JFK Calc: Questions on the Spreadsheet Analysis

Richard Charnin

April 9, 2014

** JFK Blog Posts
JFK Calc Spreadsheet Database
Tables and Graphs**

Warren Commission apologists invariably thrash JFK-related witness death analysis – as well as the observations of Dealey Plaza and medical eyewitnesses. Rather, they ask questions that are irrelevant and meant to distract from the facts. They don’t bother to actually read the posts, comprehend the logic or deal with the evidence.

This post will present the questions that should legitimately be asked.

**1) What is the data source of the witnesses? **

See Jim Marrs’ **“Crossfire”**, Michael Benson’s **“Who’s Who in the JFK Assassination”**, Richard Belzer and David Wayne’s **“Hit List”** and the **Simkin Educational** site. JFK Calc includes 126 witnesses who died unnaturally and suspiciously (122 from 1964-78). There are surely many more. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#gid=1

**2) What is the official number of unnatural deaths and time period?
Officially Ruled and Estimated Homicides, Unnatural and Total deaths
.....Ruled Est Ruled Est
......Homicide Unnatural Total
1964... 12 19.. 19 23.. 25
1964-66 16 35.. 35 42.. 48
1964-78 34 83.. 78 99.. 122
**

**3) Can you prove that the witnesses were relevant?**

Ninety-six (96) are listed among the 1400+ in

**“Who’s Who in the JFK Assassination”**. Sixty-seven (67) testified or were sought in four investigations: Warren Commission (1964), Garrison/Shaw trial (1967-69), Church senate Intelligence (1975), HSCA (1976-78). The investigators must have considered them relevant or they would not have been sought to testify.

**Simkin’s** JFK site contains approximately 500 JFK-related biographies. Sixty-four (64) are in JFK Calc. In this group, 39 deaths (22 homicides) were officially ruled unnatural, a one in 1 trillion^3 probability. But there were 47 estimated true homicides. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKindex.htm

Satisfy yourself. Do your homework. Read one of the above books. Run a google search of the names.**I do not have to prove they were all relevant. The burden of proof is on the apologists to prove they were all insignificant and unrelated to the assassination.**

**4) What method is used to calculate the probabilities?**

The steps are: 1) Determine the number of witnesses in the group, 2) specify the time period, 3) determine the number of unnatural deaths, 3) apply the applicable unnatural mortality rates for the period. Once having this information, we calculate the number of expected unnatural deaths. The Poisson distribution function requires the expected and actual number of deaths in order to calculate the probability. That’s it. http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/08/16/jfk-witness-death-probability-calculations-data-and-methodology/

**5) Why do you claim that officially ruled accidents, suicides and heart attacks were homicides?
** Any analysis should consider the anomalous facts of each case (timing, etc.) which indicate homicide. I confirm the approximate number of true homicides by calculating the statistical expected number of accidents, suicides and heart attacks – based on respective mortality rates for the given time period. It turns out that the actual number of accidents, suicides and heart attacks far exceeds the expected number. Therefore, the difference between actual and expected is a fair approximation of the number of true homicides. http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/11/08/jfk-witness-deaths-how-many-accidents-suicides-and-natural-deaths-were-homicides/ https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#gid=74

**6) What is the Paradigm Shift? **

It’s a new way of looking at the problem. There is no need to consider motive in the death of any particular witness. Motive is not a factor in the calculation of probabilities. The only factors are purely numerical: the total number of witnesses in the designated “universe”, how many died unnaturally, the cause, and the time period under study. Therefore any attempt to analyze the relevance of a given witness is a moot point. We must consider the overall number. Of course, the 67 who were sought to testify were obviously relevant – as were the 55 who were not sought. But the paradigm shift means that the rationale for any given death is a non-issue as far as the probability is concerned. http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/07/17/jfk-assassination-paradigm-shift-deaths-of-witnesses-called-to-testify/

**7) Didn’t the HSCA statistician claim that calculation of the odds was impossible since the universe of witnesses was unknown?
**Yes, but the HSCA was wrong. It did not consider groups of witnesses where the number was known: For example, 552 testified or gave affidavits at the Warren Commission. Approximately 600 were sought or testified in three subsequent investigations. http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/02/25/executive-action-jfk-witness-deaths-and-the-london-times-actuary/

**8) Didn’t the HSCA statistician claim that the London Times actuary’s calculation of 100,000 trillion to one odds was invalid?
**Yes, but the HSCA was wrong. The actuary’s math was confirmed assuming 454 witnesses given 13 unnatural deaths (8 homicides, 3 accidents, 2 suicides) in three years. The Times could have asked the actuary to calculate the probability of 13 homicides in 1964-66 using three times the national homicide rate (0.000183). It is 1.3E-24 (1 in 750 billion trillion). https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#gid=0

**9) Didn’t the HSCA investigate a number of suspicious witness deaths?
** The HSCA noted just 21 deaths but there were at least 100 others. Unbelievably, 7 top FBI officials died (5 heart attacks, 2 accidents) within a six month period in 1977 just before they were due to testify at HSCA! Assuming 20 FBI were called to testify, the probability that seven would die is one in 200 trillion. There were a dozen other prospective HSCA witnesses who died before they could testify. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#gid=58

**10) Aren’t you using unproven assumptions?**

The data is factual, not assumed: officially ruled unnatural deaths, government mortality statistics, specific time periods. The classic Poisson distribution is used to calculate the probabilities based on factual data. It is a straightforward analysis using public information. It is not a poll. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#gid=27

**11) Weren’t witnesses in high risk locations?**

Yes, it’s true. Fifty-one (51) of 122 deaths occurred in Dallas. Was this just a coincidence?

**12) How are the witnesses classified?**

Well, 20 were Ruby associates. Others were reporters, FBI, CIA, anti-Castro Cubans, mafia, police and others. Many had inside information. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#gid=55

**13) How do you know that the timing of deaths was a factor?**

Just look at this graph. Notice the spikes in 1964 and 1977. Was it just a coincidence that so many deaths occurred during the Warren Commission and HSCA?

**14) The analysis has not been-peer reviewed. Why not?**

Well, actually it has been – by Lone Nutters. Kidding aside, my work is available to anyone who wants to review it – JFK researchers, actuaries, mathematicians, media. So far, there has not been one review. I encourage McAdams, Posner and Bugliosi to peer-review it, but they either can’t or won’t debunk the logic and/or comprehend the math. I asked McAdams to show it to at least one of the Marquette math professors.

**15) John McAdams claims a majority of Dealey Plaza witnesses said the shots came from the Texas Book Depository. Do you disagree? **Yes, for the same reasons Harold Feldman and Stewart Galanor disagree in their surveys. McAdams cooked his numbers by omission and commission. http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/02/26/jfk-dealey-plaza-witnesses-john-mcadams-strange-list/ https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#gid=65

**16) You claim the Zapruder film was altered. What is your evidence?
**The evidence is based on facts.

First, 33 of 59 witnesses said the JFK limo came to a FULL stop; 13 said NEAR stop. The probability is essentially ZERO that they would ALL be mistaken.

Second, the Z-film does not show even a NEAR stop.

Third, the film does NOT show Secret Service agent Clint Hill covering JFK and Jackie, or giving the thumbs down sign to the following cars.

Fourth, photography experts have concluded that the film was altered.

Fifth, the chain of custody was broken. http://assassinationofjfk.net/the-two-npic-zapruder-film-events-signposts-pointing-to-the-films-alteration/ https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#gid=63

**17) What about the controversy on the location of JFK’s wounds?**

Well, 43 of 44 witnesses at Parkland and the autopsy initially claimed there was a large EXIT wound in the right rear of JFK’s head. Parkland doctors said there was an entrance wound in the throat. I won’t bother calculating the probability that they were all mistaken. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#gid=69

**18) Do you believe that Oswald fired the shots?**

No. For many reasons. Here is just one: 47 Dealey Plaza witnesses heard a double-bang of two nearly instantaneous shots. The alleged Mannlicher Carcano rifle required at least 2.3 seconds between shots. Could all 47 have been mistaken?

**The 1…2.3 pattern** http://www.spmlaw.ca/jfk/shot_pattern_evidence.pdf

**The Double Bang** http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/11th_Issue/guns_dp.html http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/02/08/jfk-math-analysis-witness-testimony-of-time-interval-between-shots/

**19)What if the number of unnatural deaths, homicides or witnesses in the analysis is incorrect? Wouldn’t this invalidate the results? **

Not at all. No one can say what the exact numbers are. But they are surely greater than the officially ruled numbers. The uncertainty is handled by a ** probability sensitivity analysis ** consisting of two tables for varying witness group size and 1) unnatural deaths or 2) homicides. The homicide matrix ranges from 1400-10000 witnesses and 34 (ruled) to 90 (expected) homicides. All scenario combinations give ZERO probabilities – absolute proof of a conspiracy. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#gid=74

The average Dallas homicide rate (approximately triple the national rate) was used in the following probability calculations – a conservative estimate. The probabilities are probably even lower:

- Assuming the officially ruled (impossibly low) 34 homicides and (plausible) 1400 witness universe, the probability is 7.6E-17 or 1 in 13,000 trillion.

- Assuming 83 statistically expected homicides and a (highly inflated) 10000 witness universe, the probability is 1.8E-10 or 1 in 5.6 billion.

**20) What do you conclude based on the JFK Calc analysis?
**The answer should be obvious to anyone who has read and understood the analysis: A conspiracy has been mathematically proven beyond ANY doubt.