Sensitivity Analysis proves a JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud

Richard Charnin

August 2, 2013

Updated: June 11, 2014

** JFK Blog Posts
JFK Calc Spreadsheet Database
**

It’s all in the numbers. In both cases, we have a series of observations. The JFK witness deaths are from 1964-78; the 274 state presidential unadjusted exit polls for six elections from 1988-2008. There are numerous data anomalies in the accumulated evidence.

The problems are similar. In the Election Fraud analysis, we need to determine the number of state exit polls which fell outside the margin of error for each candidate. We would expect a near equal split. In the JFK analysis, we need to compare the number of unnatural witness deaths to what would normally be expected based on unnatural mortality rates, given the number of material witnesses for 1964-78.

The first step is to record the data in a spreadsheet. We calculate what we would expect the data to reveal, assuming the Null Hypothesis: No JFK Conspiracy; No substantive Election Fraud. We then proceed to perform a mathematical analysis to see if the observations are reasonable based on statistical expectation.

The data parameters are limited in scope.

- JFK: witness universe, number of unnatural deaths, time period, mortality rate

- Election Fraud: number of state elections, exit polls, recorded shares, margin of error

In both studies, we seek to determine the probabilities:

- JFK: number of unnatural deaths vs. expected based on mortality statistics.

- Election Fraud: number of exit polls exceeding the margin of error vs. expected.

I posted the following analysis on John McAdams’ JFK assassination site. His response was typical disinformation. He wrote that I am reluctant to have the analysis peer-reviewed. But it has been open in full to everyone with Internet access for years. No one has ever come forth to refute the election fraud or JFK analysis. Since McAdams is apparently incapable of doing a peer-review himself, he should not have criticized the analysis. He could have asked one of the math or political science professors at Marquette University to do a review. But he has not done so. https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/gy1LY3aTm60

**1988-2008 Presidential Election Fraud**

We first calculate the discrepancies between each of the 274 exit polls and the corresponding recorded vote to determine the number n in which the margin of error (MoE) was exceeded. We then calculate the probability that n of the 274 exit polls would exceed the MoE. In the six presidential elections from 1988-2008, 135 of the 274 exit polls exceeded the margin of error – 131 moving in favor of the Republican and just 4 to the Democrat. At the 95% confidence level, only 14 polls were expected to exceed the MoE.

The MoE is a function of the number of exit poll respondents plus an additional 30% cluster factor. For example, the adjusted 3.25% MoE is sum of the calculated 2.50% MoE and 30% (0.75) cluster factor.

**The probability that 131 of 274 exit polls would exceed the MoE (including a 30% cluster factor) in favor of the GOP is a ridiculous E-116 (116 zeros to the right of the decimal point). That is a big fat ZERO. **

But what if the cluster factor is higher than 30%? It would increase the adjusted MoE; the number of polls in which the MoE was exceeded would be lower.

**In the sensitivity analysis, we calculate probabilities for cluster factors ranging from 0-100%. The most likely base case is a 30% cluster factor (a 3.60% average MoE). The margin of error was exceeded in 135 of 274 elections. The probability P= E-83 = 0.0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 001**

**Even assuming an impossible 200% cluster factor, the 8.31% MoE was exceeded in 29 elections – a 1 in 10,000 probability. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdFIzSTJtMTJZekNBWUdtbWp3bHlpWGc#gid=43
**

*If the six elections were fair, we would expect the MoE to be exceeded in approximately 14 of 274 exit polls. The cluster factor scenarios indicate that the exit poll discrepancies from the recorded vote were overwhelmingly one-sided in favor of the GOP. The probabilities of the red-shift were ZERO in all scenarios. Therefore we can conclude that Election Fraud is systemic beyond any doubt. *

**JFK Assassination Witnesses
**

There has been an ongoing controversy over the number of witnesses who died mysteriously ever since the actuary engaged by the London Sunday Times calculated 100,000 TRILLION to 1 odds that 18 material witnesses would die in the three years following the assassination. The HSCA claimed that the “universe” of material witnesses was unknowable, therefore the calculation was invalid and was not proof of a conspiracy.

But in fact the number of witnesses was knowable. Approximately 65 of 1100+ witnesses called to testify in four investigations from 1964-1978 died suspiciously (38 unnaturally, 27 were homicides). Of the 552 who testified at the Warren Commission in 1964, at least 30 died suspiciously (20 unnatural). In three investigations (Garrison/Shaw trial, Church, HSCA) 32 of approximately 600 witnesses called to testify died suspiciously (20 unnaturally). Most of the deaths occurred just before their scheduled testimony.

We have a finite universe of witnesses, the number and cause of unnatural deaths, and the unnatural mortality rates. Given this input, we can calculate the expected number of deaths and compare it to the actual number. This is analogous to the actual and expected numbers of exit polls exceeding the margin of error.

**Here are the graphs and probability calculations which prove a conspiracy: http://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/10/14/jfk-witness-deaths-graphical-proof-of-a-conspiracy/**

Convenient deaths spiked in 1964 (Warren Commission) and 1977 (House Select Committee).

This is a sensitivity analysis of unnatural witness deaths.

We calculate a probability matrix of unnatural deaths over a range of material witnesses and number of deaths. We can then analyze the effects of these two key factors on the probability. As the number of witnesses (N) increase for a given number (n) of deaths, so does the probability that n deaths will occur. Conversely, as the number of unnatural witness deaths (n) increase for a given number (N) of witnesses, the probabilities will decrease.

There were at least 79 officially ruled unnatural deaths of 1400+ material witnesses over the 15 year period from 1964-78: 34 homicides, 24 accidents, 17 suicides and 4 unknown. The probability is E-63 assuming the average weighted unnatural mortality rate (0.000245). It is E-27 assuming the average unweighted national unnatural rate (0.000818). Many of the suicides and accidents were actually homicides. The reason: the number of official deaths far exceeded the statistical expectation.

*The sensitivity analysis table of unnatural deaths and corresponding matrix for homicides shows that the probability of unnatural deaths is ZERO in all plausible combination scenarios. *

There are some who claim there were many more than 1400 witnesses. But other than the 1400 listed in *Who’s Who in the JFK Assassination,* there is no comparable list of material witnesses. The FBI claimed 25,000 persons were interviewed. But how many were material witnesses who had information related to the assassination? **Even assuming 25,000 witnesses, the probability of 84 homicides in 15 years is 1 in 100 trillion.**

**Sensitivity Analysis: Probability of 80 Homicides for N witnesses (1964-78)
N….Probability**

1400 1.68E-100

2000 1.94E-88

3000 6.70E-75

3500 8.07E-70

4000 1.87E-65

4500 1.23E-61

5000 2.99E-58

5500 3.25E-55

6000 1.82E-52

6500 5.85E-50

7000 1.17E-47

7500 1.55E-45

8000 1.44E-43

10000 6.48E-37

15000 1.42E-25

20000 2.52E-18

25000 4.17E-13 (1 in 2,396,168,995,675)