Scientists say there was a 96.3 percent chance

March 27, 2001 8:38 AM

Scientists say there was a 96.3 percent chance that there was a second shooter on the grassy knoll. Wired reports that a new scientific analysis of the audio recordings of the Kennedy assassination disproves the lone gunman theory.
posted by borgle (10 comments total)

Hey, look, I caught a double-post before DPG!!
posted by briank at 9:01 AM on March 27, 2001

Scientist. Singular. Interesting idea, but this guy has no groundswell of support behind him.
posted by aaron at 9:08 AM on March 27, 2001

Hmm, sounds like a cover up to protect the mystery third gunman.
posted by hmgovt at 9:19 AM on March 27, 2001

96.3% isn't that impressive. It's less than 2 sigma (one sided), which is statistics geek-speak for something that's improbable, but nothing to get excited over... A *convincing* results in science (at least, in astronomy, which is what my PhD was in a long time ago) is 3 sigma, or about 99.9%.

I have no idea what "reasonable doubt" means, but if you "strongly" believe otherwise, this result shouldn't change your mind (yo, Bayes! :-).
posted by andrew cooke at 10:03 AM on March 27, 2001

Hey, 96.3% is good enough for me! It took Oswald very little time to fire these 3 shots in succession with a bolt-action rifle and with accuracy (assuming he was even involved). Also, if all the shots were from the library (that's what *I* call a book depository), the bullets would have had to turn at various angles.

Who else is anxious to peruse the Warren report when it's released?? :-)
posted by jpate at 11:34 AM on March 27, 2001

I'd like to know how that probability can be quantified so closely. How, exactly, did they determine that it was 96.3% (as opposed to 96.4% or 96.2%)?
posted by Steven Den Beste at 11:49 AM on March 27, 2001

Can scientists determine the likelihood of a second poster and a conspiracy to assassinate Metafilter with multiple posts?
posted by darren at 11:54 AM on March 27, 2001

Steven, significant digits are easy to determine when you're pulling them from your ass.
posted by cCranium at 2:46 PM on March 27, 2001

This may seem a little off topic. But what if the internet was around in the days of this momentous event? Would we take as seriously the multitude websites and discussions that would invariably pop up about the above conspiracy? Believe me, I find the theories around the assassination of JFK to be absolutely titillating.

I guess the question is. . .do we have today different standards we apply to veracity? I ask because I do not know.

PS My brother introduced me to these "rods" (included link). I personally find it ridiculous. . .but I'm using it as a case in point. Sorry to digress.
posted by crasspastor at 3:17 PM on March 27, 2001

96.3%? i think we should bare in mind that 89.62% of statistics are made up on the spot.

also, the killer was in the car! that's why jackie or wtf her name was tried to get out of the car, and away from the driver instead of ducking down.
posted by stuporJIX at 6:53 PM on March 28, 2001