RSS

JFK: Oswald in the Doorway – An Opinion Survey

Richard Charnin

April 5, 2015

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

JFK Blog Posts
JFK Calc Spreadsheet Database

The purpose of the 20 questions in this post is to gauge the OPINIONS of readers as to whether or not they believe that Oswald was”Doorman” standing on the first floor (Top level) of the entrance to the Texas Schoolbook Depository at the time of the assassination.

https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/04/05/10137/

I believe the evidence is overwhelming that Oswald was Doorman. The best way to gauge the opinions of those who may or may not agree is to compare the YES or NO answers to mine.

The replies from the poster Mr.X are given below. His responses were evasive. Although I specifically asked for a YES or NO answer to each question, he failed to do so. This was not a court trial.

1: Assume Oswald was photographed in front of the TSBD at the exact time of the assassination. Do you believe that is why Det. Fritz’s notes in which Oswald said he was “out with Bill Shelley in front” were hidden for 30 years? Yes or No?
X. Not solid proof of anything.
RC. I did not ask for proof, just an opinion.

2: In his WC testimony, Lovelady was asked to point to himself  in the Altgens6 photo by placing a DARK arrow in the DARK area. The head of  the arrow appears to be pointing to Doorman who was standing on the TOP level. Frazier also placed an arrow pointing to Doorman. However, both Lovelady and Frazier both stated multiple times under oath that Lovelady was standing in FRONT on the STEPS – not on the TOP level. Do you find this suspicious? Yes or No?
X. Why don’t you provide us with the picture so we can decide for ourselves what it “appears” to show?
RC. The picture is the Altgens 6 photo in the original post linked to above.

3: If a photo, video, document or witness testimony had to be altered or fabricated to convict Oswald, do you suppose it would have been? Yes or No?
X. That is definitely a possibility.
RC. Of course it is a possibility, but do YOU think the evidence would have been altered or fabricated? YES or NO?

4: If a witness could confirm that Oswald was standing out front, would he/she be allowed to so testify? Yes or No?
X. What witness are you talking about? Or is this hypothetical?
RC. ANY witness. It is a hypothetical. I am just asking for your opinion.

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?
X. Same as above.
RC. ANY witness. It is a hypothetical. I am just asking for your opinion.

6: If a witness was a participant in the conspiracy to make LHO the patsy and saw him out front, would he/she say that he was? Yes or No?
X.This is speculative psychology. What is the point?
RC. No psychology. It is a hypothetical. I am just asking for your opinion.

7: Neither Lovelady, Shelley or others were asked directly if Oswald was out front. Would it have been a logical question to ask. Yes or No?
X. If they considered it a possibility, they should have asked.
RC. Of course it was POSSIBLE. Therefore your answer should be YES.

8: Oswald told Will Fritz that he was OUT FRONT WITH BILL SHELLEY at 12:30. Oswald was seen at 12:31 in the 2nd floor lunchroom by officer Baker and Roy Truly holding a coke. He did not show shortness of breath. The Warren Commission concluded that he ran from the 6th to the 2nd floor in 75-90 seconds. It’s a 10 second walk from the first floor entrance to the 2nd floor lunchroom. Do you believe that Oswald told the truth to Fritz, since a) he already had an alibi (Bill Shelley, who was not asked by the WC if LHO was out front) and b) he was seen by Truly and Baker at 12:31. Yes or No?
X. It is possible that Oswald was out front, but no photograph yet discovered can prove this.
RC. Yes, it is possible – see Altgens6. But do you THINK LHO told the truth to Fritz? YES or NO.

9: Lovelady died in Jan. 1979 (during the HSCA investigation) from “complications” due to a heart attack. The probability of a 41 year old white male dying from a heart attack was approximately 1 in 10,000.  Lovelady did not testify at the HSCA. Do you believe he should have been called? Yes or No?
X. I don’t understand the question. Was Lovelady an important witness? Would they have called Lovelady to testify at the HSCA? How many other TSBD witnesses did they call? ZERO. They didn’t seem too concerned with that end of the case at that point.
RC. But he was an important witness. Do you THINK he should have been called? YES or NO?

10: Many JFK researchers who believe that Oswald was framed insist that he is not in the Altgens6 photo and no one testified seeing LHO out front. They say that Doorman “looks like” Lovelady. But is that a sufficient response? Doorman also “looks like” Oswald and Doorman’s open long-sleeve shirt (with a V-neck tee) is different from the one Lovelady was wearing. Yes or No?
X. There is not enough visual evidence to conclusively use the shirt as a source of identification.
RC. Is it a sufficient response to just say “it looks like” Lovelady? YES or NO.

11: Is it just a coincidence that the TSBD witnesses are not clearly shown in Altgens 6? Yes or No?
X. What do you mean “not clearly shown?” How about giving us photographic examples?
RC. “Not clearly shown” means one cannot discern the identity of the witnesses.

12 Do you believe the Oswald backyard photos were fakes? Yes or No
X.They seem fairly consistent to me, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they were altered. It is a possibility.
RC. They have been proven fakes. But do YOU think they were? YES or No?

13: Do you believe the Z-film was altered? Yes or No?
X. Definitely a possibility.
RC. It has been proven as altered. But do YOU think it was? YES or No?

14: Is there at least a possibility that Oswald is Doorman? Yes or No?
X. I don’t believe Oswald was Doorman, but there is not enough evidence to prove it. So,I would have to say “I don’t know.”
RC. “I don’t know” means YES, it is possibile that LHO is Doorman.

15: Do you believe Carolyn Arnold, a secretary at the TSBD, was mistaken in her statement that Oswald was on the first (i.e. ground) floor of the TSBD at 12:25pm? Yes or No?
X. She could have been mistaken. Happens all the time.
RC. But she could have been right. What is your best OPINION?

16: Do you consider it odd that Arnold was not interviewed by the Warren Commission? Yes or No?
X. A lot of potentially valuable witnesses were not interviewed by the Warren Commission.
RC. But Arnold was not just ANY witness. She was CRITICAL since she claimed Oswald was on the first floor – not the 6th – FIVE MINUTES BEFORE THE SHOOTING.

17: At the 2 minute mark of this video, a balding figure who looks like Billy Lovelady appears at the lower right of the screen. He is facing the TSBD and wearing a checkered shirt buttoned to the collar. No tee shirt is visible. It was NOT the shirt that Doorman was wearing. Do you agree that it appears to be Lovelady? Yes or No? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XNHtUDEDAI
X. It does appear to be Lovelady.
RC. Your answer is YES. His closed shirt proves that he cannot be Doorman.

18: In the Altgens6 photo, Doorman is wearing a long-sleeve shirt open to reveal his tee shirt. An FBI photo of Lovelady taken 2/29/64 shows him wearing a short-sleeve striped shirt that he supposedly wore on 11/22/63. Given the discrepancy, does the fact that Doorman is wearing a long-sleeve shirt seem odd to you? Yes or No?
X. Not enough visual evidence.
RC. But is it ODD that the FBI claimed Lovelady wore a short-sleeve shirt and the Altgens6 photo showed Doorman wearing a long-sleeve shirt? YES or NO.

19. Naysayers claim that Lovelady must be Doorman because not one TSBD employee identified Oswald out front. The FBI concluded within a few hours of the assassination that Oswald, a deranged communist Lone Nut, killed JFK. Could the FBI have inhibited Warren Commission TSBD witnesses from testifying that they saw Oswald in front of the TSBD? YES or NO
X. What is the point of speculating in this way?
RC. Simply this: Do you believe the WC/FBI would allow testimony clearing Oswald?

20: Lovelady and Frazier both testified multiple times that Lovelady was standing on the STEPS in front of Frazier who was standing on the TOP level (the first floor). Since Doorman was also standing on the TOP level, do you agree that their joint testimony is powerful evidence that Lovelady could not be Doorman? Yes or No?
X. Maybe they moved around?
RC. No. The Altgens6 photo was taken at 12:30 – the EXACT time of the shots.

My answers vs. those of Mr.X:
1. YES. Did not ask for proof, just opinion.
2. YES. The Altgens6 photo is included in the post.
3. YES. A photo,video or document that proved Oswald was innocent would have been altered,destroyed or hidden.
4. NO. Evades the question (any witness)
5. NO. Evades question
6. NO. Evades question
7. YES. Evades question.
8. YES. Not asking for proof, just opinion.
9. YES. Simple question.
10 NO. Evades the fact.
11.NO. Altgens6 is altered. You have the photo, not an example.
12.YES.The backyard photos are proven fakes.
13.YES. Evades the question.
14.YES. Evades. Of course it is possible.
15.NO. Evades: Do you believe Arnold was mistaken?
16.NO. Evades.The WC would not call her since it destroys their case.
17.YES. I agree. It does appear to be Lovelady in the video.
18 YES. Evades. Doorman was wearing a long-sleeve shirt.
19.YES. No speculation. What is your opinion?
20.YES. Evades the question which is about the Altgens6 photo.

Oswald in the Doorway deniers also claim that there was not enough time to alter Altgens6. That is a canard.There was a window of opportunity. http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/08/22/jfk-the-cartha-deloach-fbi-memorandum-and-the-altgens6/

Note this GIF appeared in the original post:

The shirt Oswald was wearing in police custody is open in a V to reveal his Tee shirt – just like that of Doorman in the Altgens 6 photo.
https://www.google.com/search?q=oswald+shirt+in+custody&num=100&rlz=1CAACAC_enUS524US524&es_sm=93&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=rn0mVYDcA8W4ggT20YLwBA&ved=0CAoQ_AUoBA&biw=1093&bih=526

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bea_l1BJbWPx2Ju-QxedB3_cui6fCSFF7AE_iutBWGc/pub

 
8 Comments

Posted by on April 5, 2015 in JFK

 

Tags: , , ,

Kansas 2014 Senate: Cumulative Vote share model confirms Wichita State Statistician

Richard Charnin

April 2, 2015

Look inside the books: Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy … Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts

Beth Clarkson, chief statistician for Wichita State’s National Institute for Aviation Research, filed an open records lawsuit in Sedgwick County District Court as part of her personal quest to find the answer to an unexplained pattern that transcends elections and states. She sued the top Kansas election official Wednesday, seeking paper tapes from electronic voting machines in an effort to explain statistical anomalies favoring Republicans in counts coming from large precincts across the country.  http://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article17139890.html

To confirm Clarkson’s results, I downloaded 2014 Kansas Senate precinct data for each county. Cumulative vote shares (CVS) were calculated for the five largest: Sedgwick, Johnson, Saline, Shawnee and Wyandotte and the Total for all counties.

Note the Republican state total cumulative share margin is in steady decline for the first 500,000 votes, but then becomes flat. Since the largest counties show the GOP cumulative share increasing with precinct size, it confirms that they were the counties where the anomalies occurred. In other words, the Independent Orman may have caught the Republican Roberts if the trend was not halted by election fraud (vote switching, disenfranchisement, etc.) in the larger (presumably more Democratic) precincts. 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1D087y0AlsFiITeypDEk3W_c4P-O2iytQRCp85wFIw-Q/edit#gid=1367668624

Clarkson’s analysis confirms my previous CVS analysis of the 2014 Wisconsin, Florida, Maryland and South Dakota governor elections, all of which showed the same counter-intuitive, mathematically anomalous trend. Vote shares increased in favor of the Republican candidate from small to large precincts. The divergence in cumulative vote shares violates the Law of Large Numbers. One would expect an insignificant change in the shares after a certain point (the “Long Run”). https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2015/02/27/proving-election-fraud-cumulative-vote-share-analysis/

“Clarkson, a certified quality engineer with a Ph.D. in statistics, said she has analyzed election returns in Kansas and elsewhere over several elections that indicate “a statistically significant” pattern where the percentage of Republican votes increase the larger the size of the precinct. While it is well-recognized that smaller, rural precincts tend to lean Republican, statisticians have been unable to explain the consistent pattern favoring Republicans that trends upward as the number of votes cast in a precinct or other voting unit goes up. In primaries, the favored candidate appears to always be the Republican establishment candidate, above a tea party challenger. And the upward trend for Republicans occurs once a voting unit reaches roughly 500 votes”.

“This is not just an anomaly that occurred in one place,” Clarkson said. “It is a pattern that has occurred repeatedly in elections across the United States.”
Read more here: http://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article17139890.html#storylink=cpy

Kansas Senate vote totals: Roberts (R) 460,350 – 53.1%;  Batson (L) 37,469 – 4.3%;  Orman (I) 368,372- 42.5%. Unfortunately, precinct data was not available for the Governor race: Davis (D) 401,100-46.1%; Brownback (R) 433,196-49.8%; Umbehr (L)- 35,206-4.0%

This study confirms the Cumulative Vote Share precinct size analysis: Precinct 
Size
 Matters:­
The 
Large 
Precinct 
Bias
 in
 US 
Presidential
 Elections- G.F.
Webb (Vanderbilt
University,
Nashville,
TN
USA)
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.8868.pdf

CVS and Stolen elections:

2000 presidential election. Duval County, FL.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1eiVf34eX9LSptAXZ-EvgCmW88JRjLu8Z5Bxfleg_RgQ/pubchart?oid=1722819743&format=interactive

2004 presidential election:  Lucas County, Ohio.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zcUZQ49a5fAmx2fomZ_xcCp2vDbCIitNKyfoQnVQKao/pubchart?oid=1403163968&format=interactive

2010 Wisconsin Senate:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tXw5LpgQrZjn_YFOkLoLqtQhIAco_V9EEApXvva58kE/pubchart?oid=282743022&format=interactive

2011 Wisconsin Supreme Court:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ziSkkHnYz-bVvAfHd_VciBBEUKQqFafJJjico4WbwTE/pubchart?oid=505176002&format=interactive

2014 Wisconsin Governor

CVS graphs for five Kansas counties and the state total:

 
1 Comment

Posted by on April 2, 2015 in Uncategorized

 

Tags: ,

Israel Exit Poll Myths and the stolen 2000/ 2004 U.S. presidential elections

Israel Exit Poll Myths and the stolen 2000/ 2004 U.S. presidential elections

Richard Charnin

March 24, 2015

Look inside the books: Reclaiming Science:The JFK Conspiracy  Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Count

Once again, the usual blather, myths and excuses from the corporate media  (NY Times) and so-called statistical experts about “faulty” exit polls. “The exit polls were wrong; the vote count was accurate”. We have heard this mantra many times before: in 2000, 2004, Wisconsin, etc.. How is it that whenever the race is “too close to call”, the right-winger wins by a 5% recorded margin?

The corporate media claimed that Gore, Kerry and the Zionist Union were leading or tied in the early exit polls, but a  late surge by Bush, Bush and Likud put them in front at the final exit poll. That is the biggest canard of all. There is never consideration that Election Fraud is a major cause of  discrepancies between the exit polls and the recorded vote. The 2000  and 2004 unadjusted exit poll timelines each had Gore and Kerry winning consistently from the early to final timeline.  The discrepancy (“red-shift”) between the poll and the vote is beyond the margin of error.

ALL final unadjusted exit polls are forced to match the bogus recorded vote in every election by rigging the numbers. The premise is always that there was ZERO fraud. The unadjusted, pristine exit polls are very close to the True vote. But the media wants us to believe they are ALWAYS in error and therefore must be “adjusted” to math the fraudulent recorded vote.

The myths are straight out of the GOP election fraud playbook:

  1. The early exit polls were wrong
  2. there was a late surge in the Likud vote
  3. Likud voters did not want to be exit polled

Note that Israeli law does not allow for exit polls to be published prior to the closure of the polls. The actual polling data was expected to be released throughout the night as the ballots are counted.

Voter turnout  appeared to be slightly higher than in the  2013 election, with 65.7 percent of eligible voters having cast their ballots as of 8 p.m. At the same point in the 2013 election, 63.9% of voters had cast ballots as of 8 p.m

The New York Times has maintained the fiction that the exit polls were wrong as far back as they have been conducted- since 1968. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/19/world/middleeast/israel-election-results-exit-polls-falter.html?_r=0

A look at how inaccurate exit polls contributed to the surprised reaction Wednesday morning that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had defeated his main rival decisively

JERUSALEM — Israelis woke up to a surprise on Wednesday morning, having gone to bed the night before with the results of their national elections in a near tie.

By dawn, it was clear that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had decisively defeated his main rival, Isaac Herzog, and assured himself a fourth term.

The cause of the confusion: inaccurate exit polls that showed Mr. Netanyahu’s conservative Likud Party and Mr. Herzog’s center-left Zionist Union winning about 27 seats each in the 120-seat Knesset.

Instead, with 99 percent of the votes counted, the Likud had won 30 seats to the Zionist Union’s 24.

Mina Tzemach, who together with her colleague, Mano Geva, conducted the poll for the popular Channel 2, appeared again in the studio to explain what had gone wrong. Though Ms. Tzemach’s poll included mock ballots in 60 voting stations serving 25,000 voters around the country, she said an unusually high number of voters refused to participate, particularly in Likud strongholds and in areas with many immigrants from the former Soviet Union, who tend to be wary of sharing their views, a phenomenon that might have skewed the results.

Ms. Tzemach said that anger among Likud supporters and their right-wing allies at the Israeli news media, which has been critical of Mr. Netanyahu, may have played a role.

In addition, the exit polls ended at 8:30 p.m., 90 minutes before the voting stations closed. Mr. Netanyahu was appealing to voters to come out and support him with increasing intensity as the day wore on.

“We saw that the later it got, the stronger the right became,” Ms. Tzemach said.

Camil Fuchs, a professor of statistics who conducted the exit poll for Channel 10 by questioning voters after they had cast their ballot, said he heard the real results when he woke up on Wednesday morning. “I nearly died,” he told the Haaretz newspaper.

Mr. Fuchs said that 30 percent of those asked to take part in his poll had refused. “Perhaps some of the Likud voters refused because of their perception that the media is leftist,” he said.

And the obligatory response from another polling “expert” who never considers ELECTION FRAUD:

http://www.stats.org/israels-election-socks-it-to-pollsters/

The recent Israeli election provides a case study in how political polls—and even exit polls—can get the answer badly wrong, with the result that election winner seemed to flip flop from news outlet to news outlet as the actual count unfolded. The print edition of The Washington Post’s headline on Wednesday morning had gone to bed declaring, “A Virtual Tie in Israeli Election” while The New York Times’ headline announced, “Netanyahu Soundly Defeats Chief Rival.” The Postquickly changed its online version to include an acknowledgment of the poorly informed “virtual tie”, and linking the “Virtual Tie” to the story “Netanyahu Sweeps to Victory”.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/israeli-exit-polls-show-incredibly-tight-race-netanyahu-declares-victory/

http://www.jpost.com/Israel-Elections/First-exit-polls-show-tight-race-between-Herzog-and-Netanyahu-394224

………………………

Well, here we go again. Just change the above from Likud to Bush.

In 2000, Al Gore won by 540,000 recorded votes (48.4-47.9%). But the unadjusted state exit polls (58,000 respondents) indicated he won by 50.8-44.4%, a 6 million vote margin.  There were nearly 6 million uncounted votes.

The True Vote Model had him winning by 51.5-44.7%. But the Supreme Court awarded the election to Bush (271-267 EV).  In Florida, 185,000 ballots were uncounted. The following states flipped from Gore in the exit poll to Bush in the recorded vote: AL AR AZ CO FL GA MO NC TN TX VA. Gore would have won the election if he captured just one of the states.  

Gore Bush Buchanan Nader Other
53,560 46,789 789 3,474 881
50.79% 44.37% 0.75% 3.29% 0.84%
Unadjusted 2000 National Exit Poll
Gore Bush Buchanan Nader Other
6,359 6,065 76 523 85
48.51% 46.27% 0.58% 3.99% 0.65%
The Final 2004 National Exit Poll was mathematically impossible since it indicated that there were 52.6 million returning Bush 2000 voters – but he had just 50.5 million recorded votes. Only 48 million were alive in 2004.  Approximately 46 million voted, therefore the Final overstated the number of returning Bush voters by 6-7 million.

The Final NEP implied an impossible 110% turnout of living 2000 Bush voters returning in 2004.

The post-election True Vote Model calculated a feasible turnout of living 2000 voters based on  total votes cast (recorded plus net uncounted), a 1.25% annual mortality rate and 98% Gore/Bush voter turnout.  Kerry won by 67-57 million and had 379 EV.

UNADJUSTED 2004 NATIONAL EXIT POLL

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdFIzSTJtMTJZekNBWUdtbWp3bHlpWGc#gid=7

Sample Kerry Bush Other
13,660 7,064 6,414 182
share 51.71% 46.95% 1.33%

UNADJUSTED STATE EXIT POLL AGGREGATE

Data Source: Roper Center (UConn)

Kerry Bush Nader Other Margin
62,474 58,203 648 969 4,271
51.09% 47.59% 0.53% 0.79% 3.49%

Kerry’s lead was a constant 4% in the exit poll timeline. But the corporate media lied and said that a late surge enabled Bush to win by 2.3%. In fact, the pollsters had to adjust the national exit poll to match the bogus Bush win.

2004 National Exit Poll Timeline

This refutes the myth that early exit polls were biased to Kerry. He led from 4pm with 51% (8,349 respondents) to the final 13,660 (51.7%).  The exit pollsters had to switch approximately 471 (6.7%) of Kerry’s 7,064 responders to Bush in order to force the Final NEP to match the recorded voteBush 50.7%; Kerry 48.3% 

http://www.richardcharnin.com/US2004G_3970_PRES04_NONE_H_Data.pdf

Given his 51.7% share of 125.7 million (Census) votes cast, Kerry won by nearly 6 million votes.The True Vote Model indicates he had 53.6% and won by 10 million.         

3:59pm: 8349 respondents: Kerry 51.0%; Bush 47.0%

 http://www.richardcharnin.com/US2004G_3737_PRES04_NONE_H_Data-1.pdf

 7:33pm: 11027 respondents: Kerry 50.9%; Bush 47.1% 

http://www.richardcharnin.com/US2004G_3798_PRES04_NONE_H_Data.pdf

12:22am: 13047 respondents: Kerry 51.2%; Bush 47.5% 

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/elections/2004/graphics/exitpolls_us_110204.gif

2004 Red-shift: 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdFIzSTJtMTJZekNBWUdtbWp3bHlpWGc&usp=sheets_web#gid=23

Probabilities of exceeding the margin of error for each 2004 state exit poll (in Column V) 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdFIzSTJtMTJZekNBWUdtbWp3bHlpWGc&usp=sheets_web#gid=46

 
1 Comment

Posted by on March 24, 2015 in Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , ,

A probability analysis of unnatural recent deaths: 125 scientists, 75 bankers

A probability analysis of unnatural recent deaths: 125 scientists, 75 bankers

Richard Charnin
March 23, 2015

Remember that old sixties tune:”Something’s happening here. What it is ain’t exactly clear”? Over the past two years, there have been a large number of highly suspicious deaths of scientists, bankers and journalists. The deaths of 48 high-level bankers occurred in the LAST YEAR alone. What are the odds that these high-level, rich bankers would kill themselves?

http://asheepnomore.net/2015/03/20/dead-125-scientists-75-high-level-bankers-and-within-24-hours-3-investigative-journalists/

The probability analysis is based on current mortality rates for murders, accidents and suicides. Since the number of worldwide bankers is unknown, this sensitivity analysis calculates probabilities of unnatural deaths over a range of numerical estimates for the latest two years. Assuming 100,000 Bankers, the probability of 75 unnatural deaths in two years is 1 in 600,000 trillion.

Many deaths are ruled suicides. But how did the banker who slashed his own throat  put the knife under his body? Or the one who somehow crushed himself with his own SUV. Many of these ‘suicides’ were seemingly committed with a ‘vengeance’. A Denver banker supposedly shot himself 8 times in his head and torso with a nail gun. An infectious disease scientist was stabbed 196 times..The list goes on and on

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1VdwJE_g5z3St3h2NbbXpau0DH7-g1y_98IKXRrt_9ao/edit#gid=1770582739

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on March 23, 2015 in Uncategorized

 

Proving Election Fraud: Cumulative vote shares (2014 MD Gov.)

Proving Election Fraud: Cumulative vote shares (2014 MD Governor)

Richard Charnin
Feb.27, 2015

Look inside the books:
Reclaiming Science:The JFK Conspiracy
Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts
Proving Election Fraud: Phantom Voters, Uncounted Votes, and the National Exit Poll

In previous posts, cumulative vote share analysis (CVA) applied to the 2014 Florida, Wisconsin and South Dakota governor elections strongly indicated they were fraudulent. This is a corresponding CVA for the 2014 Maryland governor election.

In general, vote switching occurs in the largest precincts of highly Republican counties. It is minimal in small GOP counties which have just a handful of Democratic votes. A small percentage of votes are switched in the big urban Democratic counties, but the number switched is high.

The early vote shares in smaller GOP rural precincts favor the Republican as expected, but there is a counter-intuitive upward trend in Republican cumulative vote shares as we move into bigger (presumably urban Democratic) precincts. As the Law of Large Numbers takes effect, one would expect a convergence to nearly constant margin (parallel lines) with a very slight Democratic increase in slope.

The cumulative vote trend moved to the GOP in each of the following elections
-Florida: https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2015/02/11/2014-florida-governor-election-fraud-cumulative-precinct-vote-shares/
-Wisconsin: https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/12/02/11623/
-South Dakota: https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2015/01/02/south-dakota-2014-cumulative-vote-share-analysis/

Calculating cumulative precinct vote shares:
1- Precinct votes for selected counties are sorted in ascending order by vote size.
2- Each precinct’s votes are added to the cumulative sum of the smaller precincts.
3- Cumulative vote shares are calculated.
4- Vote shares (Y) are displayed graphically for cumulative vote totals (X).

Given the nature of voting patterns, one would reasonably expect that smaller (rural) cumulative vote shares would favor Republicans and larger (municipal) shares would trend to the Democrats. But due to the LLN, the vote share trend lines should be nearly parallel at 50% of the total vote.

The Law of Large Numbers (LLN) suggests that as the number of precinct votes increase, the cumulative vote share margin should approach a constant value.

In the Maryland race, the Republican Hogan’s cumulative 2-party vote share increased from 50.3% at 25% of the total, to 51.7% at 50% and 53.6% at the final 100%. The 3.3% increase from 25% to 100% is an estimate of the percentage of votes that may have been switched on Election Day. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17SpMcLyJ0607RyasTG4tRqrFmyDEKmEG45DKGGLZFmA/edit#gid=1626337891

Over the past ten years, I have developed a number of models for analyzing election fraud. Precinct Cumulative Vote share analysis is a recent addition to the toolkit.

-True Vote Model (TVM): plausible returning voters and current election exit poll vote shares. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/11/19/the-exit-poll-smoking-gun-how-did-you-vote-in-the-last-election/

-Exit Poll discrepancies: Probability analysis of deviations between unadjusted exit polls and the recorded vote (all exit polls are adjusted to match the recorded vote). https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/11/14/florida-2014-governor-true-voteexit-poll-analysis-indicates-fraud/

Cumulative vote shares of selected Maryland counties:
Alleghany

Anne_Arundel

Baltimore County

Baltimore City

Frederick

Harford

Howard

Montgomery

Wicomico

 
2 Comments

Posted by on February 27, 2015 in 2014 Elections

 

Tags: , , , , ,

John McAdams on Philip Stahl’s review of “Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy”

John McAdams on Philip Stahl’s review of “Reclaiming Science:The JFK Conspiracy”

Richard Charnin
Feb.24, 2015

JFK Blog Posts
Twitter Chronological Links
Look inside the book:
Reclaiming Science:The JFK Conspiracy

Philip Stahl is a Physicist/Mathematician/JFK Researcher, a prolific writer on many subjects. He just wrote a very positive review of my book:http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/02/a-jfk-assassination-book-all-serious.html

John McAdams, the notorious JFK disinformationist, posted the following comment on Stahl’s review:
“No academic appointment. No job as a scientist with any reputable organization. Usually, “peer review” means reviewed by a bonafide expert for a scholarly journal. Here is what I can find on Stahl: Mr. Stahl has been an atheist for over 25 years and has written dozens of articles on atheism in major newspapers. He’s also engaged in numerous one-on-one debates with priests, ministers. He lives in Colorado and enjoys hiking, computer chess, writing science fiction and GO. And this was published on his blog, not in any reputable journal. Not even in a reputable popular outlet” https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/rcGX-ZxJKKQ
……………………………………………………………..

McAdams’ post is graphic proof that Warren Commission apologists do not do their homework, have an agenda to spread disinformation and are not interested in the truth. McAdams omits Stahl’s accomplishments and completely ignores the content of his review. And you wonder why McAdams was fired from Marquette? His post is a pure hatchet job. Classic McAdams. Who cares if Stahl is an atheist? So was Einstein. But this is the kind of garbage we have come to expect from McAdams. He is very predictable.

Stahl has written extensively on JFK: https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2015/02/13/a-physicist-mathematician-astronomer-reviews-reclaiming-science-the-jfk-conspiracy/

On his blog, Stahl notes that he has specialized in space physics and solar physics, developed the first astronomy curriculum for Caribbean secondary schools and has written twelve books – the most recent: Modern Physics: Notes, Problems and Solutions; and earlier, BEYOND ATHEISM, BEYOND GOD; Astronomy & Astrophysics: Notes, Problems and Solutions'; ‘Physics Notes for Advanced Level’ Mathematical Excursions in Brane Space; Selected Analyses in Solar Flare Plasma Dynamics; and ‘A History of Caribbean Secondary School Astronomy’ which details the background of his development and implementation of the first ever astronomy curriculum for secondary schools in the Caribbean.

Here are some of Stahl’s books that John McAdams ignores. He never read them. McAdams has plenty of time to read them now that he is no longer teaching. But he won’t because he knows he is incapable of understanding physics and math. What do you expect from a disinformationist? http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/stahlpa

Stahl posted on McAdams a long time ago:http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/13-pages-on-conspiracy-industry-and.html

“Then there is Jack Dickey’s article which mainly extols one of the top disinformationists around, Prof. John McAdams. According to Dickey’s piece, based on talking to McAdams, he is a “debunker”. Just like the guys that debunk UFOs John sees his job as debunking conspiracy theories, and hence being a proper apologist (like Vince Bugliosi) for the Warren balderdash.

Long before there was Twitter, Facebook or Blogs, there was something called Usenet where entities known as “newsgroups” sprang up to encourage debate and discussion on any number of issues, topics. I had observed McAdams putdowns in the (un-moderated) newsgroup alt. conspiracy.jfk for some months before actually engaging in a one on one exchange with him. This was concerning my REAL FAQ that I had published in the newsgroup as an antidote to a pro-lone nut FAQ by frequent poster John Locke.

In one particular confrontation, McAdams complained about my reference to Jackie “climbing over the limo trunk” in an effort to retrieve part of JFK’s blown out skull fragment (later inferred to be the Harper bone fragment retrieved by William Harper). He insisted she wasn’t “climbing over anything” to which I then said, Ok, she’s moving across it to the rear – which shows a frontal shot”. He tried to “debunk” this but a picture says a thousand words. And in my FAQ Part 5 readers can see the image for themselves.

I added more kapow to my response citing her Warren Commission Testimony (from Volume Five of the special hearings) where she says:

“You know, then, there were pictures later of me climbing out the back, but I don’t remember that at all.”

And from her secret testimony (excised from original version), op. cit., p. 16:
“I was trying to hold his hair on. But from the front there was nothing. I suppose there must have been. But from the back you could see, you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on.”

But once again, McAdams disputed my sources and said Jackie also must have been mistaken, as there was no time at which she climbed across the trunk. SO much for John’s “debunking” which is largely a matter of denying reality.

Perhaps the best information ever assembled on John McAdams (nee, “Paul Nolan”) was put together by Jim Hargrove. The basic thrust is to answer questions concerning McAdams and his background because it so much seems to fit the sort of CIA assets described in the CIA document 1035-960 wherein it specifies under subsection (3b) the objective: “to employ propaganda assets to negate and refute the attacks of the critics”. While TIME author Dickey waxes on about, oh no, move along, no CIA here with McAdams, he never does cite the CIA document that legitimized the role for assets including in Usenet newsgroups.

Hence, when McAdams blabs: “These people think the CIA cares about them. It does not!”

One is led to ask, ‘Oh really? Then how account for the CIA document that explicitly states in one primary objective: “To employ propaganda assets to [negate] and refute the attacks of the critics”.

How can this be reconciled with a guy who “just likes to brawl”? Well, if brawling consumes more time than useful communication about facts (like Jackie’s limo trunk action) and files (like Oswald’s 201-289248 CI/SIG) than one can say the objective has been achieved.

If McAdams has been a real CIA propaganda asset, it makes sense one of his first obligations would be to neutralize any outlets for serious JFK assassination discussion he doesn’t control (like his moderated newsgroup). Thus his intrusions into the un-moderated group shed definite light on his intentions. Consider, for example, this McAdams post from (John McAdams) Date: 14 Feb 1997 22:17:02 -0700:

“You buffs have been cooperating marvelously with my scheme to make this group a shambles. And you know the bizarre part? My scheme is not a secret. I have publicly announced it. I have made it perfectly obvious. I have rubbed you buffs’ noses in it. It’s blatantly obviously to everybody.”
.John

Hmmmmmm……sounds like a fuckin’ CIA asset to me.

Now, let’s clear our heads and think about this a bit: Would a normal everyday professor of Political Science be doing these things? Would he be bragging about leaving a Usenet newsgroup a “shambles”? It doesn’t add up. Bill Hargrove, in his “McAdams FAQ” provides the Charter Policy written by McAdams himself for his own moderated group. Reading its first paragraph sheds a lot of light:

CHARTER AND MODERATION POLICY
This group will be for the purpose of providing an area for serious discussion and research of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. The group will be moderated to prevent the noise and chronic personal attacks which have plagued alt.conspiracy.jfk and made it nearly useless as a vehicle for intelligent research. Questions surrounding JFK’s death have made this one of the most talked about and controversial issues of our generation. This will be the one usenet group which deals seriously with this importanttopic.

But as Hargrove observes:
“One supposes that since the noise and chronic personal attacks which have plagued the alt.conspiracy.jfk group were and are part of McAdams freely admitted plans to turn the group into a shambles, the moderated group can only be seen as his personal vehicle for selective manipulation of content”

Which is totally logical, and again, it comports with CIA doc. 1035-960! Hargrove then quotes McAdams from a letter written to The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:
“(Dr) Gary Aguilar accused me on the politics forum of being A CIA sponsored disinformationist because I was once the Marquette Official representative of the I.C.P.S.R. an utterly unspooky social science data archive.”

In truth, The ICPSR is housed in the Institute for Social Research, or ISR which itself has been documented as recipient of “spook” (e.g. CIA) research grants. They also have a webpage: http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/

Which the interested reader can explore for himself. My own take is that it could easily be a CIA (Clandestine Operations) front for psy-ops intelligence operations which could easily include anti-conspiracy propaganda. We already know that the founder of American Propaganda – Edward Bernays – was steeped in the social sciences and firmly believed the public was too irrational to entrust to its own thought and conclusions and therefore had to be manipulated toward specific directions. In his own words: “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society”

What better way to do that than from a networked academic consortium – interwoven into all the social sciences – with access to a central data clearinghouse that’s amassed everything from the latest frequency of teen pregnancies, to homicides by race or gender, or assorted other historical arcania. It’s literally a propagandist’s dream.”

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on February 24, 2015 in JFK

 

Tags: , , , , ,

A Physicist/ Mathematician/ Astronomer reviews “Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy”

Richard Charnin
Feb. 15, 2015
Updated: Feb.22, 2015
JFK Blog Posts
Twitter Chronological Links
Look inside the book:
Reclaiming Science:The JFK Conspiracy

A Physicist/ Mathematician/ Astronomer reviews Reclaiming Science:The JFK Conspiracy: http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/02/a-jfk-assassination-book-all-serious.html

Philip Stahl is a prolific writer who posts daily on a variety of scientific, political and other subjects. He has specialized in space physics and solar physics, developed the first astronomy curriculum for Caribbean secondary schools and has written twelve books – the most recent: Modern Physics: Notes, Problems and Solutions; and earlier, BEYOND ATHEISM, BEYOND GOD; Astronomy & Astrophysics: Notes, Problems and Solutions'; ‘Physics Notes for Advanced Level' Mathematical Excursions in Brane Space; Selected Analyses in Solar Flare Plasma Dynamics; and ‘A History of Caribbean Secondary School Astronomy’ which details the background of his development and implementation of the first ever astronomy curriculum for secondary schools in the Caribbean.

https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/12/26/jfk-mathematicianphysicist-philip-stahl-brain-space-blog/

Trolls and Disinformationists
1- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/11/top-ten-ways-to-test-conspiracy-claims.html
2- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/11/hyper-skepticism-of-conspiracy-phobics.html
3- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/10/beware-conspiracy-theorists-no-beware.html
4- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/13-pages-on-conspiracy-industry-and.html
5- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/killing-kennedy-what-it-got-wrong-pt-2.html

6- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/ny-times-reviewer-jill-abramson.html
7- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/10/author-philip-shenon-is-he-idiot-or-dupe.html
8- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/even-liberals-can-be-victims-of.html
9- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-southern-poverty-law-center-still.html
10- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-second-assassination-today-fifty.html

11- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/10/bob-schieffer-not-worthy-to-be-called.html
12- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/12/why-i-trust-oliver-stone-over-bob.html
13- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/10/larry-sabatos-new-book-does-not.html
14- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/glenn-garvin-fact-dont-matter-in-jfk.html
15- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/11/be-still-my-heart-oreilly-does-jfk.html

16- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/04/vince-bugliosis-magnificent-obsession.html
17- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/04/vince-bugliosis-magnificent-obsession_29.html
18- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/04/vince-bugliosis-magnificent-obsession_30.html
19- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/what-have-we-learned-this-past-week.html
20- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/03/oreillys-lies-in-killing-kennedy-show.html

Stahl responds to frequently asked questions on the assassination:
1- Oswald’s Background:http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/frequently-asked-questions-on-jfk.html
2- Oswald’s Sheep-Dipping:http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/frequently-asked-questions-on-jfk_10.html
3- Garrison Investigation:http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/frequently-asked-questions-on-jfk_12.html
4a- Warren Commission:http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/frequently-asked-questions-on-jfk_13.html:
4b- Warren Commission:http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/frequently-asked-questions-on-jfk_14.html
5- Bullets, Wounds:http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/frequently-asked-questions-on-jfk_15.html

6- Oswald’s Rifle and The WC Rifle Tests:http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/frequently-asked-questions-on-fhe-jfk.html
7- HSCA Investigation:http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/frequently-asked-questions-on-jfk_19.html
8- Nix and Zapruder Films and the Evidence Therein:http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/frequently-asked-questions-on-jfk_20.html
9- Earlier Plots, Designated Assassins, Oswald Double:http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/frequently-asked-questions-on-jfk_21.html
10- Media Complicity in Coverup, Gerald Posner, Vince Bugliosi:http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/frequently-asked-questions-on-jfk_22.html

Miscellaneous:
1- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/analysis-of-pixel-diffusion-in-oswald.html
2- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-pre-assassination-framing-of-lee.html
3- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-pre-assassination-framing-of-lee_1807.html
4- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/09/jfk-and-national-security-state-1.html
5- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/09/jfk-and-national-security-state-2.html
6- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/12/yes-americans-deserve-to-know-what-cia.html
7- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/dallas-city-with-death-wish-in-its-eye.html
8- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/ike-jfk-also-hostage-to-national.html
9- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/04/secret-service-scandalnot-first.html
10- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2011/10/stephen-kings-new-scifi-tale-fun-but.html
————————————————————————————-

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on February 13, 2015 in JFK

 

Tags: , , , , ,

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 794 other followers