a post somewhere? don't think it's out of the ordinary to ask?

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n2/deaths.html

I believe the list is correct. If you disagree, then prove it..
I am not going on a wild-goose chase for you.

I told you to google and do some research.
Until you do, you have nothing.

It is UP TO YOU TO PROVE THE DATA IS INCORRECT..
So go ahead. And when you come up with your facts, post the links..

A LOOK AT THE DEATHS OF THOSE INVOLVED*

Jim Marrs and Ralph Schuster

[Editor's Note: The claim that many persons who had
personal knowledge of the assassination of JFK have met
untimely deaths is reviewed by the authors, who provide
a overview of the evidence. It appears that many who
had personal knowledge of the assassination of JFK
have indeed met untimely deaths.]

In the three-year period which followed the murder of President Kennedy and Lee Harvey Oswald, 18 material witnesses died - six by gunfire, three in motor accidents, two by suicide, one from a cut throat, one from a karate chop to the neck, three from heart attacks and two from natural causes.

An actuary, engaged by the "London Sunday Times," concluded that on November 22, 1963, the odds against these witnesses being dead by February 1967, were one hundred thousand trillion to one. The above comment on the deaths of assassination witnesses was published in a tabloid companion piece to the movie "Executive Action," released in 1973. By that time, part of the mythology of the Kennedy assassination included the mysterious deaths of people who were connected with it. By the mid-1960s, people in Dallas already were whispering about the number of persons who died under strange or questionable circumstances.

The conspiracy literature occasionally still quotes a supposed study done by the London Sunday Times which found that "the odds against these witnesses being dead by February 1967, were one hundred thousand trillion to one." The House Select Committee on Assassinations asked the newspaper where they got that number. The paper replied with the following letter.

The Editor has passed me your letter of 25th April.

Our piece about the odds against the deaths of the Kennedy witnesses was, I regret to say, based on a careless journalistic mistake and should not have been published. This was realized by The Sunday Times' editorial staff after the first edition — the one which goes to the United States and which I believe you have — had gone out, and later editions were amended.

There was no question of our actuary having got his answer wrong. It was simply that we asked him the wrong question. He was asked what were the odds against 15 named people out of the population of the United States dying within a short period of time to which he replied — correctly — that they were very high. However, if one asks what are the odds against 15 of those included in the Warren Commission index dying within a given period, the answer is, of course, that they are much lower. Our mistake was to treat the reply to the former question as if it dealt with the latter — hence the fundamental error in our first edition report, for which we apologize.

None of the editorial staff involved in this story can remember the name of the actuary we consulted, but in view of what happened you will, I imagine, agree that his identity is hardly material.

Yours sincerely,
Antony Whitaker,
Legal Manager.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/deaths.htm

This is what you should now do:

a) Check the math formula (Poisson probability distribution).

If you agree that the math is correct, then
b) check the data parameters (i.e. mortality, cause of deaths).

If both a) and b) are valid, then McAdams is finished.

1 in 167 trillion...

The conspiracy literature occasionally still quotes a supposed study done by the London Sunday Times which found that "the odds against these [assassination] witnesses being dead by February 1967, were one hundred thousand trillion to one." The House Select Committee on Assassinations asked the newspaper where they got that number. The paper replied with the following letter.

The Editor has passed me your letter of 25th April.

Our piece about the odds against the deaths of the Kennedy witnesses was, I regret to say, based on a careless journalistic mistake and should not have been published. This was realized by The Sunday Times' editorial staff after the first edition — the one which goes to the United States and which I believe you have — had gone out, and later editions were amended.

There was no question of our actuary having got his answer wrong. It was simply that we asked him the wrong question. He was asked what were the odds against 15 named people out of the population of the United States dying within a short period of time to which he replied — correctly — that they were very high. However, if one asks what are the odds against 15 of those included in the Warren Commission index dying within a given period, the answer is, of course, that they are much lower. Our mistake was to treat the reply to the former question as if it dealt with the latter — hence the fundamental error in our first edition report, for which we apologize.

None of the editorial staff involved in this story can remember the name of the actuary we consulted, but in view of what happened you will, I imagine, agree that his identity is hardly material.

Yours sincerely,
Antony Whitaker,
Legal Manager.

The problem is specific:

What is the probability that at least 15 witnesses out of the 1400 interviewed by the Warren Commission would die unnatural deaths within one year?

The London Times did NOT ask about UNNATURAL deaths.
That was a major flaw in the problem definition.

I asked you to specifically refute the Poisson formula.
You have not done so.

I asked you to specifically refute the cause of witness deaths.
You have not done so.

I asked you to specifically refute the statistics of unnatural witness deaths.
You have not done so.

I'm prepared to wait until hell freezes over for a response.

No need to wait.

"None of the editorial staff involved in this story can remember the name of the actuary we consulted, but in view of what happened you will, I imagine, agree that his identity is hardly material."

Not one person can remember who they consulted? Not one single person?? They have no record of who they spoke to? Did the guy get paid?

Personally, I think his identity is extremely material. Shouldn't he be able to defend himself on this matter?

Even if we assume that the legal manager was for some reason lying about the question, I don't see what there is for the actuary to defend.

I think the legal manager may have been fudging about the identity of the actuary, perhaps to protect him from "assassination researchers." But I don't see how his identity is material, either.

Does that work better for you?

It's logically possible that the London Sunday Times could attempt to suppress the truth about the Kennedy assassination by misrepresenting a conversation with an actuary -- but it makes no sense. It's vaguely reminiscent of people who claim there is an establishment conspiracy of their method to trisect angles (or their rebuttal of global warming, or...). It is hard to imagine how such a conspiracy could operate, because too many people are capable of evaluating the evidence.

I wouldn't object to hearing from the actuary, if we could find him, but it's off point. I think the only reason to bring up the London Sunday Times here was to point out that this discussion has been going on for years

If each of those 15 people were the result of one out of a million sperm cells reaching an ovum, then we are talking about odds of 1 in 10^21.

That is 1 in a billion trillion against those individuals having been born.

The joint probability of any ensemble of 15 persons doing any of innumerable things is, in general, infinitesimal.

I rode a train last week. The odds against that grouping of people who sat in the car with me actually BEING in that car are astronomical.

But as has already been pointed out, the computation does not even correspond to the correct proposition.

Apparently, you either have not read it or fail to comprehend it.

I will repeat the basic problem for you.
Its really very simple.

Given:
a group of X individuals

Determine:
the probability that at least n of the X in the group would die UNNATURAL deaths in the same year.

Problem:
Determine the probability that any individual would an UNNATURAL death (i.e. gunshot, karate chop, airplane crash, automobile crash, etc.) in any given year.

Probability of an UNNATURAL death in 1 year
suicide….. 0.000107
homicide…. 0.000062
accidental.. 0.000359
undetermined 0.000014

Total probability= 0.000542

Solution:
You have a group of X =1400 persons
p = .000542 = PROBABILITY of of an UNNATURAL death in any given year.

Therefore, the expected number (a) of UNNATURAL deaths in a group of 1400 is equal to the probability of an unnatural death times the number of witnesses:

a = 0.7588 = p*N = 000542*1400
In other words, we can expect that 0.7588 (one) person out of 1400 would die UNNATURALLY IN ANY GIVEN YEAR.

The probability that m=15 of 1400 in a group would die UNNATURALLY in a given year is calculated using the Poisson probability function:
P (m) = a^m * exp (-a) / m!

Plugging into the formula:
P(15) = 0.7588^15* exp (-.7588)/15!

Now, you do the math.

Note: The London Times failed to analyze the probability of UNNATURAL DEATHS.
They did not correctly specify the problem.

It is not the number of deaths that needs to be modeled.
It's the number of UNNATURAL deaths that must be considered.

Ok, now do the math... or forever stick with the no-conspiracy theory that Oswald, the lone nut gunman, did it. But if Lee Harvey did it, then you would not have all those UNNATURAL DEATHS, now would you?

Here's the bigger question: if these "unnatural deaths" have innocuous explanations beyond reasonable doubt, why do they get to count in your math?

OK, very quick.

Last I heard, an auto accident is not a natural way to go.

I mostly agree with you. However, in principle, a sufficiently unusual cluster of deaths could be suspicious even if the deaths are facially innocuous -- and it might be hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a particular death was innocuous.

That said, the statistical analysis here facially isn't very persuasive, especially because it is post hoc and the expected mortality rates aren't well motivated with respect to the relevant population. (I'm not quite sure what the relevant population is: people mentioned in the Warren Commission report? Probably not representative of the U.S. population at large.) And I agree that given the identities and death narratives of the people on this list, it's really hard to believe that they were killed to silence them.

So now we're down to 14.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/benavides_death.htm

Actually, C.D. Jackson died of a heart attack.

So now you're down to 11.

11 1,663,713,384

The odds of 12 dying unnaturally is 1 in 26,445,366,889

Check the formula.

n 1 in
0 1
1 2
2 6
3 24
4 132
5 892
6 7,195
7 67,346
8 718,040
9 8,593,044
10 114,073,493
11 1,663,713,384

12 26,445,366,889 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

13 455,051,758,699
14 8,427,523,639,942

15 167,145,910,421,722 <*****************************************

And is she actually dead?
Down to 9...

Down to 8...

in other words...shit happens.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2007-01-11-meteorite-bathroom_x.htm

He's not within a year. And besides, the guy who shot him confessed and went to jail.

11.

Down to 10...

Hugh Ward was a private investigator working with Guy Banister and David Ferrie who died in a plane crash in Mexico.

I'm sure you have heard of Bannister and Ferrie, right?

Teresa Norton was an employee of Jack Ruby who was fatally shot.
I'm sure you have heard of Jack Ruby, right?

Apparently, Ward and Norton do not qualify to you.
So be it.

specifically, as you say, "a witness".

he wasn't.
Surely, you know by now that is not true.