Creative Speculation

OnTheOtherHand

(7,621 posts)

36. yes, it does -- but it still doesn't seem very relevant

Reply to Ghost in the Machine (Reply #35)

Fri Dec 23, 2011, 10:07 AM

Dec 2011

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

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

36 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

What is the probability that 15 witnesses would die unnaturally within 1yr of the JFK assassination? [View all] Richard Charnin Dec 2011 OP

are there links anywhere for each person with the cause of death of each person? n/t maddezmom Dec 2011 #1

Try google Richard Charnin Dec 2011 #3

you've seem to come up with a conclusion...don't you have links or a maddezmom Dec 2011 #5

The link is provided in the source.. Richard Charnin Dec 2011 #6

my link gave the causes of death n/t zappaman Dec 2011 #7

of course you wouldn't want anyone to see what the london sunday times actually admitted zappaman Dec 2011 #9

what are the odds that this debunked crap has been floating around for almost 50 years? zappaman Dec 2011 #2

Challenge: Try to refute a) the data and b) the math Richard Charnin Dec 2011 #4

yeah right... zappaman Dec 2011 #8

Still wating for a response the the challenge. Richard Charnin Dec 2011 #13

We've been refuting the causes of "witness" deaths down below. Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #30

This doesn't raise any questions, or red flags, from you? Ghost in the Machine Dec 2011 #32

"defend himself" about what? OnTheOtherHand Dec 2011 #33

How about "confirm or refute this story"? Ghost in the Machine Dec 2011 #35

yes, it does -- but it still doesn't seem very relevant OnTheOtherHand Dec 2011 #36

Actually, the odds against them having been born are greater jberryhill Dec 2011 #12

Very funny..but does not address the specific problem... Richard Charnin Dec 2011 #14

Yes it does jberryhill Dec 2011 #16

Have you actually read the math proof? Richard Charnin Dec 2011 #26

Why is it unnatural for people to die in automobile accidents? Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #27

I won't even bother to respond to that. Richard Charnin Dec 2011 #28

How about the bigger question? Unnatural but innocuous, why do they count? n/t Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #29

well... OnTheOtherHand Dec 2011 #34

Eddy Benavides was shot in February 1965, not 1964. Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #10

Heart attacks are not "dying unnaturally." And why do you get the Unknown? Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #11

Ok, two heart attacks and one unknown. That leaves 12. Here are the odds. Richard Charnin Dec 2011 #15

How was Teresa Norton a "witness"? zappaman Dec 2011 #18

How is DeLesseps Morrison, who was a mayor of New Orleans a "witness"? zappaman Dec 2011 #19

Odds of a meteor landing on your house: 182,138,880,000,000 to 1 zappaman Dec 2011 #20

Nope, 11. Eddy (as I noted above) is in February 1965, not 1964. Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #23

How was Hugh Ward a "witness"? zappaman Dec 2011 #17

Nitpicking. They were related deaths... Richard Charnin Dec 2011 #21

Enlighten me how a mayor of New Orleans is connected to the JFK case zappaman Dec 2011 #22

Were all employees of Jack Ruby fatally shot? n/t Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #24

you say gary underhill was a CIA agent zappaman Dec 2011 #25

Jesus, not this stuff again......read Case Closed by Gerald Posner Logical Dec 2011 #31