RSS

Category Archives: JFK

To Believe the Zapruder Film was Not Altered, You Must Believe…

Richard Charnin
July 21, 2014

JFK Blog Posts
JFK Calc Spreadsheet Database
Tables and Graphs

To Believe the Zapruder Film was Not Altered, You Must Believe…

- The JFK limo did not come to a complete stop. Thirty-three (33) of 59 witnesses were mistaken.
- The Zapruder film was not shown until 1975 because it was too gruesome, not because it falsely depicted the actual event.

- Frame 313 is the only frame which shows the effects of the fatal head shot
- The pink explosion in the right front of JFK’s head in Frame 313 is authentic and indicates a shot from the rear.
- The Parkland hospital and autopsy witnesses who described a fist-size exit wound in the right rear of JFK’s head were all mistaken.

- SS agent Clint Hill did not cover the bodies of JFK and Jackie Kennedy.
- Hill was mistaken in describing a right-rear head exit wound
- DPD Harkins was mistaken in his claim of crossing the street between the limo and the follow-up car.

- ARRB Lead Investigator Doug Horne was mistaken in claiming that the film’s chain of custody was not sent directly to Life Magazine the day after the assassination but went to the CIA’s primary photo analysis facility in Washington DC, the National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC).
- Horne is mistaken in stating that “the real exit wound behind President Kennedy’s right ear, in the back of his head has been blacked out on the film, a false exit wound has been painted onto the right front and the top of his head, to mimic the autopsy photos”.
- Horne is mistaken in claiming that “You do not see any exit debris leaving the back of President Kennedy’s head and traveling to the rear in the Zapruder film. So if the car stop has been removed which it may have and if the exit debris leaving the back of his head has been removed, I should say that they’re not present, so therefore I suspect they’ve been removed.”
- Horne is mistaken in claiming that the agent who delivered the film to NPIC on the second night to make a second set of briefing boards and who said it came from Hawkeye Works, the CIA’s secret photo lab at Kodak headquarters in Rochester NY.

- Dino Brugioni, Duty Officer at NPIC, the photo expert who saw the original Z-film on Nov.22, was mistaken in claiming that a) the head shot did not look anything like the extant Z-film, b) the rear head wound resulted in a white cloud of brain matter which was visible in a number of frames, not just 313.

- Motion picture film professionals who said the dark patches in blacked out areas of the Z-film did not look like natural shadows were mistaken.
- All seven experts in the post production of motion pictures who viewed the high definition scans of each frame of the Zapruder film and know what special effects look like were mistaken in claiming that the head wounds were poorly altered.

Doug Horne and Dino Brugioni: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGr21FZBVL4

Jim Fetzer Interview of Doug Horne: http://nwopodcast.com/fetz/media/jim%20fetzer%20real%20deal-doug%20horne.mp3

Doug Horne provides details of the true chain of custody, where, why and how the film was altered in this very comprehensive piece: http://assassinationofjfk.net/the-two-npic-zapruder-film-events-signposts-pointing-to-the-films-alteration/

This mathematical proof that the Z-film was altered is based on Vince Palamara’s article (33 of 59 eyewitnesses saw a FULL JFK limo STOP): http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/02/04/jfk-assassination-mathematical-proof-that-the-zapruder-film-was-altered/

John Costella on the Z-film hoax: http://assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/

Oliver Stone on Democracy Now: the Z-film was altered: http://www.infowars.com/oliver-stone-zapruder-film-was-altered/

Philip Stahl (“Copernicus”): a mathematical analysis confirms that the Z-film was altered and the removal of frames does not invalidate the acoustic evidence. http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/02/was-zapruder-film-tampered-with.html

This blogger changed his mind and is now convinced the Z-film was altered: http://theamericanchronicle.blogspot.com/2013/04/was-zapruder-film-altered-redux.html

 
1 Comment

Posted by on July 22, 2014 in JFK

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

To Believe Oswald was not Standing in Front of the TSBD, you must believe that…

Richard Charnin
July 14, 2014

JFK Blog Posts
JFK Calc Spreadsheet Database
Tables and Graphs

To believe Oswald was not standing in front of the TSBD at 12:30pm, you must believe all of the following…

- Oswald lied to Det. Will Fritz when he said he was “out with Bill Shelley in front” at 12:30.
- Oswald lied because he had no alibi other than being seen on the 2nd floor by TSBD manager Roy Truly and policeman Marrion Baker at 12:31.

- Fritz’s notes of his Oswald interview were hidden until 1993 due to poor record-keeping. They were released by ARRB in 1997.
- Oswald’s statement to Fritz was not revealed by the Warren Commission because of administrative oversight.

- The fact that not one witness claimed to have seen Oswald in front is proof he was not there.
- The Warren Commission would surely have allowed testimony that Oswald was in front and would have proceeded to begin a new investigation.

- Unlike his fellow employees, Oswald had no interest in viewing the motorcade.
- Oswald did not view the motorcade because he was thirsty and wanted a coke.

- The figures to the left of Doorman in the famous Altgens6 photo were accidentally blotted out during photo processing.
- The fact that Lovelady looks like Doorman cannot be due to film alteration.
- Lovelady was mistaken or lied to Warren Commission interrogator Ball when he said he sat down on the steps eating his lunch in front of Bill Shelley who was standing behind him.
- The fact that Ball asked Lovelady to place a DARK arrow pointing to himself in the DARK area of Altgens6 makes perfect sense and is not suspicious.

- It is just coincidence that Doorman’s long-sleeve open shirt was just like the shirt that Oswald wore in custody.
- The fact that Doorman is wearing Oswald’s shirt does not mean he is Oswald.
- The pixel analysis of Doorman’s shirt which showed that it was not Lovelady’s proves nothing.
- The fact that Doorman’s open long-sleeve shirt is not Lovelady’s short-sleeved striped shirt or his long-sleeve plaid shirt proves nothing.
- The fact that Oswald looks like Doorman and is wearing his shirt is sheer coincidence.
- Lovelady was mistaken or lied to CBS News when he said that the open short-sleeve striped shirt he was photographed wearing by the FBI on 2/29/64 was not the shirt he wore on 11/22/63.

- It is just a coincidence that many who do not believe Oswald was Doorman also believe that the Altgens6 photo was not altered and that the Zapruder film was not altered and the photos of Oswald standing in the backyard holding a rifle were not fakes.

- It is inconceivable that Oswald was Doorman. This should not even be discussed since it is 50 years after the assassination. It has already been decided.

-The WC said Lovelady was Doorman. Of course, the WC also said Oswald was on the 6th floor shooting JFK. But why would the WC lie about Doorman? What would be their motive? Besides, Doorman looks like Lovelady, therefore it must be him. Who are we to question it?
—————————————————————————-

Did Officer Baker and Roy Truly encounter Oswald on the 2nd floor? http://jfkthelonegunmanmyth.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-lunchroom-encounter-that-never-was.html

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on July 14, 2014 in JFK

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

JFK: Talking points from the McAdams-Reitzes Academy of Disinformation

JFK: Talking points from the McAdams-Reitzes Academy of Disinformation

Richard Charnin
July 7, 2014

JFK Blog Posts
JFK Calc Spreadsheet Database
Tables and Graphs

The following topics are often cited by Warren Commission apologists to prove that Oswald was the Lone Gunman. The topics comprise a basic curriculum of talking points for Lone Nutters in the McAdams-Reitzes Academy of Disinformation. Nothing fancy. The links are to articles which expose the lies (there are many other articles which do the same):

1. Rifle? http://www.giljesus.com/jfk/rifle.htm
2. Handgun? http://www.giljesus.com/jfk/DPD.htm
3. Brennan? http://www.giljesus.com/jfk/brennan.htm
4. Backyard photos? http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2009/11/hany-farids-pixelated-illusions.html
5. Buell Frazier? http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/15th_Issue/pbag2.html

6. Curtain rods? http://22november1963.org.uk/lee-harvey-oswald-curtain-rods
7. Oswald on the 6th floor? http://www.giljesus.com/jfk/lunchroom_encounter.htm
8. Palm print? http://www.giljesus.com/jfk/paraffin_test.htm
9. 6.5 bullet fragment? http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/moreon65fragment.htm
10. Dealey Plaza witnesses? http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/02/26/jfk-dealey-plaza-witnesses-john-mcadams-strange-list/

11. Ruth Paine? http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2009/12/ruth-paines-garage.html
12. Head wound? http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/largewound.htm
13. Tippit? http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/malice.htm
14. Zapruder? http://assassinationofjfk.net/the-two-npic-zapruder-film-events-signposts-pointing-to-the-films-alteration/
15. Roger Craig?http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/01st_Issue/rcraig.html

Who still believes the Warren Report? Your answers to the 10 hypothetical questions in this post will reveal whether or not you do: http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/04/05/10137/

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on July 7, 2014 in JFK

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

JFK Explosive Testimony: Roger Craig, Will Fritz and Oswald

JFK Explosive Testimony: Roger Craig, Will Fritz and Oswald

Richard Charnin
July 1, 2014

JFK Blog Posts
JFK Calc Spreadsheet Database
Tables and Graphs

Let’s review what these authors had to say: Jim Garrison, Jim Marrs and Jim Douglass

Garrison: “On the Trail of the Assassins”, pg. 110
Garrison met with Craig a few months after his testimony which doomed Craig’s career as a law enforcement officer. He relates Craig’s story about meeting with Capt. Will Fritz in his office where Oswald freely admitted that it was Ruth Paine’s station wagon and did not deny getting into it. Sheriff Buddy Walthers went out to the Paine residence and confirmed that she did have a Nash Rambler station wagon. It is on the record. Neither Fritz nor any other member of the Dallas Homicide division followed up the lead. Fritz later denied that Craig had been in his office at police headquarters or told him about the Rambler. However, a news photo that turned up six years later in Dallas police Chief’s Curry’s autobiography clearly showed Craig was there.

Marrs: “Crossfire”, pg. 318.
Craig said that as he approached the TSBD and asked for someone involved in the investigation, a man in a grey suit told him “I’m with the Secret Service”. Craig testified that the SS agent took no interest or notes of the persons leaving the scene, but he became extremely interested as soon as Craig mentioned the Rambler. It was the only part of Craig’s statement that he took down in the pad he was holding. Regarding Craig and Oswald in Fritz’s office: This was explosive testimony since Oswald had officially made his way home by bus and taxi. Therefore, the Warren Commission stated it could not accept important elements of Craig’s testimony. It went even further, stating that the meeting between Craig and Oswald never occurred. Marrs also mentions that the proof he was there was based on the photo in Curry’s book.

Douglass: “JFK and the Unspeakable”, pg. 274
After Oswald mentioned Ruth Paine’s station wagon, he said ”Now everyone will know who I am”. At this point Fritz ushered Craig out of his office. It was too late – for the government and for Craig who had seen and heard too much. What Roger Craig would testify to in the years ahead would be corroborated by a parade of other witnesses: Ed Hoffman, Carolyn Walther, James Worrell, Richard Carr, Helen Forrest, James Pennington, Marvin Robinson and Roy Cooper. The Rambler was the getaway car.

Since the Warren Commission decided by that time that Oswald must have escaped in a cab and bus, the WC also disregarded Craig’s account of the dialogue with Oswald in Fritz’s office – because Fritz denied Craig was even there. Craig would also be attacked on the basis of an FBI report that seemed to show Paine did not own a Nash Rambler but rather a 1955 Chevrolet station wagon. Judged in terms of its source, the report proved nothing. The FBI agent who wrote it would later confess to a congressional committee that he was guilty of deliberately destroying key assassination evidence in obedience to his FBI superior’s orders.

By rejecting Roger Craig’s testimony, the Warren Commission could ignore the significance of Oswald’s words to his interrogator, Will Fritz. According to Roger Craig, it was Oswald who said that the car that picked him up was a station wagon owned by Mrs. Paine, who Oswald then defended.

Notes:
Fritz also failed to reveal his notes which surfaced 30 years later. Oswald said he was “out with Bill Shelley in front” at the time of the shooting. Of course, the WC never mentioned the notes.

Craig claimed there were at least 14 instances where his testimony was twisted by Attorney David Belin who interviewed Craig in private. One would think that a witness as critical as Craig would be interviewed in front of the Warren Commission.

In choosing to dismiss Craig’s testimony,the WC relied on the tortured testimony of
- Cab driver Whaley, whose manifest showed he picked up Oswald at 12:30. He failed to identify him in the lineup and his description of Oswald’s clothing was full of contradictory statements.
- Bus driver McWatters could not identify Oswald.
- Bus passenger Mary Bledsoe, who McWatters did not recall seeing on the bus. Her testimony was disjointed and unintelligible. She was Oswald’s former landlady – a perfect witness.

Finally, who is more credible: Roger Craig or…. David Belin, Will Fritz, Ruth Paine, Whaley, McWatters, Bledsoe?

Who had the motive to twist and intimidate testimony, Roger Craig or the Warren Commission? Craig’s motive was to tell the truth as he saw it. The Warren Commission made sure that evidence of a conspiracy was suppressed at all costs and that Oswald was the lone assassin.

Consider the pathetic cab and bus ride testimony and WC motivation to avoid a conspiracy at all costs. We know that someone got into the station wagon based on solid confirmation of Craig’s testimony by at least six witnesses. If the cab/bus ride was a bogus contrivance, then Oswald had to get home some other way. By simple logic, one must assume that he got back in the station wagon – if you believe Craig and the six witnesses. Oswald looked like himself.

Roger Craig stuck to his story to the bitter end.

Testimony of Roger Craig

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/craig.htm

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/craig1.htm

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/craigsh.htm

Testimony of Will Fritz

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/fritz1.htm

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/fritz3.htm

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/fritz2.htm

Testimony of William Whaley

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/whaley1.htm

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/whaley2.htm

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/whaley3.htm

Testimony of Cecil McWatters

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/mcwatters.htm

Testimony of Mary Bledsoe

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/bledsoe.htm

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/bledsoe1.htm

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on July 1, 2014 in JFK

 

Tags: , , ,

JFK: Mathematical proof that the Oswald backyard photos were faked

JFK: Mathematical proof that the Oswald backyard photos were faked.

Richard Charnin
June 9, 2014

JFK Blog Posts
JFK Calc Spreadsheet Database
Tables and Graphs

The famous photo of Oswald holding a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle and a copy of the Daily Worker which appeared on the cover of LIFE magazine convinced millions he was the Lone Assassin. But there were four photos which upon close inspection and a mathematical analysis prove that they were faked.

Philip Stahl has shown a sophisticated mathematical proof that the photos were faked: http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2009/11/hany-farids-pixelated-illusions.html

Using differential equation fractal analysis, Stahl shows that the V-shaped shadow under Oswald’s nose is essentially identical in all four photos. Stahl debunks the pixel analysis of software scientist Hany Farid who claimed that the photos were genuine. Farid’s lab was partially funded by the FBI. Very strange.

Oswald had worked in a photo lab (Jagger-Childs-Stovall). He told DPD Captain Will Fritz that his face was superimposed on another body – and that he would prove it. He never had the chance. He also told Fritz that he never owned a Mannlicher-Carcano. http://www.nytimes.com/1997/11/21/us/interrogator-s-notes-say-oswald-denied-assassination-role.html

There is absolutely no change in Oswald’s facial position or expression in the four backyard photos – a physical impossibility. In 1977, Canadian Defense Dept. photographic specialist Major General John Pickard determined that there was a 99% probability the LIFE Magazine cover photo was a fake and noted that each photo was taken from a slightly different angle. When one photo was laid atop another in succession, it is found that nothing matches exactly. Pickard observed: “Yet, impossibly, while one body is bigger – the heads match perfectly.” Very strange.

Judyth Vary Baker wrote this comprehensive essay on Farid’s flawed analysis of the backyard photos. http://www.scribd.com/doc/38733842/Farid-s-Folly-and-the-Lee-Harvey-Oswald-Backyard-Photo-Fiasco

David von Pein, a Warren Commission apologist, claims that Oswald owned the Mannlicher Carcano: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/mannlicher-carcano.html

Michael T. Griffith, a well-known JFK researcher, provides substantial evidence that Oswald did not own the rifle: http://michaelgriffith1.tripod.com/faulty.htm

Of course, Oswald could have purchased a rifle anonymously at any gun shop in Texas, so why would he buy a Carcano using a traceable mail order as “Alex Hidell” from Klein’s Sporting Goods in Chicago? Very strange. http://jfklancer.com/pdf/moyer.pdf

Hidell was apparently a cover name for agents. It was also the ID found on Richard Case Nagell, a CIA agent. Nagell became aware of a plan to assassinate JFK and was afraid of being the patsy. So he got himself arrested to give him an alibi by shooting the ceiling of a bank. Dick Russell wrote it in “The Man Who Knew Too Much”. Very strange.

This article attempts to unmask the real “Alek Hidell”. http://theamericanchronicle.blogspot.com/2013/09/unmasking-alek-hidell.html

When will the corporate media ever report the above facts and analysis? Probably never. Note Rachel Maddow’s pathetic discussion of Oswald and the Mannlicher Carcano. Very strange. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prtUkzyO0I0

Rachel never mentioned the testimony of award-winning Dallas Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig. Four Dallas police officers (Boone, Craig, Weitzman, Fritz) initially located a 7.65 Mauser on the 6th floor of the Texas Schoolbook Depository. It was reported all over the media. There was no question about it being a Mauser: “7.65 Mauser” was stamped on the weapon. The CIA reported that it was a Mauser. But a few hours later, it morphed into a Mannlicher Carcano. The rest is history. Very strange, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFEx8hjD8kE

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on June 9, 2014 in JFK

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

JFK Probability Analysis: Suspicious Deaths of Dealey Plaza Witnesses

JFK Probability Analysis: Suspicious Deaths of Dealey Plaza Witnesses

Richard Charnin
June 4, 2014

JFK Blog Posts
JFK Calc Spreadsheet Database
Tables and Graphs

The probabilities of JFK witness deaths for various groups have been previously posted: Warren Commission, London Times actuary,Garrison/ Shaw, Church, HSCA, Simkin Educational Forum, JFK-related 1400+ witness reference “Who’s Who in the JFK Assassination”.

It is an interesting exercise to calculate the probabilities of suspicious deaths of 20 Dealey Plaza witnesses among the 122 in the JFK Calc spreadsheet database over the 15 year period from 1964-78.

The HSCA in 1979 claimed that the London Sunday Times actuary’s probability calculation of 18 material witness deaths in the three years following the assassination was invalid. The reason: the witness universe was unknown. But the HSCA did not consider Dealey Plaza witnesses or other known witness groups cited above. The HSCA could have confirmed the actuary with a true analysis.

The actuary’s 1 in 100,000 trillion probability is matched assuming 385 Dealey Plaza witnesses, 15 homicides and the average U.S. homicide rate (0.000084) over 15 years.

The fact that they were in Dealey Plaza makes them obvious material witnesses – by definition. Furthermore, 14 of the 20 witnesses testified at the Warren Commission, 4 were sought to testify in the Garrison trial, 2 at the Church Senate hearings and 3 at the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA).

View the witness list here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#gid=79

Of the 20 suspicious deaths, 8 were officially ruled unnatural (2 homicides, 5 accidents, 1 suicide). The other 12 were ruled natural (5 heart attacks, 7 other).

The probability is 1 in 1500 of 8 ruled unnatural deaths assuming 300 witnesses.

But many ruled accidents and suicides were likely homicides (as were heart attacks and sudden cancers). A statistical analysis of the expected number of accidents, suicides and natural deaths indicates there were approximately 15 unnatural deaths – all homicides. Let’s calculate the probabilities of 8 and 15 homicides, assuming 2X the national homicide rate.

Assuming 300 witnesses, the probability of 15 homicides is 1 in 175 trillion.
The probability of 8 homicides is 1 in 700 thousand.

Assuming 500 witnesses, the probability of 15 homicides is 1 in 130 billion.
The probability of 8 homicides is 1 in 18 thousand.

View the calculations in column “O”: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#gid=41

Sensitivity Analysis
(Assumption: Dallas 2X National Homicide rate)
Probabilities range from 1 in 5000 for 600 witnesses, 8 homicides to
1 in 60,000 trillion for 200 witnesses, 15 homicides.

..............DEALEY PLAZA WITNESSES/ PROBABILITIES
Hom 200..... 300..... 400..... 500..... 600
08 6.79E-08 1.39E-06 1.11E-05 5.32E-05 1.83E-04
1 in 14mil... 700k.... 90k..... 18k...... 5000

09 3.80E-09 1.16E-07 1.24E-06 7.36E-06 3.03E-05
11 8.76E-12 6.01E-10 1.13E-08 1.05E-07 6.17E-07
13 1.38E-14 2.08E-12 6.80E-11 9.60E-10 7.98E-09

15 1.68E-17 5.70E-15 3.31E-13 7.31E-12 8.75E-11
1 in 60000tr 175tr.. 3tr.... 130bil... 11 billion

Dealey Plaza witnesses:
Inv: sought by (W)arren Commission, (G)arrison trial, (C)hurch hearings, HSCA

Date Witness …….Inv Category
7501 Allen Sweatt W POLICE
7901 Billy Lovelady W WITNESS TSBD
6901 Buddy Walthers WG POLICE
6901 Charles Mentesana – WITNESS TSBD
7109 Cliff Carter W LBJ
7801 Clint Lewis WH POLICE
7509 Earl Cabell WG CIA
6606 Frank Martin W POLICE
7502 Jack Beers W MEDIA
7402 J.A. Milteer C MINUTEMEN
6701 Jack Ruby W MAFIA POLICE
7604 James Chaney - POLICE
6611 James Worrell W WITNESS TSBD
7707 Ken O’Donnell WC JFK
6608 Lee Bowers W WITNESS KNOLL
6311 Lee Oswald - RUBY FBI CIA
7101 Mac Wallace - LBJ Shooter?
7706 Regis Kennedy GH FBI LHO
7505 Roger Craig WG POLICE
6512 William Whaley W WITNESS TSBD

Quick JFK Witness death Calculator: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#gid=78

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on June 4, 2014 in JFK

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

JFK: Debunking Scott Aaronson’s “Twenty Reasons to Believe Oswald Acted Alone”

JFK: Debunking Scott Aaronson’s “Twenty Reasons to Believe Oswald Acted Alone”

Richard Charnin
April 30, 2014

JFK Blog Posts
JFK Calc Spreadsheet Database
Tables and Graphs

I came across this blog post by Scott Aaronson: Twenty Reasons to Believe Oswald Acted Alone. http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1596

I replied with a brief one paragraph comment which was not posted. This is a response to each of the twenty reasons.

Aaronson is a 33 year old quantum physicist who readily admits he is unfamiliar with the evidence and is new to the JFK assassination. But it is the detailed factual evidence which proves a conspiracy. Aaronson states opinions which rehash the standard disinformation playbook of myths contrived to frame truth seeking researchers as conspiracy theory (CT) buffs. His lack of knowledge of relevant historical events prior and subsequent to the assassination is apparent. One can only conclude that he has been brainwashed by a complicit corporate media and academia which has covered up the assassination evidence for fifty years.

Why would someone so disciplined in the scientific method fail to do his homework? He notes that his heroes Carl Sagan and Bertrand Russell were conspiracy believers. It may be that for the 50th anniversary of the assassination, Scott felt compelled to write something quickly – without getting into the wealth of inconvenient details and facts. But the devil is in the details.

Aaronson states: I also started dipping, for the first time in my life, into a tiny fraction of the vast literature about the JFK assassination. The trigger (so to speak) for me was this article by David Talbot, the founder of Salon.com. http://www.salon.com/2013/11/06/the_jfk_assassination_we_still_dont_know_what_happened/.

I figured, if the founder of Salon is a JFK conspiracy buff—if, for crying out loud, my skeptical heroes Bertrand Russell and Carl Sagan were both JFK conspiracy buffs—then maybe it’s at least worth familiarizing myself with the basic facts and arguments.

But another reason is that I’m skeptical that anyone actually comes to believe the JFK conspiracy hypothesis because they don’t see how the second bullet came in at the appropriate angle to pass through JFK’s neck and shoulder and then hit Governor Connally.

RC: JFK was hit in the back 5.5 inches below the collar by a bullet on a downward trajectory which did not exit. I am more than skeptical – actually dumbfounded- that anyone actually believes the Single Bullet Theory. There are three possibilities: the believer is a) unfamiliar with the evidence, b) familiar with the evidence but is dumb as rocks, or c) a JFK disinformationist.

Scott is surely unaware of Gerald Ford’s moving the back wound up to conform to the Magic Bullet’s bogus point of entry: http://www.jfklancer.com/Ford-Rankin.html

Aaronson never considered the following facts and analysis before claiming to believe the Warren Commission report that Oswald was the “lone nut” assassin.

1) To believe that Oswald killed JFK you must believe the following: http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/09/15/to-believe-that-oswald-killed-jfk-you-must-believe-that/

2) 16 mindblowing facts about who killed JFK: http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/20557-16-mind-blowing-facts-about-who-really-killed-jfk

3) 20 questions and answers on the JFK Calc spreadsheet: http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/04/09/jfk-calc-questions-on-the-spreadsheet-analysis/

This is a summary of Aaronson’s twenty reasons followed by my comments.

1. Conspiracy Buff Psychology
Conspiracy theorizing represents a known bug in the human nervous system. Given that, I think our prior should be overwhelmingly against anything that even looks like a conspiracy theory.

RC: History has taught us just the opposite. People conspire all the time.

2. Ruby: Genesis of Conspiracy thinking
The shooting of Oswald by Jack Ruby created the perfect conditions for conspiracy theorizing to fester.

RC: So, wouldn’t that be a normal, rational response. To permanently silence the patsy? And Ruby himself confirmed it was a conspiracy multiple times.

3. Historical Lone Nuts
Other high-profile assassinations to which we might compare this one—for example, those of Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, RFK, Martin Luther King Jr., Gandhi, Yitzchak Rabin…—appear to have been the work of “lone nuts,” or at most “conspiracies” of small numbers of lowlifes. So why not this one?

RC: You don’t know that they were killed by “lone nuts”. Did it ever occur to you that the targets were all liberals who wanted change? JFK was a liberal who wanted to change things.

4. LHO the psychopath
Oswald seems to have perfectly fit the profile of a psychopathic killer (see, for example, Case Closed by Gerald Posner).

RC: You should know what people who knew Oswald had to say. Quite the opposite of the Posner propaganda piece. Here are some things you don’t know about Oswald. http://my.firedoglake.com/sancheq/2013/11/23/things-you-never-knew-about-lee-harvey-oswald/

5. No evidence of others
A half-century of investigation has failed to link any individual besides Oswald to the crime. Conspiracy theorists love to throw around large, complicated entities like the CIA or the Mafia as potential “conspirators”—but in the rare cases when they’ve tried to go further, and implicate an actual human being other than Oswald or Ruby (or distant power figures like LBJ), the results have been pathetic and tragic.

RC: Oswald never had a trial. Even Posner admits he would never have been convicted as there is no evidence that he was on the 6th floor of the TSBD at 12:30. The Altgens6 photo is strong evidence that he was on the first floor watching the motorcade. Conspirators included Clay Shaw, Jack Ruby, David Ferrie, Hunt and the Cubans, et al. You call the Shaw trial “pathetic and tragic”, but even though the he was acquitted, the jurors said that they were convinced it was a conspiracy. Shaw was a contract CIA agent who lied at his trial. CIA Director Helms admitted Shaw was a CIA operative in 1979. David Ferrie was murdered shortly after he was named as a witness. Garrison’s case was sabotaged. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hqo2c_SxQag

There were at least 78 material witness deaths that were officially ruled unnatural and at least forty other suspicious heart attacks and sudden cancers. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#gid=1

6. Gen. Walker shooting
Oswald had previously tried to assassinate General Walker—a fact that was confirmed by his widow Marina Oswald, but that, incredibly, is barely even discussed in the reams of conspiracy literature.

RC: LHO did not shoot Walker. There is no evidence of that. Marina was forced to say it to protect her kids; she claimed it was not true years later. http://22november1963.org.uk/did-lee-oswald-shoot-general-edwin-walker
There are many problems with the case against Oswald. http://michaelgriffith1.tripod.com/faulty.htm

7. The Tippit canard
There’s clear evidence that Oswald murdered Officer Tippit an hour after shooting JFK—a fact that seems perfectly consistent with the state of mind of someone who’d just murdered the President, but that, again, seems to get remarkably little discussion in the conspiracy literature.

RC: LHO did not shoot Tippit. He could not walk the 1 mile in 2 minutes after leaving his apartment and seen standing at a bus stop at 1:04pm. Tippit was shot at 1:06. The bullets recovered from Tippit were from an automatic and did not match Oswald’s revolver, Eyewitnesses saw two shooters. http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n2/tippit.pdf http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=12745

8. Oswald a violent, pathological liar
Besides being a violent nut, Oswald was also a known pathological liar. He lied on his employment applications, he lied about having established a thriving New Orleans branch of Fair Play for Cuba, he lied and lied and lied.

RC: Thriving branch? That’s a joke. Oswald was working for Guy Banister (FBI) to distribute leaflets to stage a fake altercation. Oswald was CIA and an FBI informer.

9. Oswald attitude in custody
According to police accounts, Oswald acted snide and proud of himself after being taken into custody.

RC: That is untrue. When will you provide specifics? See the testimony of Detective Will Fritz. Oswald could not reveal his ties to the FBI and CIA. He was calm, cool and asked for legal representation.

10. Conspiracy Theories are wildly inconsistent
Almost all JFK conspiracy theories must be false, simply because they’re mutually inconsistent.

RC: Cite the theories and the inconsistencies. Can you provide specifics? Yes, some theories are false, created by disinformationists to confuse the public (such as the REELZ “Smoking Gun” fiasco).

11. Witnesses are unreliable
The case for Oswald as lone assassin seems to become stronger, the more you focus on the physical evidence and stuff that happened right around the time and place of the event. To an astonishing degree, the case for a conspiracy seems to rely on verbal testimony years or decades afterward—often by people who are known confabulators, who were nowhere near Dealey Plaza at the time, who have financial or revenge reasons to invent stories, and who “remembered” seeing Oswald and Ruby with CIA agents, etc. only under drugs or hypnosis. This is precisely the pattern we would expect if conspiracy theorizing reflected the reality of the human nervous system rather than the reality of the assassination.

RC: There were 200 witnesses in Dealey Plaza. Over 90 said they heard shots from the Grassy Knoll; about 45 at the TSBD. Were they all liars or mistaken? Were they inventing stories? What about the Parkland doctors who all said the throat wound was one of entrance and the head wound an exit? You are sadly misinformed about one-sided witness testimony which indicates at least one addition shooter at the Grassy Knoll. Why do you avoid specifics? https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#gid=65

12. Assassination motive
If the conspiracy is so powerful, why didn’t it do something more impressive than just assassinate JFK? Why didn’t it rig the election to prevent JFK from becoming President in the first place?

RC: JFK had many enemies: Big Oil, Military Industrial Establishment, anti-Castro Cubans, mobsters, Joint Chiefs. The public execution gave a message to all future presidents.

13. Who hired the shooters?
Pretty much all the conspiracy writers I encountered exude total, 100% confidence, not only in the existence of additional shooters, but in the guilt of their favored villains (they might profess ignorance, but then in the very next sentence they’d talk about how JFK’s murder was “a triumph for the national security establishment”).

RC: 100% confidence is justified by ballistic, video, acoustic and eyewitness evidence which all point to at least one more shooter behind the picket fence at the Grassy Knoll.

14. Too big to cover up, someone would have talked
Every conspiracy theory I’ve encountered seems to require “uncontrolled growth” in size and complexity: that is, the numbers of additional shooters, alterations of medical records, murders of inconvenient witnesses, coverups, coverups of the coverups, etc. that need to be postulated all seem to multiply without bound.

RC: That’s because the evidence, which you are apparently unaware of, is overwhelming. Why do you ignore this evidence? There were over 100 material witness unnatural deaths. The probability is ZERO.

15. JFK the conservative
JFK was not a liberal Messiah. He moved slowly on civil rights for fear of a conservative backlash, invested heavily in building nukes, signed off on the botched plans to kill Fidel Castro, and helped lay the groundwork for the US’s later involvement in Vietnam. Yes, it’s possible that he would’ve made wiser decisions about Vietnam than LBJ ended up making; that’s part of what makes his assassination (like RFK’s later assassination) a tragedy. But many conspiracy theorists’ view of JFK as an implacable enemy of the military-industrial complex is preposterous.

RC: Yes, JFK moved slowly on civil rights, but then in 1962 he ordered integration at the Univ. of Alabama and gave the first great presidential speech for black equality. He did not seek to kill Castro; he was negotiating for peaceful coexistence with Castro and Khruschev behind the scenes. The CIA and the military were determined to force the issue, even after JFK ordered the anti-Castro camps shut down. He signed a memorandum to pull out of Vietnam by 1965 and the Test Ban Treaty with the Russians in 1963.

16. LBJ the liberal
By the same token, LBJ was not exactly a right-wing conspirator’s dream candidate. He was, if anything, more aggressive on poverty and civil rights than JFK was. And even if he did end up being better for certain military contractors, that’s not something that would’ve been easy to predict in 1963, when the US’s involvement in Vietnam had barely started.

RC: LBJ was NOT a liberal; he was forced to appear as one to placate the left and carry on JFK’s initiative on civil rights. LBJ gave the military the Vietnam War they wanted by staging the bogus Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964. He kept the oil depletion allowance for his Texas buddies.

17. Conspiracy buffs have a nervous system disorder
Lots of politically-powerful figures have gone on the record as believers in a conspiracy, including John Kerry, numerous members of Congress, and even frequently-accused conspirator LBJ himself. Some people would say that this lends credibility to the conspiracy cause. To me, however, it indicates just the opposite: that there’s no secret cabal running the world, and that those in power are just as prone to bugs in the human nervous system as anyone else is.

RC: What a ridiculous statement! Its just the opposite. So your heroes Sagan and Bertrand Russell suffered this disorder? Where is your logic? If anything, coincidence theorists like yourself suffer from massive propaganda disorientation. To believe everything the government claims is a severe attention disorder.

18. The intelligence agency incompetence canard
As far as I can tell, the conspiracy theorists are absolutely correct that JFK’s security in Dallas was unbelievably poor; that the Warren Commission was as interested in reassuring the nation and preventing a war with the USSR or Cuba as it was in reaching the truth (the fact that it did reach the truth is almost incidental); and that agencies like the CIA and FBI kept records related to the assassination classified for way longer than there was any legitimate reason to (though note that most records finally were declassified in the 1990s, and they provided zero evidence for any conspiracy). As you might guess, I ascribe all of these things to bureaucratic incompetence rather than to conspiratorial ultra-competence. But once again, these government screwups help us understand how so many intelligent people could come to believe in a conspiracy even in the total absence of one.

RC: It’s always incompetence, never venality. Sorry, the agencies are not incompetent. Total absence of a conspiracy? You ignore or are ignorant of the totality of evidence which proves a conspiracy.

19. Psychological need to call it a conspiracy
In the context of the time, the belief that JFK was killed by a conspiracy filled a particular need: namely, the need to believe that the confusing, turbulent events of the 1960s had an understandable guiding motive behind them, and that a great man like JFK could only be brought down by an equally-great evil, rather than by a chronically-unemployed loser who happened to see on a map that JFK’s motorcade would be passing by his workplace.

RC: Oh, really? We need a conspiracy to satisfy our need for excitement? Wrong. We need to learn the truth. You believe that only a Lone Nut would want to bring down JFK or RFK, or MLK, or John Lennon, or JFK,Jr, or Wellstone, or Gandhi, etc. It’s never a conspiracy. That is very naive. Newsflash! We live in a world of conspiracies. It makes the world go round.

20. Can’t Connect the Dots
At its core, every conspiracy argument seems to be built out of “holes”: “the details that don’t add up in the official account,” “the questions that haven’t been answered,” etc. What I’ve never found is a truly coherent alternative scenario: just one “hole” after another. This pattern is the single most important red flag for me, because it suggests that the JFK conspiracy theorists view themselves as basically defense attorneys: people who only need to sow enough doubts, rather than establish the reality of what happened. Crucially, creationism, 9/11 trutherism, and every other elaborate-yet-totally-wrong intellectual edifice I’ve ever encountered has operated on precisely the same “defense attorney principle”: “if we can just raise enough doubts about the other side’s case, we win!” But that’s a terrible approach to knowledge, once you’ve seen firsthand how a skilled arguer can raise unlimited doubts even about the nonexistence of a monster under your bed. Such arguers are hoping, of course, that you’ll find their monster hypothesis so much more fun, exciting, and ironically comforting than the “random sounds in the night hypothesis,” that it won’t even occur to you to demand they show you their monster.

RC
You avoid any and all analysis of the evidence. You make pompous claims which have no basis in fact and just perpetuate myths while admitting ignorance of the facts and evidence of the assassination. You employ Warren Commission apologist propaganda and parrot lies that have been promoted by the corporate media – who refuse to consider, much less debate, the evidence. Hear no evil; see no evil.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on April 29, 2014 in JFK

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

JFK Calc: Questions on the Spreadsheet Analysis

JFK Calc: Questions on the Spreadsheet Analysis

Richard Charnin
April 9, 2014
Updated:June 7, 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.

The JFK Calc spreadsheet database includes 126 witnesses who died unnaturally and suspiciously (122 from 1964-78). https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#gid=1

This post will present the answers to questions that should legitimately be asked on the JFK witness mortality data and calculation methodology.

1) What is the data source of the witnesses?
See Jim Marrs’ “Crossfire” (103), Michael Benson’s “Who’s Who in the JFK Assassination (1400)”, Richard Belzer and David Wayne’s “Hit List” (50) and the Simkin Educational website (500). The JFK unnatural death probability analysis is cited in both Hit List and Crossfire and in well-known JFK research blogs.

Dealey Plaza eyewitnesses and associated probabilities are based on articles by these excellent researchers: Stewart Galanor, Harold Feldman, Vince Palamara and John Craig.

2) Of the 122 total suspicious deaths in JFK Calc, how many were officially ruled unnatural?
There were 78 officially ruled unnatural deaths (34 homicides, 24 accidents, 16 suicides, 4 unknown). But a statistical analysis based on historical accident, suicide and heart attack mortality rates indicates there were at least 83 homicides and 99 unnatural 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) of the 122 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 many officially ruled accidents, suicides and heart attacks were homicides?
Any analysis should consider the anomalous facts of each case (timing, etc.) which indicate homicide. We can estimate the approximate number of true homicides by calculating the statistically expected number of accidents, suicides and heart attacks. We use respective mortality rates for each cause of death. The official ruled number of accidents, suicides and heart attacks far exceeds the expected number. The difference between the official and expected numbers 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=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1of deatZJYllKTnc#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”, the number who died unnaturally, the cause of death, and the time period under study. The 67 who were sought to testify were obviously relevant – and so were the other 55. But to analyze the relevance of a given witness is a moot point. We must consider the total number. The motive for any given death is a non-issue in calculating the probability. 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 (the CIA stated that 418 witnesses testified). 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 16 officially ruled homicides from 1964-66 based on the average 0.000061 national rate: 1.3E-23 (1 in 70 billion trillion); or the probability of 34 officially ruled homicides from 1964-78 using triple the average 0.000084 national rate: 7.6E-17 (1 in 1,000 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?
There were Ruby associates,reporters, FBI, CIA, anti-Castro Cubans, mafia, police and others. Most 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) Has your study been peer-reviewed?
As stated above, the analysis is cited by Richard Belzer and David Wayne in Hit List and by Jim Marrs in Crossfire. Both are major JFK assassination historical references. The analysis is available to anyone who wants to review it: JFK researchers, actuaries, mathematicians, media. Now what about McAdams, Posner, Bugliosi and the mainstream media? Not a word. Perhaps because they can’t refute the logic or the math. I asked McAdams to have one of the Marquette math professors review it. No luck.

15) Do you disagree with John McAdams’ survey that a majority of Dealey Plaza witnesses said shots came from the Texas Book Depository? 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?
It is based on the following facts:
First, 33 of 59 witnesses said the JFK limo came to a FULL stop; 13 said NEAR stop. The probability is 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, 11 Hollywood 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/ https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#gid=64

19) What if your estimates of the number of material witnesses, unnatural deaths and homicides are 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. It consists of two tables: a range of witness group size estimates vs ranges of unnatural deaths and homicides. The homicide table ranges from 1400-10000 witnesses and 34 (ruled) to 90 (expected) homicides. All plausible scenario combinations give ZERO probabilities – absolute proof of a conspiracy. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#gid=74

The average Dallas 1964-78 homicide rate was used in the following probability calculations (approximately triple the national rate).
- 34 officially ruled homicides and a plausible 1400 witness universe:
P= 7.6E-17 or 1 in 13,000 trillion.
- 83 expected homicides and an inflated 5000 witness universe:
P= 1.7E-27 or 1 in 500 trillion trillion.

20) What about the unnatural deaths of Dealey Plaza witnesses?
There are 20 in JFK Calc. A sensitivity analysis assuming 200-600 witnesses and 8-15 homicides is another strong indicator of a conspiracy.

Assuming 400 Dealey Plaza witnesses and given the
- 0.000084 average national homicide rate, the probabilities range from 1 in 15 million (8 homicides) to 1 in 60,000 trillion (15 homicides).
- 0.000253 average Dallas homicide rate, the probabilities range from 1 in 5000 (8 homicides) to 1 in 11 billion (15 homicides).

http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/06/04/jfk-probability-analysis-suspicious-deaths-of-dealey-plaza-witnesses/

21) 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.

 
7 Comments

Posted by on April 9, 2014 in JFK

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

JFK Assassination: Researchers discuss John McAdams

JFK Assassination: Researchers discuss John McAdams

Richard Charnin
April 6, 2014

A series of articles (including three of mine) on John McAdams, the relentless Warren Commission apologist. http://richardcharnin.com/JMLaughingStock.html

The articles thoroughly debunk the pathetic arguments from the Professor of Disinformation. I enjoyed the devastating reviews of McAdams’ book “JFK Assassination Logic” by Pat Speer, David Mantik, Frank Cassano and Gary Aguilar.

Jim Hargrove asks: Since Mcadams is known to use the alias “Paul Nolan” just how many other names has he used to deceive? He claims to be many things. A jet-propulsion expert, or Crackpot?
Here is what was discovered.

Isabel Kirk: McAdams is not just a fraud as a teacher. He is a corrupt man. He is an evangelist for corruption and fraud. He has sought and enlisted disciples, and they employ his knowingly fraudulent “methodology” in their writing “assignments,” many of which are posted to the website of Marquette University.

Jim DiEugenio with Brian Hunt:
“McAdams did indeed make comments that were intended to imply that Gary Aguilar was a drug addict. IMO, they were deliberate, malicious and intended to smear the doctor.”

John Simkin: “The Education Forum”
If you do any research of major figures in the JFK assassination via web search engines you will soon find yourself on John McAdams’ website. He is clearly the main disinformation source on the net.

Debra Hartman writes:
…McAdams has neither the educational preparation nor the ability for such a position — his language skills are abysmal; his analytical skills non-existent. Not only has he done no research whatsoever on the historical question he pretends to study, he has no knowledge of even the basics of a research methodology. Thus, McAdams himself argues against long established historical facts; on the other hand, he is incapable of doing the research necessary to either confirm or dispute such facts.

And on and on….

I just added an Amazon book sales sheet to JFK Calc.
Judyth Baker’s “Me and Lee” has the highest reader rank at 4.70.

McAdams’ book is far down the totem pole with a 2.38 reader rating out of 5. His sales rank is at 944,700, far below the others. He is a laughingstock all right.

The average rank for the six books that are fact-based is 4.51. McAdams’ 2.38 rank is based on disinformation.

McAdams has had just 16 reviews in three years. NINE (9) are at level 1 (the lowest), 1 is at level 2. Only 3 are level 5. Ten of 16 reviews thought his book stunk. Compare that to Judyth Baker who had 188 reviews in three years with 163 at level 5.

Of the 6 factual books, 793 of 1039 reviews (76%) were at level 5. For McAdams, 3 of 18 (19%) were at level 5.

IT’S NO CONTEST: JFK RESEARCHERS HAVE WON THE DEBATE HANDS DOWN. ONLY MAINSTREAM MEDIA AND WARREN COMMISSION APOLOGISTS LIKE MCADAMS WON’T ADMIT IT.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#gid=75

Amazon Reader ranks (1 lowest to 5 highest)
Published -Title-Author
Sales rank 1 2 3 4 5 Total Average

4/2013 Hit List: Belzer, Wayne
33985 10 1 10 29 74 124 4.26

10/2013 Survivors Guilt: Vince Palamara
88519 8 3 2 7 83 103 4.50

10/2013 They Killed Our President: Ventura, Russell, Wayne
26202 12 2 11 36 125 186 4.40

10/2010 JFK and the Unspeakable: James Douglass
7441 23 11 16 37 333 420 4.54

10/2013 Crossfire: Jim Marrs
47599 1 0 0 2 15 18 4.67

10/2011 Me and Lee Judyth Baker
53426 7 2 6 10 163 188 4.70 < THE BEST

9/2011 How to Think About Claims of Conspiracy: McAdams
944700 9 1 0 3 3 16 2.38 < THE WORST

 
1 Comment

Posted by on April 6, 2014 in JFK, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

JFK Assassination: Fritz notes Oswald said he was “out with Bill Shelley in front”

JFK Assassination: Fritz notes Oswald said he was “out with Bill Shelley in front”

Richard Charnin
April 5, 2014
Updated: July 15, 2014

JFK Blog Posts
JFK Calc Spreadsheet Database
Tables and Graphs

That’s what Lee Harvey Oswald told Captain Will Fritz, whose abbreviated notes were hidden until they were released in 1997 by ARRB: http://www.jfklancer.com/Fritzdocs.html

Billy Lovelady’s Warren Commission testimony: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/lovelady.htm
——–
Mr. LOVELADY – Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL – Take a pen or pencil and mark an arrow where you are.
Mr. LOVELADY – Where I thought the shots are?
Mr. BALL – No; you in the picture.
Mr. LOVELADY – Oh, here (indicating).

Mr. BALL – DRAW AN ARROW DOWN TO THAT; DO IT IN THE DARK. You got an arrow in the DARK and one in the white pointing toward you. Where were you when the picture was taken?

Mr. LOVELADY – Right there at the entrance of the building standing on the TOP STEP, would be here (indicating).
Mr. BALL – You were standing on which step?
Mr. LOVELADY – It would be your TOP LEVEL.
Mr. BALL – The TOP STEP you were standing there?
Mr. LOVELADY – Right.
———

QUESTION 1: Assume Oswald was photographed in Altgens6. Then of course he could not have shot JFK. Would you expect that Will Fritz’s notes that Oswald was “out with Bill Shelley in front” would be hidden for 30 years? Yes or No?

QUESTION 2: Let’s assume Oswald was out front of the TSBD at 12:30 and Billy Lovelady knew it but would not lie. If the WC wanted to frame Oswald, they could not let Billy identify him in Altgens6. Lovelady was asked to place a DARK arrow pointing to himself in the DARK area rather than in the light area as Buelle Frazier had done before him. Could the reason he was asked to do so be that no one would see that he was actually pointing to himself standing to the LEFT of LHO while shielding his eyes from the sun on the TOP step? Yes or No?

QUESTION 3: If a photo, video, document, testimony, etc. had to be altered or fabricated to convict Oswald, do you suppose it would have been? Yes or No?

QUESTION 4: If a witness could confirm that Oswald was standing out front, would he/she be allowed to so testify? Yes or No?

QUESTION 5: If a witness could confirm that Oswald was standing out front and was allowed to testify, would he/she be asked the question? Yes or No?

QUESTION 6: If a witness was a participant in the conspiracy to make LHO the patsy asked if LHO was out front, would he/she say he was? Yes or No?

QUESTION 7: Neither Lovelady, Shelley or others were asked directly by the WC if Oswald was out front. It would seem to be a logical question to ask. Yes or No?

QUESTION 8: If Oswald was in the lunchroom holding a coke at 12:31, as stated by officer Baker and Roy Truly, it confirms his innocence. He could not have run down from the 6th floor to the 2nd floor in 75-90 seconds unseen, bought a coke and not indicate shortness of breath. But he told DPD Will Fritz that he was OUT FRONT WITH BILL SHELLEY at 12:30. Why would he NOT be out front watching the motorcade at 12:30? It takes 10 seconds to walk to the 2nd floor lunchroom from the front of the TSBD. Doesn’t it make sense that Oswald told the truth to Fritz, especially since a) he already had an alibi – Bill Shelley, who was never asked by the WC if LHO was out front and b) he was seen by Truly and Baker at 12:31 with a coke? Yes or No?

QUESTION 9: Lovelady died at age 41 in Jan. 1979 (during the HSCA investigation) from “complications” due to a heart attack. What was the probability that a 41 year old white male would die from a heart attack in 1979? The overall age-adjusted cardiac mortality rate was 0.0004 (1 in 2,500). But for a 41 year old, it was 1 in 10,000. One must assume that as a critical witness Lovelady would have been sought to testify at the HSCA. Yes or No?

QUESTION 10: In light of the above, why do so many intelligent researchers who believe Oswald was framed continue to insist that it is not him in the Altgens6 photo because “it looks like Lovelady”? Is that a sufficient response in light of the fact that Doorman’s shirt is different from Lovelady’s? Isn’t it obvious that the observers standing to the left of Doorman have been blotted out? Are these researchers unaware that the Oswald backyard photos were proven fakes? Not to mention the Z-film alteration. Why the reluctance to concede that it is at least PLAUSIBLE that Doorman is Oswald? At a minimum, shouldn’t researchers concede the possibility that LHO was in the doorway? Yes or No?

Lee Harvey Oswald was Doorman standing in front of the TSBD in the Altgens6 photo taken at 12:30, the moment JFK was shot. Billy was to the left of Lee. THIS IS PROOF OF OSWALD’S INNOCENCE. IT’S TIME TO CLOSE THE BOOK ON THE UNENDING PARLOR GAME. OSWALD SAID HE WAS “OUT FRONT WITH BILL SHELLEY”. THERE IS NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT HE WAS LYING. HE NEVER FIRED A SHOT.

Those who claim Lovelady was Doorman because no TSBD employee identified Oswald lose sight of this very simple fact: They could not say they saw Oswald since it had already been determined that he was the Lone Gunman. Would the WC let anyone testify that he or she saw Oswald out front like he said? That would have upset the pre-determined plan to convict Oswald as the Lone Nut assassin. Does anyone here believe the WC would allow such earth-shaking testimony clearing Oswald ? If you do, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

This video interview of Roger Craig is the ULTIMATE proof that Billy Lovelady was NOT “Doorman”. The proof has been hidden in plain sight. I viewed the Craig interview a dozen times before noticing Lovelady at the bottom right of the screen. Other researchers confirmed that they had also missed Lovelady in the video.

At the 2 minute mark, a balding Billy Lovelady appears at the lower right of the screen for just a few seconds. He is looking at the front of the TSBD wearing a checkered patterned shirt – buttoned to the collar. No tee shirt is visible. It was NOT the shirt that Doorman was wearing. This is THE smoking gun.

William Shelley testified under oath that he was standing on the TOP landing of the entrance to the TSBD. Billy Lovelady testified that he SAT on the steps in FRONT of Shelley. Doorman is standing in Altgens6.
——————————————————–
Mr. SHELLEY – Oh, several people were out there waiting to watch the motorcade and I went out to join them.
Mr. BALL – And who was out there?
Mr. SHELLEY – Well, there was Lloyd Viles of McGraw-Hill, Sarah Stanton, she’s with Texas School Book, and Wesley Frazier and Billy Lovelady joined us shortly afterwards.
Mr. BALL – You were standing where?
Mr. SHELLEY – Just outside the glass doors there.
Mr. BALL – That would be on the top landing of the entrance?
Mr. SHELLEY – yes.

Mr. BALL – Did you see the motorcade pass?

——————————————————–
Mr. LOVELADY – That’s on the second floor; so, I started going to the domino room where I generally went in to set down and eat and nobody was there and I happened to look on the outside and Mr. Shelley was standing outside with Miss Sarah Stanton, I believe her name is, and I said, “Well, I’ll go out there and talk with them, sit down and eat my lunch out there, set on the steps,” so I went out there.
Mr. BALL – You ate your lunch on the steps?
Mr. LOVELADY – Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL – Who was with you?
Mr. LOVELADY – Bill Shelley and Sarah Stanton, and right behind me

Mr. BALL – What was that last name?
Mr. LOVELADY – Stanton.
Mr. BALL – What is the first name?
Mr. LOVELADY – Bill Shelley.
Mr. BALL – And Stanton’s first name?
Mr. LOVELADY – Miss Sarah Stanton.
Mr. BALL – Did you stay on the steps?
Mr. LOVELADY – Yes.
Mr. BALL – Were you there when the President’s motorcade went by?
Mr. LOVELADY – Right

In Altgens6 Doorman is obviously wearing a long-sleeve shirt, opened to reveal his tee shirt. But the FBI 2/29/64 photo of Lovelady shows him wearing a short-sleeve striped shirt. Why would the FBI insist that he was wearing a short-sleeve shirt on 11/22/63 when Doorman is clearly wearing a long sleeve shirt? The photo evidence was distorted: http://oswald.shorturl.com/

This GIF conforms with Shelley’s and Lovelady’s testimony of where they were positioned at the TSBD. It shows that Altgens6 was ALTERED to MORPH Oswald’s face to Lovelady while Lovelady’s was BLOCKED out. It is reminiscent of the fake Oswald backyard photos in which his face was superimposed over another body. Oswald said he could prove it – but never got the chance. Now it all fits: http://betshort.com/loveos.gif

Lovelady’s Shirt: Plaid (11/22/63) vs Striped (2/29/64)
According to researcher Josiah Thompson, Lovelady told CBS News that the striped, short sleeved shirt he was photographed wearing by the FBI on 2/29/64 was NOT the shirt he was wearing on 11/22/63. He said he wore a PLAID, box patterned shirt. The shirt matched the one seen in the Roger Craig interview at the 2 minute mark. https://conspiracycritic7.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/wpid-wpid-2013-07-22-21-36-33-picsay.jpeg

In 1971, Lovelady and his wife wrote this for Robert Groden, claiming he wore a plaid shirt in 11/22/63: https://conspiracycritic7.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/wpid843-wpid-6989002969_5633154508_z.jpeg

Notice how the figures to the left of Oswald have been blotted out. No one is identifiable. Why? http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/GrodenAnnot-one-half14.jpg

This looks like Billy Lovelady sitting in the police station as Oswald is brought in after his arrest. If it is a fake photo, as some suggest, what was the rationale for inserting Lovelady in it? Click for full view: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/01/25/jfk-special-oswald-was-in-the-doorway-after-all/lovelady-1/

Oswald’s shirt:proof that he was Doorman http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/02/26/newseum-displays-oswalds-shirt-proof-that-he-was-doorman/ http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/01/25/jfk-special-oswald-was-in-the-doorway-after-all/

Did Officer Baker and Roy Truly encounter Oswald on the 2nd floor? http://jfkthelonegunmanmyth.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-lunchroom-encounter-that-never-was.html

Of 17 TSBD employees interviewed by the Warren Commission, 9 said the shots came from the Grassy Knoll (GK), 5 TSBD (TB), 1 Knoll and TSBD, 1 other, 1 not asked

TSBD employee, source of shots, WC Link
Adams, Victoria GK http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/adams_v.htm
Arce, Danny GK http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/arce.htm
Baker, Mrs. Donald GK http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/baker.htm
Burns, Doris GK http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/burns.htm
Dougherty, Jack TB http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/doughert.htm

Frazier, Buell Wesley GK http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/frazierb1.htm
Givens, Charles not asked http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/givens1.htm
Hine, Geneva TB http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/hine.htm
Jarman, James Other http://jfkassassination.net/russ/m_j_russ/jarman.htm
Lovelady, Billy GK http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/lovelady.htm

Molina, Joe GK http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/molina.htm
Norman, Harold TB http://jfkassassination.net/russ/m_j_russ/norman.htm
Piper, Eddie TB http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/piper2.htmSanders,
Reid, Mrs. Robert TB http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/reid.htm
Sanders, Pauline GKTB http://jfkassassination.net/russ/exhibits/ce1434.htm

Shelley, William GK http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/shelley1.htm
Truly, Roy GK http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/truly1.htm

 
4 Comments

Posted by on April 5, 2014 in JFK

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 760 other followers