates died in the year after graduating? I assume they were not drafted into Nam. Can you name one?

Random sample of what? The death rates used here were based on the full population. Of course those here were selected because they had some relation to the assassination. This is just basic. I really should just stop here. Boy, Tom, you're good. You can make statements that are completely bogus and make them sound legitimate. THIS ONE STATEMENT OF YOURS IS SO OFF THE WALL, SHOWS SUCH A LACK OF BASIC STATISTICAL ANALYSIS, THAT I SHOULD REALLY JUST STOP RIGHT HERE.

You say:
2. It is -not- purely mathematical. You have think very carefully about the samples and the validity of the comparisons.

I say:
You've got to be kidding. It is purely mathematical just like the work of an actuary in predicting mortality rates is purely mathematical. Tom, we are dealing with a finite universe of individuals here (witnesses to the assassination). We analyze their mortality rates as a group. When 15 out of 1000 from ANY group die in a given year, we have a very suspicious occurrence. In fact, I defy you from finding such an occurrence. It has never happened. Except if you were in a a marine regiment in Nam. Or a witness to the JFK murder.

You say:
3. What's a 'Strange Death'? Was this defined ahead of time?
I say:
Read the post: A strange death is murder, accident, suicide or some unknown factor.

4. Yes, it's historical. That may mean you aren't able to make the argument.

I say:
What BULLSHIT!

You say:
Overall, you just can't make very strong inferences with this kind of argument.

I say:
Why do you do this? Have you no other interest than in just disrupting legitimate threads here at DU? Are you really that OBTUSE? I don't believe you are. I think you know exactly what your doing. But to what purpose? Do you really think you will change any hearts and minds with your bogus arguments? Or is that not your intent? Or do you just despise those of us who don't believe in coincidence theories as you do?