Harvey And Lee Maths

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25200-i-was-a-teenage-jfk-conspiracy-freak/?page=50


BTW, the reason *I* believe in Harvey and Lee is because of a statistical analysis I performed. It is important to understand that most of the evidence pointing to two Oswalds have unlikely, but nevertheless possible alternative explanations. For example, the school record showing Oswald taking classes at Beauregard Junior High when he was taking classes at New York P.S. #44 could have simply been a blunder made by someone at the main school office. I estimate that such a mistake could be made in one of every 10,000 school records (That's a conservative estimate... I really think the odds of that mistake happening are more like one in 100,000 or more.)

One in 10,000 is an impressive number in favor of there being two Oswalds. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So I certainly wouldn't believe there were two Oswalds based on just that one statistic.

However, if you consider ALL the evidence of two Oswalds and compute the odds that they can ALL be explained as clerical mistakes and such, you get a much smaller number. For example, if four similar clerical errors were made that are just as unlikely as the school record blunder, the odds of those mistakes happening to a single individual would be one in 10,000,000,000,000,000  (which is calculated as follows:  10,000 x 10,000 x 10,000 x 10,000 ).  Or in other words,  one in  ten thousand trillion.
NOW THOSE ARE SOME EXTRAORDINARY ODDS!  The population of the world is only 7.6 billion. If we had 1,315,789 Earths (i.e. ten thousand trillion people), odds are that there would be only ONE individual among the inhabitant of ALL of the Earths who has had four such mistakes made in their records! (I know... it's hard to believe. But math doesn't lie.)

But we have only one Earth. Which means that the odds of those anomalies in Oswalds records possibly being clerical mistakes are virtually ZERO. Any mathematician would say the same.  Some would write it this way:
1 / 10,000,000,000,000,000  ˜=  0          ( ˜= means "approximately equals.")

And that is the reason I believe there were two young Oswalds. I'd have to be a numbskull to believe otherwise.
(BTW, I'm not saying that nonbelievers are numbskulls. The reason they don't believe there were two Oswalds is because they haven't performed and understood the statistical analysis.)

Vinny wrote:http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25200-i-was-a-teenage-jfk-conspiracy-freak/?page=50


BTW, the reason *I* believe in Harvey and Lee is because of a statistical analysis I performed. It is important to understand that most of the evidence pointing to two Oswalds have unlikely, but nevertheless possible alternative explanations. For example, the school record showing Oswald taking classes at Beauregard Junior High when he was taking classes at New York P.S. #44 could have simply been a blunder made by someone at the main school office. I estimate that such a mistake could be made in one of every 10,000 school records (That's a conservative estimate... I really think the odds of that mistake happening are more like one in 100,000 or more.)

One in 10,000 is an impressive number in favor of there being two Oswalds. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So I certainly wouldn't believe there were two Oswalds based on just that one statistic.

However, if you consider ALL the evidence of two Oswalds and compute the odds that they can ALL be explained as clerical mistakes and such, you get a much smaller number. For example, if four similar clerical errors were made that are just as unlikely as the school record blunder, the odds of those mistakes happening to a single individual would be one in 10,000,000,000,000,000  (which is calculated as follows:  10,000 x 10,000 x 10,000 x 10,000 ).  Or in other words,  one in  ten thousand trillion.
NOW THOSE ARE SOME EXTRAORDINARY ODDS!  The population of the world is only 7.6 billion. If we had 1,315,789 Earths (i.e. ten thousand trillion people), odds are that there would be only ONE individual among the inhabitant of ALL of the Earths who has had four such mistakes made in their records! (I know... it's hard to believe. But math doesn't lie.)

But we have only one Earth. Which means that the odds of those anomalies in Oswalds records possibly being clerical mistakes are virtually ZERO. Any mathematician would say the same.  Some would write it this way:
1 / 10,000,000,000,000,000  ˜=  0          ( ˜= means "approximately equals.")

And that is the reason I believe there were two young Oswalds. I'd have to be a numbskull to believe otherwise.
(BTW, I'm not saying that nonbelievers are numbskulls. The reason they don't believe there were two Oswalds is because they haven't performed and understood the statistical analysis.)

Wow! That's some impressive bullshit there!

I happen to agree that the number of real clerical errors that help explain away the Two Oswald theory is tiny.

Claiming that opposition to the theory is based on clerical errors is pure fantasy or a deliberate strawman.

The two main errors that give rise to the theory are:

1. Misreading of evidence, including, but not limited to, school and military records.

2. Accepting every single report of an Oswald sighting as legitimate, despite law enforcement and the media being well aware of the prevalence of false sightings in big cases.

3. Accepting decades old witness memory as infallible, against all the studies showing otherwise.

Other factors include ignoring contrary evidence, and ignoring simple real life explanations for anomalies.

Ah, real life and Math-not sure if that works all of the time.

Mick Purdy wrote:Ah, real life and Math-not sure if that works all of the time.

Mick, the issue is not the maths. I have no idea if it is accurate or not. The point is, it doesn't matter because he is basing the math on the entirely false premise that opposition to the theory is that things like the school records are full of clerical errors - when the REAL claim is that they (Armstrong and his mini-me army) are deliberately or otherwise, misreading those records. It is a strawman argument and more evidence of th deceitful way they debate their theory.

Sorry mate, that was meant to be completely tongue in cheek dripping with a touch of sarcasm. Writing is not my thing. 

Wow! That's some impressive bullshit there!


I think you summed it up perfectly.

Mick Purdy wrote:Sorry mate, that was meant to be completely tongue in cheek dripping with a touch of sarcasm. Writing is not my thing. 

I see that now mate. I plead the 55th Amendment - "comments made pre-morning coffee. Nuff said."

These guys will go to extremes in order to defend their cult .

Such irony.