JFK Witness Mortality: Exposing the Tactics of an Internet Troll
Updated: March 25,2014
Click Reclaiming Science:The JFK Conspiracy to look inside the book.
This post is another illustration of how a Warren Commission apologist/ Internet troll tries to avoid rational discussion by distorting basic facts and analysis.
A Lone Nutter (who I will refer to as LN) was exposed once again in another feeble attempt to discredit my work. His goal was to use disinformation to question the accuracy of mortality rates used in JFK witness death analysis. He claimed the rates were “faulty” without citing specific numbers to compare to his CDC rates.
I had prior contact with LN and knew that he would not deal with the facts, whether from incompetence or design – or both. Lone Nutters never deal in facts.
This was my post:
Given: a group of 1400 people of whom 21 died unnaturally in 1964:
12 homicides, 3 accidents, 4 suicides, 2 sudden cancers. Only one unnatural death would normally have been expected.
The probability of at least 21 unnatural deaths in a randomly-selected group of 1400 in one year is P= 6.7E-35 or
P = 1 in 1 trillion trillion trillion.
There are 3 possibilities:
1) It was just a 1 in 1 trillion trillion trillion coincidence.
2) It was a fraudulent study.
3) The 1400 were not randomly-selected; they were connected.
We can eliminate
1) the probability is too low to be a coincidence.
2) the 21 unnatural deaths were ruled official.
Therefore, we must conclude that
3) there was a connection between the 1400 in the group: they were JFK-related material witnesses.
The following proof shows that the LN was not serious and only interesting in discrediting my work. View the responses to the post below the proof.
The Lone Nutter…
1) refused to click the link to the data source I provided in the spreadsheet: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005124.html
U.S. National Center for Health Statistics, National Vital Statistics Reports. Deaths by Major Causes 1960–2011
2) was apparently looking at CDC mortality data for 2010-2011. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm
3) failed to note that I utilize mortality data based on the relevant period of the witness death analysis: 1964-78. I used 1964 mortality rates because that is the year analyzed in the above post.
4) failed to even note that 1964 mortality rates for all causes of death were much different than 2011.
5) knew that readers would not compare 1964 rates to 2011.
6) was not interested in a rational discussion of appropriate mortality rates, otherwise he would not have immediately commented that my data was “faulty”.
7) sought to discredit the witness death probability analysis as invalid. The fact that no one has refuted the analysis has been painful for WC apologists.
Note: LN may not have even been aware of the facts, but was just interested in discrediting my work. Facts have no place in the agenda of disinformationists.
This timeline graph shows the trend in rates: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db88.htm
LN comments on the above post – and my replies
Why does a simple lookup at the CDC tell us that your numbers – the BASIS for which you base ALL your conclusions – shows you are using faulty data? What is your primary source for U.S. mortality figures?
Faulty data? No, as usual, it’s faulty understanding on your part. You don’t read the full content of my posts. You make statements you cannot back up. Click on the INFOPLEASE link at the top of this sheet for the data. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#gid=41
You made a grave mistake in calling my mortality numbers “faulty”. That’s no way to start a conversation – unless you are a troll – especially when you don’t provide specifics or compare my mortality rates to yours. In fact, I bet you are looking at current mortality rates – not 1964-78.
I am convinced that you don’t understand the difference between unnatural and natural national rates and the comparable weighted average rates applicable to JFK deaths. The problem is more complicated than you are capable of understanding – even though I explain everything in my posts.
I am not here to teach you. How can one have rational discourse with a LN? Your job is to discredit and attack. You are not interested or trained for anything else. You should know by now that I am very precise in my research and analysis.
You do not read English well. Let’s keep this sweet and short: What is your primary source for U.S. mortality figures?
Did I give you the link? Yes. Did you click it? No. And you tell me I cannot read. You have just proven once again why you are an LN. You started this by stating that my mortality rates were “faulty”. PROVE IT.
No – I am not clicking on your work – until I know what your primary source for mortality rates are. Aren’t you proud of the research? Can’t you cite this source?
Are you proud to be known as a Lone Nutter? Are you proud to parade your stupidity in full view? Are you proud to not provide proof that my data is “faulty”, but are willing to call it that without even looking at it?
An LN? That is news to any intelligent person who knows me. Can’t you just cite your source for your mortality rates used for your thesis? Pleeeze? Just a simple cite – that will make us WANT to check out your work??? Is that really too tough a request? Someone asked you to merely cite your source, and you refused to do so. Three times now. Your refusal to cite your source speaks volumes … YARCATBALTP – Yet Another RC Article To Be Avoided Like The Plague.
I gave you this link to the source and the data, and you refused to look at it. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005124.html
What does it say about you? That you are not interested in the facts but only in wasting my time, hoping that readers won’t pay attention or are as dumb as you are. Well, the readers are not dumb. Unlike you, they are here for information.