RSS

Category Archives: Uncategorized

Nate Silver and Election Fraud

Richard Charnin
Nov. 17, 2014

Our democracy was stolen on Nov.22,1963: Click Reclaiming Science:The JFK Conspiracy to look inside the book.

This is how elections are stolen. Click Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts to look inside the book.

Once again, Nate Silver misdirects: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-polls-were-skewed-toward-democrats/

As usual Nate gets it wrong. He talks about polling bias but not a word about the fact that early pre-election polls include all registered voters (RVs). As we move toward Election Day, the polls are transformed to the subset of Likely Voters (LVs) – with the effect of reducing projected Democratic turnout and vote share.

The true bias is that pollsters skew the projections in order to match the expected fraudulent recorded vote. Nate Silver never considers that the RV polls are usually close to the truth – but that the LV polls are biased against the Democrats. So it’s just the opposite from Nate’s view. He believes the official vote counts are accurate, but in reality any researcher who analyzes the historical record should see a consistent pattern – a red shift- to the GOP. It is absolute proof that the recorded vote counts are fraudulent and biased for the Republicans. http://electiondefensealliance.org/?q=voter_cutoff_model

Nate never discusses the fact that exit polls are always forced to match the bogus recorded vote. The pollsters admit it. It is standard operating procedure. The rationale is that the polls must be wrong and therefore must be adjusted to match the pristine fraud-free recorded vote. Of course we never get to see the unadjusted exit polls.

I just posted the True Vote model for the Wisconsin and Florida governor races. Both races were stolen in 2014- just like they were in 2010 and the 2012 Walker recall. .

In the 2010 Florida Governor election, the unadjusted exit poll and the True Vote Model indicated that Sink won by 5%, yet Scott won the recorded vote by 1%. In 2014, Scott won again. The 2-party vote shares were identical! Scott had 50.59% in 2010 and 50.58% in 2014! A coincidence? Hardly.The Florida 2014 Exit Poll indicates a 31-35-33 Dem-Rep-Ind split (over-weighted for Republicans) with 91% of Dems voting for Crist, 88% of Repubs voting for Scott. Crist won Independents by 46-44%. When we change the split to a more plausible 34-33-33, Crist is the winner by 49.4-45.6%. http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/11/14/florida-2014-governor-true-voteexit-poll-analysis-indicates-fraud/

In the 2014 Wisconsin Governor election, a True Vote analysis indicates that Walker stole the election, just like the recall in 2012. View the True Vote analysis: http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/11/12/wisconsin-2014-governor-true-voteexit-poll-analysis-indicates-fraud/

Nate Silver never discusses Election Fraud, even though it has been proven systemic. I pointed this a few years ago in a reply to his post on why we should not believe exit polls. His knowledge of exit polls was (and apparently still is) non-existent. http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2012/11/17/a-reply-to-nate-silvers-ten-reasons-why-you-should-ignore-exit-polls/

The easiest way to understand that our elections are fraudulent is to look at the 2004 presidential election. According to the adjusted 2004 National Exit Poll (as posted on major media sites), there were 52.6 million returning Bush 2000 voters (43% of the 2004 electorate) and 37% returning Gore voters. Recall that Gore won the popular vote by 540,000. Gore won the unadjusted exit polls by 50-45% (he actually won the True Vote by 3-5 million).

But Bush had only 50.5 million recorded votes in 2000. Approximately 2 million died and one million did not return. Therefore, there were at least 5 million (52.6-47.5) phantom Bush voters. The exit pollsters had to adjust the unadjusted, pristine National Exit poll which showed Kerry a 52-47% winner to make Bush a 51-48% winner. Bush needed an impossible 110% turnout of living Bush 2000 voters to match the recorded vote. http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2012/04/05/fixing-the-exit-polls-to-match-the-policy/

And finally, here is the ultimate proof of systemic election fraud. In the 274 state presidential unadjusted exit polls from 1988-2008, the Democrats won the polls by 52-42%, exactly matching my True Vote Model. But they won the recorded vote by just 48-46%. Of the 274 exit polls 135 exceeded the margin of error, 131 in favor of the Republican. The probability P of that discrepancy is E-116 or
P= 0.0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 000001.

1988-2008 Unadjusted State and National Exit Poll Database

Take anything from Nate Silver with a BIG GRAIN OF SALT. He never mentions PROVEN ELECTION FRAUD . And don’t forget that he had the gall to rank famous pollster Zogby dead last in his evaluation of pollsters a number of years back while ranking dedicated GOP pollsters at the top.

I have written several open-letter posts for Nate. He has not responded to any.

1. An Open Letter to Nate Silver http://richardcharnin.com/OpenLettertoNateSilver.htm
2. An Open Letter to Nate Silver (Part 2) http://richardcharnin.com/OpenLettertoNateSilver.htm
3.Twenty-five Questions for Nate Silver http://richardcharnin.com/TwentySilver.htm
4.A Reply to Nate Silver’s “Ten Reasons Why You Should Ignore Exit Polls” http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2012/11/17/a-reply-to-nate-silvers-ten-reasons-why-you-should-ignore-exit-polls/
5. Zogby vs. Silver: 1996-2008 True vs. Recorded Vote Pollster Rankings http://richardcharnin.com/SilverRankings.htm

The bottom line: Nate works for the major corporate media which is not interested in divulging why pre-election and exit pollsters adjust the polls to match fraudulent vote counts. They will never plead guilty.

This is a summary of my track record in forecasting the 1988-2012 presidential elections, unadjusted exit polls and True Vote Models. http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/09/14/summary-2004-2012-election-forecast-1968-2012-true-vote-model/

 

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

Florida 2014 Governor True Vote/Exit Poll Analysis Indicates Fraud

Florida 2014 Governor True Vote/Exit Poll Analysis Indicates Fraud

Richard Charnin
Nov.14, 2014
Updated:Nov.21, 2014

Our democracy was stolen on Nov.22,1963: Click Reclaiming Science:The JFK Conspiracy to look inside the book.
This is how elections are stolen. Click Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts to look inside the book.

For the first time since 2000, I decided not to do election forecasting and post-election True Vote analysis for 2014. Systemic Election Fraud has been proven beyond any doubt, so why bother? Nothing has changed, the media remains mute on election fraud and congress refuses to do anything about it.

I decided to analyze the Florida Governor election since there has been a strong response to the Wisconsin Governor post. This post will essentially duplicate the Wisconsin analysis. Only the numbers will change. Important general comments on Election Fraud will be repeated here.

Once again, the mantra must be repeated: The key to understanding how elections are rigged is to take a close look at the exit polls. The unadjusted exit polls are not released until years later, so we must look at the adjusted exit poll (national, state, governor) for clues.

The 2014 election was 2010 deja vu. In 2010, Scott won the 2-party recorded vote with 50.59%. In 2014, he won with 50.58%! He won the recorded vote by 49.6-48.4% (62,000 votes). Sink won the unadjusted exit poll by 50.8-45.4% (283,000 votes). In 2014 Scott won the recorded vote by 1.1% (48.2-47.1%), while Crist won the True Vote by 52.0-48.0%.

This is the direct link to the 2014 Florida Governor True Vote analysis: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1SnErWihwCvq5puGw3sBF9E4jr585XV2NChqvxGObLAU/edit#gid=841488888

The 2014FLGov spreadsheet contains the following worksheets:
– 2014 National House Exit Poll (‘2014 NEP’)
– 2010 Florida Exit Poll (‘2010 FL EP’)
– 2014 Florida Exit Poll (‘2014 FL EP’)
– 2014 FL County Vote vs. 2010 (“Counties’)
– 2014 True Vote Model (‘True Vote’)

There is a distinct pattern which keeps repeating: exit polls are adjusted to match the recorded vote. That is a fact; the pollsters admit it, but claim that they do it to correct the polls. The assumption is that the recorded vote count is pristine and that there is no fraud. At least that is what the pollsters and pundits would like you to believe. But there is no longer any doubt: elections are routinely fraudulent.

In order to adjust the exit poll to match the recorded vote, the returning voter mix from the previous election and/or each candidate’s share of returning and new voters must be changed. All other crosstabs must be adjusted. I have stated this often in posts as far back as 2004 as well as in my books.

2014 NEP (forced to match the recorded vote)
This sheet contains a selected set of crosstabs (demographics). The Gender demographic is within 0.6% of the recorded vote because it was forced to match the vote. The exit poll margin of error was approximately 2%. The probability of a 0.6% deviation is close to zero. The deviation illustrates that the pollsters forced the match. But that’s not news. It’s standard operating procedure – and unscientific. It’s no different then a serial thief daring the police to stop him. But they never do even though they have the statistical evidence of fraud and a signed confession.

Florida 2010 Exit Poll (forced to match the recorded vote)
Scott won by 49.6-48.4%, a 62,000 vote margin. But Sink (D) won the unadjusted exit poll by 283,000 votes (50.8-45.4%, a 6.6% margin discrepancy). There were 3,150 exit poll respondents and a 2.3% poll margin of error. Sink had a 99% win probability. But the poll was forced to match the recorded vote.

Just as in presidential election exit polls, the returning 2008 voter percentages were implausible. In the ’Voted in 2010′ crosstab, 47% of 2010 voters were returning Obama voters and 47% were returning McCain voters. But Obama won the Florida 2008 unadjusted exit poll by 6% So how does one explain the equal 47% mix of returning voters? This is the standard ‘tell’: the mix is adjusted to maximize the Republican vote and minimize the Democratic vote. The mix was changed to reflect the 2008 unadjusted exit poll.
Sink is the winner of the True vote by 50.8-47.1%

2010 Unadjusted Exit Poll
................Sink Scott Other
Respondents.....1600 1431 119
Poll Share......50.8% 45.4% 3.8%
Poll Vote.......2683 2400 200
Margin..........283

2010 True Vote
2008...........Vote Mix Sink Scott Other
Obama...........989 50% 88% 10% 2%
McCain..........848 43% 7% 87% 2%
Other...........220 6% 53% 44% 3%
DNV..............34 1.7% 53.0% 44.0% 3%
Respondents....1991 100% 50.8% 47.1% 2.1%
Votes...................5282 2683 2488 111
Margin 195

2010 Exit Poll (adjusted to match recorded vote)
2008............Mix Sink Scott Other
Obama...........47% 88% 10% 2%
McCain..........47% 11% 87% 2%
Other............3% 31% 67% 2%
DNV..............3% 31% 67% 2%
Total..........100% 48.4% 49.6% 2.0%
Votes.................. 2556 2620 106
Margin -64

Florida 2014 Exit Poll (forced to match the recorded vote)
The How Voted in 2010 crosstab was not listed, but we have the True Vote model. The returning voter mix was changed to reflect the 2010 unadjusted exit poll. Crist is the winner of the True vote by 52-48%.

Party ID
The Florida Adjusted 2014 Exit Poll indicates a 31-35-33 Dem-Rep-Ind split (over-weighted for Republicans) with 91% of Dems voting for Crist, 88% of Repubs voting for Scott. Crist won Independents by 46-44%. When we change the split to a more plausible 34-33-33, Crist is the winner by 49.4-45.6%.

Counties
There were nearly 500,000 more voters in 2014 than in 2010. Presumably, this increase in turnout would be expected to help Crist. As mentioned, Sink won the True Vote in 2010. But Scott’s 2014 margin increased by 5,000 votes. This is counter-intuitive; strong turnout always favors the Democrats.

The True Vote Model
The model data was updated for 2014 using 2010 returning and new voters. The assumptions for the base case scenario:
1) Sink had a 52.2% True Vote share in 2010
2) In 2014, there was a 93% turnout of living 2010 voters
3) Crist had 92.5% of returning Sink voters
4) Crist had 6.9% of returning Scott voters
5) Crist had 54% of new voters

In the Base Case scenario, Crist had a 52.0% share and won by 224,000 votes. The Sensitivity analysis shows Crist’s total vote share and margins over a range of 18 scenarios. He won 17.

1988-2008 Presidential Elections
A comprehensive analysis of 274 unadjusted 1988-2008 state and 6 national presidential exit polls proved systemic election fraud. The Democrats led the recorded vote by 48-46%, but led the exit polls by a whopping 52-42%. The True Vote Model matched and therefore confirmed the exit polls.

The Adjusted 2004 National Exit Poll indicated that 52.6 million of 2004 voters (43%) were returning Bush 2000 voters and just 37% were returning Gore voters. But this is impossible since Bush had just 50.5 million votes in 2000. Approximately 2 million died and 1 million did not return to vote in 2004. Therefore 5 million phantom Bush voters were required in order to match the recorded vote. Recall that Gore won the popular recorded vote by 540,000 (he actually won by 3-5 million True Votes). The exit pollsters switched 471 (6.7%) of Kerry’s 7,064 responders (of 13660 polled) to Bush.

The Adjusted 2008 National Exit Poll indicated that 60 million (46%) of the 131 million who voted in 2008 were returning Bush 2004 voters and just 49 million (37%) were returning Kerry voters. In other words, in order to match the 2008 recorded vote, there had to be 12 million more returning Bush 2004 voters than returning Kerry voters. But Bush won the bogus 2004 recorded vote by just 3 million! Kerry won the True Vote by close to 10 million. He won the unadjusted state and national exit polls by 6 million. Therefore Obama won the True Vote in 2008 by 22 million, not the 9.5 million recorded.

The pattern is clear. It’s not even close.

TRACK RECORD
Election Model Forecast; Post-election True Vote Model

1988-2008 State and National Presidential True Vote Model https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdGN3WEZNTUFaR0tfOHVXTzA1VGRsdHc#gid=0

1968-2012 National Presidential True Vote Model https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdFpDLXZmWUFFLUFQSTVjWXM2ZGtsV0E#gid=4

2004 (2-party vote shares)
Model: Kerry 51.8%, 337 EV (snapshot) https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdGN3WEZNTUFaR0tfOHVXTzA1VGRsdHc#gid=0
State exit poll aggregate: 51.7%, 337 EV
Recorded Vote: 48.3%, 255 EV
True Vote Model: 53.6%, 364 EV

2008
Model: Obama 53.1%, 365.3 EV (simulation mean) http://www.richardcharnin.com/2008ElectionModel.htm
Recorded: 52.9%, 365 EV
State exit poll aggregate: 58.0%, 420 EV
True Vote Model: 58.0%, 420 EV

2012 (2-party state exit poll aggregate shares)
Model: Obama 51.6%, 332 EV (Snapshot) http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2012/10/17/update-daily-presidential-true-voteelection-fraud-forecast-model/
Recorded : 51.6%, 332 EV
True Vote Model: 55.2%, 380 EV

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

Wisconsin 2014 Governor True Vote/Exit Poll Analysis Indicates Fraud

Wisconsin 2014 Governor True Vote/Exit Poll Analysis Indicates Fraud

Richard Charnin
Nov.19, 2014
Update:Nov.21, 2014

Our democracy was stolen on Nov.22,1963: Click Reclaiming Science:The JFK Conspiracy to look inside the book.
This is how elections are stolen. Click Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts to look inside the book.

For the first time since 2000, I decided not to do election forecasting and post-election True Vote analysis for 2014. Systemic Election Fraud has been proven beyond any doubt, so why bother? Nothing has changed, the media remains mute on election fraud and congress refuses to do anything about it.

I worked closely with Wisconsin election reform activists on the 2011 Supreme Court election, the state recalls and the Walker recall. But since I decided to bypass 2014, I was not even aware of who was running against Walker. When I was asked to look into the election, I felt like Al Pacino in Godfather III:Just when I think I am out of it, they pull me back in again.

Once again, the mantra must be repeated: The key to understanding how elections are rigged is to take a close look at the exit polls. Unadjusted exit polls are not released until years later, so we are left with the adjusted polls (national, state, governor) for clues. The 2014 election was 2012 deja vu all over again.

This is the direct link to the 2014 Wisconsin Governor True Vote analysis: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1oAq0CJ1QSfy4JaNYpM_5esTafUdpt3ipgJU0Iz8RlD0/edit#gid=841488888

There is a distinct pattern which keeps repeating: exit polls are adjusted to match the recorded vote. That is a fact; the pollsters admit it, but claim that they do it to correct the polls. The assumption is that the recorded vote count is pristine and that there is no fraud. At least that is what the pollsters and pundits would like you to believe. But there is no longer any doubt: elections are routinely fraudulent.

In order to adjust the exit poll to match the recorded vote, the returning voter mix from the previous election and/or each candidate’s share of returning and new voters must be changed. All other crosstabs must be adjusted. I have stated this often in posts as far back as 2004 as well as in my books.

In order to analyze the 2014 Wisconsin Governor race, I have created the spreadsheet 2014WIGov. It contains the following worksheets (the sheet names are in quotes):
– 2014 National House Exit Poll (‘2014 NEP’)
– 2014 Wisconsin Gov. Exit Poll (‘WI Exit Poll’)
– 2014 Wisconsin County Vote vs. 2012 Recall Vote (“Counties’)
– 2014 Wisconsin Governor True Vote Model (‘True Vote’)

2014 NEP (forced to match the recorded vote)
This sheet contains a selected set of crosstabs (demographics). The Gender demographic is within 0.1% of the recorded vote because it was forced to match the vote. The exit poll margin of error was approximately 2%. The probability of a 0.1% deviation is close to zero. The 0.1% deviation illustrates that the pollsters forced the match. But that’s not news. It’s standard operating procedure – and unscientific. It’s no different then a serial thief daring the police to stop him. But they never do even though they have the statistical evidence of fraud and a signed confession.

WI Exit Poll (forced to match the recorded vote)
The poll was forced to match the bogus recorded vote by adjusting the number of returning voters. It shows that returning Walker voters were 50% of the 2014 total. while Barrett voters were just 35% of the total. The 15% differential is much higher than the 7% Walker recorded margin in 2012 (8% discrepancy) and the 6% Barrett True Vote margin ( 21% discrepancy). Just as in presidential election exit polls, the returning voter percentages are implausible. So how could there be a 15% excess of returning Walker voters over returning Barrett voters?

Another “tell”: In the “How Voted in 2012″ crosstab, vote shares are missing for Other (3%) and New Voters (DNV 11%). The result is a Walker landslide by 55.4-43.1%, a whopping 12.3% margin. But he had a bogus 52.9% recorded share. The two basic clues that the 2014 election was fixed are obvious from the adjusted exit poll:
1) The 2012 Returning Voter mix is highly implausible.
2) The vote shares for 14% of the 2014 electorate are not available.

This is the standard election fraud “tell”: the returning voter mix has been adjusted to increase the Republican share. When the returning voter mix is changed to a feasible Barrett/Walker 45/41% mix, Burke is the winner by 52.3-47.3%

WISCONSIN 2014 EXIT POLL (forced to match recorded vote)
GENDER..........TOTAL BURKE WALKER
Male............49% 39.0% 60.0%
Female..........51% 54.0% 45.0%
Total..........100% 46.7% 52.4% Walker Margin:5.7%
Recorded.......100% 47.1% 52.9% Walker Margin:5.8%
Difference.......-0.46% -0.54% Difference: 0.08%

HOW VOTED IN 2012 RECALL (suspicious turnout in 2014 and 14% na)
RECORDED VOTE..TOTAL BURKE WALKER
Tom Barrett.....35% 96.0% 4.0%
Scott Walker....50% 5.0% 94.0%
Other na........3% 50.0% 50.0% (na? I set to 50/50)
DNV na..........11% 50.0% 50.0% (na? I set to 50/50)
TOTAL...........99% 43.1% 55.4% Walker Margin:12.3%

TRUE VOTE......TOTAL BURKE WALKER
Tom Barrett.... 45% 96.0% 4.0% (set to plausible 45/41 returning voter mix)
Scott Walker....41% 5.0% 94.0%
Other...........3% 50.0% 50.0%
DNV.............11% 52.0% 48.0% (adjust new voter shares)
TOTAL..........100% 52.5% 47.1% Burke Margin:5.4%

Counties
Now, getting back to Wisconsin 2014, we see that there is a significant 0.24 correlation between Walker’s 2014 county votes and turnout (it was 0.28 in the 2012 recall). This measure indicates that as turnout increased, so did Walker’s vote share. But it is counter-intuitive; strong turnout always favors the Democrats.

The True Vote Model
The TVM was used in 2012 and prior elections. The data is updated for 2014 using 2012 returning voters and 2014 vote share percentages. The base case scenario:
1) Barrett had a 53% True Vote in the 2012 recall
2) 93% turnout of 2012 living voters in 2014
3) Burke had 92% of returning Barrett voters
4) Burke had 7% of returning Walker voters
5) Burke had 54% of new voters.

In this Base Case scenario, Burke had a 52.2% share and won by 107,000 votes.

The Sensitivity analysis shows Burke’s total vote shares and margins for alternative scenarios of vote share and turnout of 2012 voters.

A comprehensive analysis of 274 unadjusted 1988-2008 state and 6 national presidential exit polls proved systemic election fraud. The Democrats led the recorded vote by 48-46%, but led the exit polls by a whopping 52-42%. The True Vote Model matched and therefore confirmed the exit polls.

The Adjusted 2004 National Exit Poll indicated that 52.6 million of 2004 voters (43%) were returning Bush 2000 voters and just 37% were returning Gore voters. But this is impossible since Bush had just 50.5 million votes in 2000. Approximately 2 million died and 1 million did not return to vote in 2004. Therefore 5 million phantom Bush voters were required in order to match the recorded vote. Recall that Gore won the popular recorded vote by 540,000 (he actually won by 3-5 million True Votes). The exit pollsters switched 471 (6.7%) of Kerry’s 7,064 responders (of 13660 polled) to Bush.

The Adjusted 2008 National Exit Poll indicated that 60 million (46%) of the 131 million who voted in 2008 were returning Bush 2004 voters and just 49 million (37%) were returning Kerry voters. In other words, in order to match the 2008 recorded vote, there had to be 12 million more returning Bush 2004 voters than returning Kerry voters. But Bush won the bogus 2004 recorded vote by just 3 million! Kerry won the True Vote by close to 10 million. He won the unadjusted state and national exit polls by 6 million. Therefore Obama won the True Vote in 2008 by 22 million, not the 9.5 million recorded.

The pattern is clear. It’s not even close.

TRACK RECORD
Election Model Forecast; Post-election True Vote Model

1988-2008 State and National Presidential True Vote Model https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdGN3WEZNTUFaR0tfOHVXTzA1VGRsdHc#gid=0

1968-2012 National Presidential True Vote Model https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdFpDLXZmWUFFLUFQSTVjWXM2ZGtsV0E#gid=4

2004 (2-party vote shares)
Model: Kerry 51.8%, 337 EV (snapshot) https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdGN3WEZNTUFaR0tfOHVXTzA1VGRsdHc#gid=0
State exit poll aggregate: 51.7%, 337 EV
Recorded Vote: 48.3%, 255 EV
True Vote Model: 53.6%, 364 EV

2008
Model: Obama 53.1%, 365.3 EV (simulation mean) http://www.richardcharnin.com/2008ElectionModel.htm
Recorded: 52.9%, 365 EV
State exit poll aggregate: 58.0%, 420 EV
True Vote Model: 58.0%, 420 EV

2012 (2-party state exit poll aggregate shares)
Model: Obama 51.6%, 332 EV (Snapshot) http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2012/10/17/update-daily-presidential-true-voteelection-fraud-forecast-model/
Recorded : 51.6%, 332 EV
True Vote Model: 55.2%, 380 EV

 

Tags: , , ,

JFK-related Witness Homicides: Warren Commission Apologist Confusion

JFK-related Witness Homicides: Warren Commission Apologist Confusion

Richard Charnin
Aug. 23, 2014

Click Reclaiming Science:The JFK Conspiracy to look inside the book.

JFK Blog Posts
JFK Calc Spreadsheet Database
Tables and Graphs

It is strange how Warren Commission apologists still can’t get the difference between a random and selected group. They claim that the universe of 1400 JFK-related witnesses is not a RANDOM group; that it is SELF-SELECTED and therefore a probability calculation of 34 official homicides from the group of 1400 over the 15 year period from 1964-78 is not valid.

The apologists have used the same talking point from their disinformation playbook years after I have explained it a number of times in various forums. To use such a convoluted argument over and over again betrays utter confusion and/or an attempt to discredit the logic of the witness unnatural death analysis.

Yes, it is true, the group of 1400 JFK assassination-related individuals is NOT a random group. AND THAT IS WHY THE ZERO PROBABILITY OF 34 HOMICIDES IN THE GROUP IS VALID. The apologists cannot or refuse to accept the logic of that simple statement of fact.

The 1400+ JFK-related witnesses are listed in Michael Benson’s “Who’s Who in the JFK Assassination”. In the group, there were 34 officially ruled homicides (actually there were quite a few more since many suicides and accidents and heart attacks were statistically proven to be inflated and therefore were actually homicides). But we will stick with the bogus 34 official homicides.

How many accidents, suicides, suspiciously timed heart attacks, and sudden cancers were likely homicides? http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/11/08/jfk-witness-deaths-how-many-accidents-suicides-and-natural-deaths-were-homicides/

In a RANDOM group of 1400, only two homicides would be expected given the average 0.000084 homicide rate over the 15 year period from 1964-78. But there were 34 homicides in the JFK-RELATED group of 1400!

The key point is that JFK-related witnesses were murdered at a MUCH HIGHER RATE than would be statistically expected in a RANDOM group of 1400.

The only relevant factors in calculating the probability are

1) N, the number of JFK-related witnesses
2) n, the number of official homicides
3) T, the time period in years
4) R, the average homicide rate

That is all we need to calculate the probability of n homicides in the N-group.
We first calculate E, the expected number of homicides.
E = N*T*R = 1.77 = 15*0.000084*1400.

The probability is calculated using the Poisson function:
P=POISSON (34, 1.77, false) = 1.57E-31 or 1 in 6 million trillion trillion.

This is not a poll. It is not a correlation analysis. Motivation for any given murder is not a factor. The 34 official murders among 1400 witnesses is all that matters. The 1 in 6 million trillion trillion probability means we have proven a conspiracy beyond any doubt.

HOMICIDE PROBABILITY SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

Witnesses: N
Homicides: n
Time: T= 15 years
Rate: R= 0.000084

Prob: P= POISSON(n, N*R*T, false)

Example: In the table, find the probability of n=50 homicides among N=1400 JFK-related individuals over the T=15 years from 1964-78 is
P= 1.42E-53 = 0.0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 001

The probability is still effectively ZERO assuming N=8000 JFK-related individuals:
P= 2.38E-19 (1 in 4 million trillion).

Homicide Probability Sensitivity Analysis

………………………………….Homicides (n) …………………….
N......10...... 20...... 30...... 40...... 50...... 60...... 70...... 80
Warren Commission
552 3.77E-09 1.55E-22 3.90E-38 3.48E-55 2.57E-73 2.58E-92 4.93E-112 2.27E-132
4 Investigations
1100 1.86E-06 7.54E-17 1.88E-29 1.66E-43 1.21E-58 1.20E-74 2.26E-91 1.03E-108
"Who's Who in the JFK Assassination"
1400 1.42E-05 6.41E-15 1.78E-26 1.75E-39 1.42E-53 1.58E-68 3.31E-84 1.68E-100

3000 3.83E-03 3.53E-09 2.00E-17 4.03E-27 6.67E-38 1.51E-49 6.47E-62 6.70E-75
4000 1.92E-02 3.15E-07 3.17E-14 1.13E-22 3.33E-32 1.33E-42 1.02E-53 1.87E-65
5000 5.05E-02 7.70E-06 7.22E-12 2.40E-19 6.58E-28 2.46E-37 1.75E-47 2.99E-58

6000 8.83E-02 8.34E-05 4.84E-10 9.96E-17 1.69E-24 3.91E-33 1.72E-42 1.82E-52
7000 1.16E-01 5.14E-04 1.39E-08 1.34E-14 1.06E-21 1.15E-29 2.36E-38 1.17E-47
8000 1.25E-01 2.10E-03 2.16E-07 7.89E-13 2.38E-19 9.78E-27 7.63E-35 1.44E-43

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on August 23, 2014 in Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

JFK: Did Oswald shoot Tippit? Eyewitnesses: NO; Warren Commission: YES

JFK:Did Oswald shoot Tippit? Eyewitnesses:NO; Warren Commission:YES

Richard Charnin
Aug. 19, 2014

Click Reclaiming Science:The JFK Conspiracy to look inside the book.

JFK Blog Posts
JFK Calc Spreadsheet Database
Tables and Graphs

Source: https://jaylipp.fatcow.com/JFK/tippet.html

According to all eyewitnesses, J.D. Tippit was shot no later than 1:06pm. Oswald was standing outside his apartment at 1:04, 0.8 miles from the scene of the murder. So the Warren Commission needed to add ten minutes to the time of the murder to get Oswald at the scene by 1:16. Even that’s a stretch; covering 0.8 miles in 12 minutes (4.0 mph) is very fast walking. This lie was standard operating procedure for the Commission. Witness testimony and physical evidence which proved Oswald’s innocence was ignored or altered to fit the Lone Gunman myth.

• DPD Channel 1 dispatcher Murray Jackson contacts Tippit at 1:03 to get his location but gets no response. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/car10.htm

• Dallas County Sheriff’s Deputy Roger Craig hears of the Tippit shooting at 1:06 over the police radio. http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/WTKaP.pdf

•  Dallas policeman T.F Bowley arrives at the scene at 1:10. http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339132/

• According to Warren Commission exhibit 705,  immediately following T.F Bowley’s transmission at 1:10, the DPD dispatcher called over DPD Channel 1 radio that Tippit had been shot. http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pdf/WH17_CE_705.pdf

• Helen Markham signs an affidavit on November 22nd that she was standing at the corner at “approximately 1:06″ when she saw Officer Tippit pull over and talk to a man for a few seconds before he exited his vehicle and was shot She maintained a consistent time when she told the Warren Commision that “it wasn’t 6 or 7 minutes after 1″ http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/04/0444-001.gif

• Barbara Jeanette Davis signs an affidavit on November 22nd that she heard two shots “shortly after 1 PM”. http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/04/0447-001.gif

• Ted Callaway signed an affidavit on November 22nd that he heard some shots “about 1 PM”. http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/04/0453-001.gif

• Mrs. Margie Higgins of 417 East 10th Street said that “I just looked up at the clock on my television to verify the time and it said 1:06. At that point I heard the shots”. http://thegirlonthestairs.wordpress.com/

• Sam Guinyard signs an affidavit on November 22nd that he heard some shooting “about 1 PM” near Patton and 10th Street. http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/04/0482-001.gif

• Domingo Benavides was driving west along 10th Street when he heard the shooting. Startled by the shots, Benavides pulled his pick-up truck to the curb almost directly across the street from Tippit’s patrol car, and ducked down inside his truck. Benavides informed the Warren Commission that he remained in his pick-up truck “for a few minutes” before exiting. He then went to Tippit and seeing that he was dead used Tippit’s car radio to call for help. When he replaced the microphone he looked up to see DP T. F. Bowley, who signed an affidavit that he arrived and saw “several people were at the scene” and Officer Tippit lying on the street dead. He checked his watch; it was 1:10. He then used the officer’s car radio to call in the murder. http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0228a.htm

• On January 21st 1964, Albert Austin signed an affidavit saying that “sometime after 1:00 PM” he heard approximately two or three shots and saw a policeman lying in front of a police car on the left front side. http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/austin.htm

• On January 21st 1964, Francis Kinneth signed an affidavit saying that “at approximately 1:00 PM” he heard two or three shots and saw a parked police car and a uniformed police officer lying on the ground. http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/kinneth.htm

• Frank Cimino signed an affidavit on December 3rd that “at about 1:00 PM” he heard four loud noises which sounded like shots. http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/cimino_f.htm

• During the Warren Commission testimony of Officer J. M. Poe, assistant counsel Joseph A. Ball refers to Poe entering a witness-provided description on the dispatcher transcript log at 1:22 PM. According to Poe, by the time he arrived at the scene there were already “150 to 200 people around there” and the ambulance had already left. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/poe.htm

Did the Warren Commission tell the truth about anything? It did not mention that bullets recovered from Tippit’s body were from an automatic and Oswald had a revolver; or the vast majority of Dealey Plaza witnesses heard or saw shots from the Grassy Knoll. It never mentioned the Zapuder film; or the impossible Magic Bullet which entered JFK’s back 5.5″ below the collar and never exited; or JFK Limo coming to a full stop; or the “double-bang” of nearly simultaneous shots; or Oswald in the Doorway of the TSBD; or why Billy Lovelady was asked to place a black arrow pointing to himself in the black area of Altgens6; or the fake Oswald backyard photos; or the 7.65 Mauser initially identified by 5 DPD morphing into a Mannlicher Carcano; or that there is no record of Oswald ordering or taking delivery of the Carcano. Or mentioned that Oswald was a $200/month FBI informer.

And the clincher: they expected us to believe that Oswald ran from the 6th floor to the second floor lunchroom in 75-90 seconds, holding a coke and cool as a cucumber. That’s almost as bad as Oswald’s 2 minute one mile sprint to the Tippit scene. Faster than a speeding bullet. One fairy tale after another.

 
2 Comments

Posted by on August 19, 2014 in JFK, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

To Believe Oswald was Not Standing in Front of the TSBD, You Must Believe that…

Richard Charnin
Updated Aug. 24, 2014

Click Reclaiming Science:The JFK Conspiracy to look inside the book.

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…

1- Oswald was either shooting JFK on the 6th floor or somewhere else in the TSBD.
2- Unlike his fellow employees, Oswald had no interest in viewing the motorcade.
3- Oswald lied to Det. Will Fritz when he said he was “out with Bill Shelley in front” at 12:30.
4- Oswald lied even though he had an alibi of being seen on the 2nd floor by TSBD manager Roy Truly and policeman Marrion Baker at 12:31.

5- Fritz’s notes of his Oswald interview were hidden until 1993 due to poor record-keeping.
6- Fritz’s notes were not revealed by the Warren Commission because of administrative oversight.

7- The fact that no one claimed to have seen Oswald in front proves he was not there.
8- The Warren Commission would have allowed testimony that Oswald was in front
9- The goal of the Commission was to determine the facts, not to confirm Oswald as the lone nut.

10- The faces in the Altgens6 photo were accidentally blotted out during photo processing.

11- Judyth Bakers pixelation analysis of Doorman’s shirt compared to that of Lovelady and Oswald is bogus. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1X2eD2Wl3xSmRHTuE02ntfYkb3ES2Kuo8wl3HHzzAlD8/pub
12- Lovelady lied to WC when he said he sat down to eat lunch on the STEPS in FRONT of Shelley.
13- Buelle Frazier lied to the WC when he said Lovelady was standing a few steps BELOW him.
14- The WC asking Lovelady to point a BLACK arrow to himself in the BLACK area of Altgens6 is not suspicious.

15- Doorman “looks like Lovelady” therefore it must be him.
16- Doorman’s shirt matching Oswald’s is just a coincidence.
17- Doorman wearing Oswald’s shirt does not prove he is Oswald.
18- Doorman’s open long-sleeve shirt not matching Lovelady’s short-sleeved striped or closed long-sleeve plaid shirt proves nothing.
19- Oswald cannot be Doorman since it was decided long ago that Lovelady was Doorman.

20- Carolyn Arnold was mistaken in stating that Oswald was on the first floor of the TSBD at 12:25. http://22november1963.org.uk/carolyn-arnold-witness-oswald

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

22- This GIF is not evidence and should be ignored…

Ask the question:
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, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

JFK Probability Analysis: Suspicious Deaths of Dealey Plaza Witnesses

JFK Probability Analysis: Suspicious Deaths of Dealey Plaza Witnesses

Richard Charnin
June 4, 2014

Click Reclaiming Science:The JFK Conspiracy to look inside the book.

JFK Blog Posts
JFK Calc Spreadsheet Database
Tables and Graphs

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

The fact that they were in Dealey Plaza makes them obvious material witnesses – by definition.
Of the 20 suspicious deaths, 8 were officially ruled unnatural (2 homicides, 5 accidents, 1 suicide) and 12 were natural (5 heart attacks, 7 other).

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).

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”.

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

The probability of 8 ruled unnatural deaths assuming 300 witnesses is 1 in 1500. But a statistical analysis of the expected number of accidents, suicides and natural deaths indicates that approximately 13 were homicides, so there were 15 total homicides out of 20 suspicious deaths.

Assuming 2X the national homicide rate, let’s calculate the probabilities of 8 and 15 homicides.

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

For 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

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 defined witness groups. The HSCA would have confirmed the actuary if it did a true analysis.

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

DEALEY PLAZA WITNESSES/ PROBABILITIES
Sensitivity Analysis
(assume 2X National Homicide rate)

Hom 200..... 300.... 400....500.....600
08 6.8E-08 1.4E-06 1.1E-05 5.3E-05 1.8E-04
09 3.8E-09 1.2E-07 1.2E-06 7.4E-06 3.0E-05
11 8.8E-12 6.0E-10 1.1E-08 1.1E-07 6.2E-07
13 1.4E-14 2.1E-12 6.8E-11 9.6E-10 8.0E-09
15 1.7E-17 5.7E-15 3.3E-13 7.3E-12 8.7E-11

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

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 Uncategorized

 

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

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 780 other followers