Fascinating video and indeed pretty straightforward. However, the bank robber analogy starting at 26mins https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DC8tO16xdrY&t=1601s ht

Fascinating video and indeed pretty straightforward. However, the bank robber analogy starting at 26mins https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DC8tO16xdrY&t=1601s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DC8tO16xdrY&t=1601s does not sit quite right. You can't just stick with one theory and keep fitting other facts to that theory forever - there is going to be a breaking point. To keep going with that particular bank robber story - Jake. In the example barring other facts, it is 99.9% probable that Jake indeed is the bank robber. What if instead of finding $9k out of $10k, police only find $5k out of $100k on Jake? What if not only talking to his girlfriend about robbing the bank he also talked about robbing the bank at the bar the previous week? What if there was an amateur theatre troupe at that bar that night? What if one of those actors was also an accomplished make up artist and high speed driver? Okay, the story keeps getting sillier. Even with these new facts the prosecution would still win. Let's add a new fact security cameras at a bar also show Jake, with similar timestamps to the bank's cameras. There are 3 more patrons that are willing to swear it was Jake. An old lady reports that she saw a car drive up at a high speed to Jake's car and leave a package. At that point we have a problem with being so sure on Jake being the guilty one. There is some reasonable doubt now. My point is you can never be 100% sure. All you can do is adjust priors. With JFK as it currently stands we might say 95% chance that Oswald was the lone gunman and 80% that he acted completely alone. We can also say there is a 40% probability there was a conspiracy to assassinate JFK, there might have been even more than one, but those might have had nothing to do with Oswald.