Exposing John McAdams: World-class Professor of Disinformation
Updated: Oct.31, 2013
JFK Blog Post Index: Richard Charnin JFK Blog Posts
McAdams just responded to a post of mine on the JFK Forum website he administers- a gathering place for disinformationists and lone nutters who defend the Warren Commission Report regardless of the fact that it has been relegated to the fairy tale section in the library. They defend the WC by outright lies and omissions concerning factual evidence.
McAdams’ disinformation on a) Jack Ruby, b) the Single Bullet Theory, c) Lee Harvey Oswald and d) the medical evidence has been thoroughly debunked by M.T. Griffith: http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/vsmcadams.htm
In this post I will focus on bogus comments made by McAdams and others regarding the deaths of JFK witnesses. My website http://richardcharnin.com/ contains links to all of my JFK-related blog posts.
I will clear the air on the inane comments made by McAdams and others. Some comments may have been due to innocent ignorance; most are from lone nutters who must make outrageous comments to discredit my work. But they are just self-flagellating. The vast majority of Americans do not believe the Warren Report. They are quite convinced that there was a conspiracy to kill JFK.
So why do the apologists make these attempts to undermine the witness death probability analysis? Is it just a hobby or do they really believe what they write? Is McAdams such a tool that he must resort to these pathetic tactics? The “professor” lies about virtually everything. He has no shame.
This is what McAdams wrote in response to my post. I have italicized each of his egregiously false comments, all of which I refute below.
“This guy comes around every so often, and claims to have statistical evidence of an abnormal number of deaths among “JFK assassination witnesses.” But he’s published his list, and the vast majority of people on it are not witnesses. With very few exceptions, they have some extremely tangential connection with the assassination.
For example, the mayor of New Orleans in on the list! Further, Charnin provides no evidence of all about what the expected mortality among people of that age distribution is. Worse, the people on the list are not some objectively chosen group of people with an objectively defined “connection” with the assassination. They are people who are on the list *because* they died.
So Charnin, prove you are not merely a crackpot. Defend what you are claiming”.
John McAdams, If you actually read my analysis, you did not understand it; if you did not, you have no basis for making those false statements. Here is the list of witnesses, date of death, cause of death, connection, investigation in which they were called to testify with links to their testimony and bios. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#gid=1
Here are the graphs and probability calculations which prove a conspiracy: http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/10/14/jfk-witness-deaths-graphical-proof-of-a-conspiracy/
You say that the majority of people are not witnesses. Well, 62 of the 118 on the list were sought to testify in 4 investigations, starting with the Warren Commission in 1964 and ending at HSCA in 1978. They were relevant enough to be called to testify as WITNESSES. Perhaps you don’t know what a witness is.
You say that I have not taken into account expected mortality rates. Oh yes I have. Here are the mortality rates for 1963-1978: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005124.html
You say that I have not taken into account age distribution. Wrong again. The mortality table rates are age-adjusted for natural deaths (heart attacks, cancer, etc.). Of course, unnatural deaths are not age-adjusted. A bullet does not know the age of its victim; accidental deaths and suicides are not a function of age, either. That fact is obvious to everyone – except you. Eight-three of the 118 deaths in JFK Calc were UNNATURAL. As a professor, you should know the difference between UNNATURAL and NATURAL deaths.
You say that the names on they list are “not some objectively chosen group of people”. Half of those on the list were called to testify. That’s an objective list, professor. The other half were well-known material witnesses who were never called to testify. Like Lee Oswald and Dorothy Kilgallen.
You say the witnesses were chosen for the death list because they died. That’s like Groucho Marx asking his guests: Who was buried in Grant’s Tomb? You bet your life they are on the list because they died – unnaturally or suspiciously. That’s the whole point, isn’t it?
The following are bogus statements made about the JFK witness death analysis – and my responses.
- I did not account for the age of the witnesses
The 1963-1978 mortality tables are age-adjusted for natural deaths (heart attacks, cancer, etc.). Unnatural deaths (homicides, accidents, suicides) comprise 83 of 118 witnesses in the JFK Calc spreadsheet. Age is irrelevant for unnatural deaths. A bullet does not know the age of its victim, does it John?
-The mortality rates of these witnesses are higher than the general population (such as 7 FBI officials who died just before their scheduled HSCA testimony).
Even assuming the FBI officials were 3 times more likely to die from heart attacks, the odds are 1 in 100 billion; assuming the same rate, 1 in 190 trillion. http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/10/01/jfk-witness-deaths-7-fbi-officials-due-to-testify-at-hsca/
- Witnesses died in high-crime locations
This is totally bogus; they died all over the United States.
- The number of witnesses is unknowable. The HSCA statistician used that bogus claim to show that the actuary’s 100,000 trillion to one odds were invalid.
But the number of witnesses who testified at WC is known; we have data for the number called to testify in three other investigations. There were approximately 1100 called in total. Who’s Who in the JFK Assassination lists 1400 names of individuals related to the assassination. http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/07/01/jfk-mysterious-witness-deaths-london-sunday-times-and-hsca-cover-up/
- According to John McAdams, the analysis has not been peer-reviewed.
He’s right, it hasn’t. The analysis has been open to the public on the Net for a year; no one has come forward to refute it. So what gives him the right to give it negative reviews?
McAdams obviously does not consider himself qualified to do a peer-review. I have asked him to review it line by line but he has not done so. He would rather just outright lie: like when he claims that I have not analyzed defined groups of witnesses; or that the witnesses have no relevance. His statements are on the record. As the saying goes: John, you own them. They will be your legacy.
John has not done a mathematical analysis because a) he is incapable, b) is too lazy, c) realizes that a thorough, robust analysis would destroy his case. All of his posts defending the Warren Commission and his calling all respected researchers “buffs” and all witnesses “mistaken” would make him an even bigger laughingstock than he is now.
- The 118 Witnesses in the JFK Calc database are not relevant or connected to JFK
This is absurd, typical McAdams; at least 62 testified or were sought to testify. And they had no connection?https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#gid=1
-There is no evidence to explain motive for the killings.
Motive is not an issue; it is irrelevant. All that matters is how many were called to testify, how many died unnaturally, in what time-period. This is a PARADIGM SHIFT in the analysis. Keep in mind that an unknown number of “accidents”, “suicides”, “heart attacks” and “sudden cancers” were actually homicides. http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/07/17/jfk-assassination-paradigm-shift-deaths-of-witnesses-called-to-testify/
- How come Mr. Buell Wesley Frazier is still alive? Why was he not eliminated?
Wesley told the Warren Commission that the package he saw Oswald carrying into the TSBD was too small to contain a rifle. Let’s turn the question around. Do you believe Frazier or the Warren Commission which ignored his testimony? The Warren Commission ALWAYS ignored evidence which did not support its foregone conclusion that Oswald did the shooting. But to answer the question: Why not ask how come “only” 95 of the 1400 listed in Whos Who in the JFK Assassination died suspiciously? Why just focus on Frazier? Would you expect that 100 of the 552 who testified at the Warren Commission would need to be be eliminated when “only” 20 to 30 were necessary to silence and send a message to the others. To question why any specific Warren Commission witness would not be eliminated while at the same time ignoring the statistically impossible number who were eliminated is patently ridiculous.
- Even though the probability that the witnesses died unnaturally is 1 in a trillion, it is not absolute ZERO so it is possible.
Yes, someone actually said that.
- The letter from the London Sunday Times Legal Manager to HSCA refutes the actuary’s calculation.
But the Sunday Times Legal Manager did not mention the actuary’s methodology or the fact that 13 of the 18 deaths were unnatural. The letter closes with the astounding statement that no one at the Times knew the actuary’s name!
- Bugliosi in his book claimed there were 2479 names in the Warren Commission index and that according to an actuary he consulted, the probability of the deaths was 1 in 1.2.
But a) the 2479 names in the index included non-witnesses like George Washington, Abe Lincoln and FDR and b) Bugliosi did not mention that total mortality rates were used in the calculation. That is incorrect. Unnatural deaths must be used.
- The London Times actuary’s odds were ridiculous and declared invalid by the HSCA.
The actuary probably worked for one of London’s largest insurance companies. The calculation was confirmed for 13 unnatural deaths among 459 witnesses and 18 total deaths among 560 witnesses.
-McAdams claims that there is no evidence that the 7 FBI agents who died mysteriously within 6 months in 1977 were called to testify at the HSCA.
But it is a fact. His statement shows his desperation. He has no wiggle room to retort. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3689
1977 mortality rates
0.004137 Heart Attack
0.003094 Official weighted rate: 5 heart attacks, 2 accidents
0.001826 Speculative weighted rate: 4 homicides, 3 heart attacks
The probability of n deaths among N witnesses over T years, given mortality rate R, is
P = POISSON(n, T*N*R, false)
Assume N=20 FBI were called to testify at HSCA.
Scenario I: 7 heart attacks (reference illustration)
P= 3.95E-14= POISSON(7,.5*20*.004137, false)
Probability: 1 in 25 trillion
Official Cause of Death
Scenario II: 5 heart attacks, 2 accidents
P= 5.23E-15= POISSON(7,.5*20*.003094, false)
Probability: 1 in 190 trillion
Speculative Scenario III: 3 heart attacks, 4 homicides
P= 1.32E-16= POISSON(7,.5*20*.001826, false)
Probability: 1 in 7000 trillion
Speculative Scenario IV: 7 homicides
P= 1.11E-25= POISSON(7,.5*20*.000092, false)
Probability: 1 in 9 trillion trillion
Three scenarios of FBI heart attack mortality, assuming 20 FBI were called to testify at HSCA : 1) equal, 2) double and 3) triple the national rate. Even if FBI heart attack mortality is triple the national rate, the probability of 7 deaths in 6 months is still infinitesimal: 1 in 100 billion.
1- 0.003094 5.23E-15 1 in 190 trillion (same rate as population)
2- 0.006049 5.54E-13 1 in 1.8 trillion (double the rate)
3- 0.009004 8.70E-12 1 in 100 billion (triple the rate)
Assume that an impossible 100 FBI were called to testify.
P= 3.6E-10 or 1 in 2.7 billion.
All 7 heart 5 heart/ 3 heart/
FBI attacks 2 accid. 4 murders 7 murders
08. 6.63E-17 8.72E-18 2.18E-19 1.81E-28
20. 3.95E-14 5.23E-15 1.32E-16 1.11E-25
30. 6.61E-13 8.79E-14 2.23E-15 1.89E-24
100 2.61E-09 3.61E-10 9.56E-12 8.61E-21