JFK Calc: Questions on the Spreadsheet Analysis

JFK Calc: Questions on the Spreadsheet Analysis

Richard Charnin
April 9, 2014

JFK Blog Posts
JFK Calc Spreadsheet Database
Tables and Graphs

Warren Commission apologists invariably thrash JFK-related witness death analysis – as well as the observations of Dealey Plaza and medical eyewitnesses. Rather, they ask questions that are irrelevant and meant to distract from the facts. They don’t bother to actually read the posts, comprehend the logic or deal with the evidence.

This post will present the questions that should legitimately be asked.

1) What is the data source of the witnesses?
See Jim Marrs’ “Crossfire”, Michael Benson’s “Who’s Who in the JFK Assassination”, Richard Belzer and David Wayne’s “Hit List” and the Simkin Educational site. JFK Calc includes 126 witnesses who died unnaturally and suspiciously (122 from 1964-78). There are surely many more.

2) What is the official number of unnatural deaths and time period?
Officially Ruled and Estimated Homicides, Unnatural and Total deaths
.....Ruled Est Ruled Est
......Homicide Unnatural Total
1964... 12 19.. 19 23.. 25
1964-66 16 35.. 35 42.. 48
1964-78 34 83.. 78 99.. 122

3) Can you prove that the witnesses were relevant?
Ninety-six (96) are listed among the 1400+ in “Who’s Who in the JFK Assassination”. Sixty-seven (67) testified or were sought in four investigations: Warren Commission (1964), Garrison/Shaw trial (1967-69), Church senate Intelligence (1975), HSCA (1976-78). The investigators must have considered them relevant or they would not have been sought to testify.

Simkin’s JFK site contains approximately 500 JFK-related biographies. Sixty-four (64) are in JFK Calc. In this group, 39 deaths (22 homicides) were officially ruled unnatural, a one in 1 trillion^3 probability. But there were 47 estimated true homicides.

Satisfy yourself. Do your homework. Read one of the above books. Run a google search of the names.I do not have to prove they were all relevant. The burden of proof is on the apologists to prove they were all insignificant and unrelated to the assassination.

4) What method is used to calculate the probabilities?
The steps are: 1) Determine the number of witnesses in the group, 2) specify the time period, 3) determine the number of unnatural deaths, 3) apply the applicable unnatural mortality rates for the period. Once having this information, we calculate the number of expected unnatural deaths. The Poisson distribution function requires the expected and actual number of deaths in order to calculate the probability. That’s it.

5) Why do you claim that officially ruled accidents, suicides and heart attacks were homicides?
Any analysis should consider the anomalous facts of each case (timing, etc.) which indicate homicide. I confirm the approximate number of true homicides by calculating the statistical expected number of accidents, suicides and heart attacks – based on respective mortality rates for the given time period. It turns out that the actual number of accidents, suicides and heart attacks far exceeds the expected number. Therefore, the difference between actual and expected is a fair approximation of the number of true homicides.

6) What is the Paradigm Shift?
It’s a new way of looking at the problem. There is no need to consider motive in the death of any particular witness. Motive is not a factor in the calculation of probabilities. The only factors are purely numerical: the total number of witnesses in the designated “universe”, how many died unnaturally, the cause, and the time period under study. Therefore any attempt to analyze the relevance of a given witness is a moot point. We must consider the overall number. Of course, the 67 who were sought to testify were obviously relevant – as were the 55 who were not sought. But the paradigm shift means that the rationale for any given death is a non-issue as far as the probability is concerned.

7) Didn’t the HSCA statistician claim that calculation of the odds was impossible since the universe of witnesses was unknown?
Yes, but the HSCA was wrong. It did not consider groups of witnesses where the number was known: For example, 552 testified or gave affidavits at the Warren Commission. Approximately 600 were sought or testified in three subsequent investigations.

8) Didn’t the HSCA statistician claim that the London Times actuary’s calculation of 100,000 trillion to one odds was invalid?
Yes, but the HSCA was wrong. The actuary’s math was confirmed assuming 454 witnesses given 13 unnatural deaths (8 homicides, 3 accidents, 2 suicides) in three years. The Times could have asked the actuary to calculate the probability of 13 homicides in 1964-66 using three times the national homicide rate (0.000183). It is 1.3E-24 (1 in 750 billion trillion).

9) Didn’t the HSCA investigate a number of suspicious witness deaths?
The HSCA noted just 21 deaths but there were at least 100 others. Unbelievably, 7 top FBI officials died (5 heart attacks, 2 accidents) within a six month period in 1977 just before they were due to testify at HSCA! Assuming 20 FBI were called to testify, the probability that seven would die is one in 200 trillion. There were a dozen other prospective HSCA witnesses who died before they could testify.

10) Aren’t you using unproven assumptions?
The data is factual, not assumed: officially ruled unnatural deaths, government mortality statistics, specific time periods. The classic Poisson distribution is used to calculate the probabilities based on factual data. It is a straightforward analysis using public information. It is not a poll.

11) Weren’t witnesses in high risk locations?
Yes, it’s true. Fifty-one (51) of 122 deaths occurred in Dallas. Was this just a coincidence?

12) How are the witnesses classified?
Well, 20 were Ruby associates. Others were reporters, FBI, CIA, anti-Castro Cubans, mafia, police and others. Many had inside information.

13) How do you know that the timing of deaths was a factor?
Just look at this graph. Notice the spikes in 1964 and 1977. Was it just a coincidence that so many deaths occurred during the Warren Commission and HSCA?

14) The analysis has not been-peer reviewed. Why not?
Well, actually it has been – by Lone Nutters. Kidding aside, my work is available to anyone who wants to review it – JFK researchers, actuaries, mathematicians, media. So far, there has not been one review. I encourage McAdams, Posner and Bugliosi to peer-review it, but they either can’t or won’t debunk the logic and/or comprehend the math. I asked McAdams to show it to at least one of the Marquette math professors.

15) John McAdams claims a majority of Dealey Plaza witnesses said the shots came from the Texas Book Depository. Do you disagree? Yes, for the same reasons Harold Feldman and Stewart Galanor disagree in their surveys. McAdams cooked his numbers by omission and commission.

16) You claim the Zapruder film was altered. What is your evidence?
The evidence is based on facts.
First, 33 of 59 witnesses said the JFK limo came to a FULL stop; 13 said NEAR stop. The probability is essentially ZERO that they would ALL be mistaken.
Second, the Z-film does not show even a NEAR stop.
Third, the film does NOT show Secret Service agent Clint Hill covering JFK and Jackie, or giving the thumbs down sign to the following cars.
Fourth, photography experts have concluded that the film was altered.
Fifth, the chain of custody was broken.

17) What about the controversy on the location of JFK’s wounds?
Well, 43 of 44 witnesses at Parkland and the autopsy initially claimed there was a large EXIT wound in the right rear of JFK’s head. Parkland doctors said there was an entrance wound in the throat. I won’t bother calculating the probability that they were all mistaken.

18) Do you believe that Oswald fired the shots?
No. For many reasons. Here is just one: 47 Dealey Plaza witnesses heard a double-bang of two nearly instantaneous shots. The alleged Mannlicher Carcano rifle required at least 2.3 seconds between shots. Could all 47 have been mistaken?
The 1…2.3 pattern
The Double Bang

19)What if the number of unnatural deaths, homicides or witnesses in the analysis is incorrect? Wouldn’t this invalidate the results?
Not at all. No one can say what the exact numbers are. But they are surely greater than the officially ruled numbers. The uncertainty is handled by a probability sensitivity analysis consisting of two tables for varying witness group size and 1) unnatural deaths or 2) homicides. The homicide matrix ranges from 1400-10000 witnesses and 34 (ruled) to 90 (expected) homicides. All scenario combinations give ZERO probabilities – absolute proof of a conspiracy.

The average Dallas homicide rate (approximately triple the national rate) was used in the following probability calculations – a conservative estimate. The probabilities are probably even lower:
- Assuming the officially ruled (impossibly low) 34 homicides and (plausible) 1400 witness universe, the probability is 7.6E-17 or 1 in 13,000 trillion.
- Assuming 83 statistically expected homicides and a (highly inflated) 10000 witness universe, the probability is 1.8E-10 or 1 in 5.6 billion.

20) What do you conclude based on the JFK Calc analysis?
The answer should be obvious to anyone who has read and understood the analysis: A conspiracy has been mathematically proven beyond ANY doubt.

1 Comment

Posted by on April 9, 2014 in JFK


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

JFK Assassination: Researchers discuss John McAdams

JFK Assassination: Researchers discuss John McAdams

Richard Charnin
April 6, 2014

A series of articles (including three of mine) on John McAdams, the relentless Warren Commission apologist.

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

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

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

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

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

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

And on and on….

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 Comment

Posted by on April 6, 2014 in JFK, Uncategorized


Tags: , , , , , , ,

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

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

Richard Charnin
April 5, 2014

JFK Blog Posts
JFK Calc Spreadsheet Database
Tables and Graphs

That’s what Lee Harvey Oswald told Captain Will Fritz, whose abbreviated notes were hidden for 30 years until they surfaced at ARRB:

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

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

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

QUESTION 1: Let’s assume Oswald was out front and photographed in Altgens6. Would you expect that the photo would be altered to hide the fact?

QUESTION 2: Let’s assume Oswald was out front and Billy Lovelady knew but would not lie about it. If the WC wanted to frame Oswald and not let Billy identify him in Altgens6, would you expect that he would be asked to place a DARK arrow over the DARK area pointing to him rather than in the light area to hide the fact?

QUESTION 3: If a photo, video, document, testimony, etc. had to be altered or fabricated to convict Oswald, do you suppose it would be?

QUESTION 4: If a witness could confirm seeing Oswald standing out front, would he/she be allowed to so testify?

QUESTION 5: If a witness could confirm seeing Oswald standing out front, but was still allowed to testify, would he/she be asked the question?

QUESTION 6: Assume a witness was a participant in the conspiracy to make LHO the patsy and asked if LHO was out front, would he/she say so?

QUESTION 7: Was Billy Lovelady asked at the WC if Oswald was out front? And if not, why not? It would seem to be a logical question to ask, right?

QUESTION 8: If Oswald was in the lunchroom holding a coke at 12:31 when confronted by Baker and Truly, it would still have confirmed his innocence. He could not have run from the 6th floor in 90 seconds, bought a coke and not out of breath. But he told Fritz that he was OUT FRONT WITH BILL SHELLEY. Why would he NOT be out front watching the motorcade at 12:30? Is this sufficient proof that he was telling the truth?

QUESTION 9: One must assume that as a critical witness Lovelady would have been sought to testify at the HSCA. But he died of “complications” from a heart attack at age 41 in 1979. What was the probability a 41 year old white male would die from a heart attack in 1979? The overall age-adjusted cardiac mortality rate was 0.0004 (1 in 2,500). For Lovelady it was 1 in 10,000.

QUESTION 10: After considering all of the above, why do so many intelligent researchers who believe Oswald was framed continue to go along with Lone Nutters who insist that it was Billy Lovelady who was OUT FRONT at 12:30, not LHO? Isn’t it about time that researchers accept the overwhelming evidence that the Altgens6 photo was altered?


A previous related post:

TSBD employees, source of shots, testimony
Baker, Mrs. Donald GK

Shelley, William GK

Hine, Geneva L. TB

Frazier, Buell Wesley GK

Lovelady, Billy Nolan GK

Sanders, Pauline E. GKTB

Arce, Danny Garcia GK

Jarman, James Earl Jr. Other

Adams, Victoria Elisabeth GK

Givens, Charles Douglas not asked

Dougherty, Jack Edwin TB

Norman, Harold TB

Burns, Doris GK

Piper, Eddie TB

Reid, Mrs. Robert A. TB


Posted by on April 5, 2014 in JFK


Tags: , , , , , , ,

JFK Witness Mortality: Key Statistics

JFK Witness Mortality: Key Statistics

Richard Charnin
March 26, 2014

JFK Blog Posts
JFK Calc Spreadsheet Database
Tables and Graphs

The new Summary sheet in the JFK Calc spreadsheet database provides a convenient overview of key witness death information.

The data consists of 126 witnesses (122 from 1964-78):
1) Locations and categories
2) Officially ruled unnatural deaths for 1, 3 and 15 years
3) Unnatural death probabilities based on JFK-weighted and national rates.
4) Probabilities of 34-90 homicides based on the Dallas rate (1400-5000 witnesses).
5) Likely homicides ruled as suicides, accidents, heart attacks, other illnesses.
6) List of witnesses called to testify by investigation.

Apologists claim the 126 witnesses were not JFK-related and their deaths are irrelevant, but
a) 97 are listed among the 1400+ in Who’s Who in the JFK Assassination
b) All 50 witnesses in Hit List are included among the 126.
c) 67 were sought to testify in four investigations.
d) 51 occurred in the Dallas area. Is this just a coincidence or was there a connection between them?

For those who maintain that there were more than 1400+ JFK-related witnesses, homicide probabilities are calculated in a matrix table of 1400 to 5000 witnesses and 34 ruled homicides to an estimated 90 actual. The 0.000253 homicide rate used for the calculations was triple the average national rate.

1) The probability of 34 RULED homicides among 1400 witnesses from 1964-78:
P= 7.60E-19 (1 in 13,000 TRILLION).
2) The probability of 83 ESTIMATED ACTUAL homicides:

Note: An actuary engaged by The London Sunday Times calculated a 1 in 100,000 trillion probability of 18 material witness deaths (13 unnatural) in the 3 years following the assassination. The calculation is confirmed assuming 454 witnesses and 0.000209 weighted unnatural mortality rate. A total of 552 witnesses (418 gave testimony and 134 affidavits) were interviewed by the Warren Commission.

Deaths spiked in 1964 (Warren Commission) and 1977 (House Select Committee)

Sensitivity analysis probabilities:10-50 unnatural deaths; 1500-2500 witnesses.

Leave a comment

Posted by on March 26, 2014 in JFK


Tags: , , , , ,

JFK Assassination: Exposing Another Admitted Lone Nutter

JFK Assassination: Exposing Another Admitted Lone Nutter

Richard Charnin
March 25, 2014

JFK Blog Posts
JFK Calc Spreadsheet Database
Tables and Graphs

Readers may wonder why I keep posting about my run-ins with Lone Nutters (LN) online. There are two basic reasons. Each post is unique in 1) rebutting WC defender disinformation and 2) providing instructive information for rational viewers. And I will continue to expose Lone Nutters as I see fit.

Once again, an internet troll and self-proclaimed LN has attempted to discredit JFK Witness death analysis. But as always his ignorance is exposed by his total lack of understanding of statistical methodology. He does not know the difference between Inferential Statistics (as used in political polling to infer the intentions of voters) and Descriptive Statistics, in which factual JFK-related witness death mortality data is used to calculate the various probabilities of unnatural deaths.

The following is just another example of how an unqualified disinformationist attempts to discredit scientific, fact-based analysis which proves a JFK Conspiracy.

Mr. Charnin, regardless of what year you are using for national mortality rates this is a moot point because you analysis is fundamentally flawed. You can’t take a small group of 1400 people and compare this to a national average. It’s called random sampling error. This is a basic entry level statistics principle.

KG, just love to keep promoting your ignorance, don’t you? A poll? You do not know the difference between descriptive and inferential statistics, even after I explained it to you. You are stuck in your agenda to disinform. But all you are doing is showing how ignorant you are.

The JFK witness analysis is NOT based on a poll. The 1400 JFK-related witnesses WERE NOT ASKED IF THEY DIED UNNATURALLY. How ridiculous can you get? This just shows why Lone Nutters are incapable of rudimentary statistical analysis.

One more time for emphasis: The 1400 JFK-related individuals were NOT polled. They were not a random sample. They were material witnesses. They were NOT asked to offer an OPINION. They were NOT asked if they DIED UNNATURALLY.

Are you still going to insist they were polled? Do you see how ridiculous that statement is? Or are you so ignorant that you cannot even see it? You apparently never took Basic Statistics 101. If you did, you failed.

The witness mortality data represents the official reported cause of death among JFK-related witnesses over a given time interval. It is NOT based on statistical inference. It is based on statistical FACTS. Apparently, you do not know the difference.

1400 JFK-related witnesses
See “Who’s Who in the JFK Assassination”. Among the 1400, approximately 80 died unnaturally in the period from 1964-78. That’s the officially ruled cause of death; the actual true total of unnatural deaths was close to 100 (the vast majority being homicides). In 1964, at least 21 in the group of 1400 died unnaturally. The probability is CALCULATED BASED ON FACTUAL DATA. Now YOU do the math. Apply the 1964 unnatural mortality rates. I already did. But I am sure that you don’t even know where to start.

KG, you are out of your league. You are a typical Warren Report apologist posing as one knowledgeable in mathematical statistics. But you have no expertise whatsoever. If you ever took a course in Probability and Statistics 101, you had better review your notes. If you never took the course, then you have no basis for pretending that you know what you are talking about. You are here to obfuscate facts which contradict your agenda of fooling people into believing the Warren Report. Sorry, KG, no magic bullet for you.

Dear Richard, you are obviously very delusional. Quite simply you cannot compare mortality rates of a group of 1400 to national rates. These are completely different universes of comparisons that make it impossible to infer any meaningful inference between the two. Even common sense would dictate 77 out of 1400 dying unnaturally… between a period of over 14 years?! Come on Richard. That means absolutely nothing at all. Yes I’m a Lone Nutter but that doesn’t mean anything because the fact is this statistical analysis is innately faulty in the composition of populational data of comparison. Basic statistics Richard. And yes technically it is a poll, it is a random sample of extremely dispersed individuals with the only common thread being a vague association with the jfk assassination. The statistical inference of this population is impossible, as concluded by the HSCA in their investigation of the supposed mysterious deaths. It’s a dead end Richard, this was realized over 30 years ago. Time to let it go.

You actually said “Even common sense would dictate 77 out of 1400 dying unnaturally… between a period of over 14 years!”. Another absolutely idiotic statement. You have no common sense, otherwise you would never have made that statement; it just further exposes your ignorance. This is not about what you believe to be “common sense”; it is about the application of historic mortality rates. Only 17 unnatural deaths would be statistically expected – not 77- in a random group of 1400 based on the average 0.000822 unnatural mortality rate in a 14 year period.

You have no shame, do you? I expose your deficiencies over and over again and you say it’s “time to let it go”? What you are really saying is: “Please go away, Richard, because you are beating the hell out of us each time we try to discredit you with our BS.”

KG, you are pulling out classic troll talking points which have all been refuted. I will have to refute them again. Right here. Right now.

Vague witness associations?
There are 126 suspicious deaths in the JFK Calc database. You claim they all have vague associations with the JFK Assassination? Tell us which ones are vague.

Do you mean witnesses such as Oswald, Tippit, Ruby, Sherman, Meyer, Cheramie, Ferry, Craig, Kilgallen, Bowers, Pitzer, RFK, DeMorenschildt, Roselli, Wallace, Carter, White, Stockdale, Underhill, Banister, Lovelady? Were they vaguely related to the assassination?

Do you mean the 7 FBI officials called to testify at HSCA who all died in a six month period in 1977 and never got to testify? Were they vaguely related?

Do you mean the 67 witnesses among the 126 who were called to testify and died unnaturally or suspiciously? Were they vaguely related?

If you had checked my probability analysis, you would know that I use JFK-weighted rates as well as national rates.

Dallas witness mortality
About 51 of the 126 JFK-witness deaths were in Dallas. In 1967, the Dallas population was 700,000 and there were 130 murders, a 0.000190 homicide rate. The Dallas rate was triple the national rate, so I tripled the average national homicide rate from 0.000084 to 0.000253.

The probability P of 34 official homicides from 1964-78 among 1400 material witnesses using the adjusted Dallas rate is P = 7.60e-17 or 1 in 13,000 trillion. That is very close to the London Times actuary’s 1 in 100,000 trillion odds of 18 material witness deaths in the three years following the assassination.

Now, KG, here is a simple question for you. Was it just a coincidence that at least 51 of the 126 suspicious deaths occurred in the Dallas area? Or was there an obvious connection among them? It’s got to be one or the other. Which is it, math wiz? Connection or no connection?

Now go to row 99 in the JFK Calc probability sheet.

KG, your complete ignorance has just been laid bare for all to see. But that won’t stop you. You will be back for more – and you will look even more foolish then you do now. Perhaps, eventually, you will get the message. But I doubt it. Lone nutters never get it.

Leave a comment

Posted by on March 16, 2014 in 2012 Election


Tags: , , , , ,

JFK Witness Mortality: Exposing the Tactics of an Internet Troll

JFK Witness Mortality: Exposing the Tactics of an Internet Troll

Richard Charnin
March 14,2014
Updated: March 25,2014

JFK Blog Posts
JFK Calc Spreadsheet Database
Tables and Graphs

This post is another illustration of how a Warren Commission apologist/ Internet troll tries to avoid rational discussion by distorting basic facts and analysis.

A Lone Nutter (who I will refer to as LN) was exposed once again in another feeble attempt to discredit my work. His goal was to use disinformation to question the accuracy of mortality rates used in JFK witness death analysis. He claimed the rates were “faulty” without citing specific numbers to compare to his CDC rates.

I had prior contact with LN and knew that he would not deal with the facts, whether from incompetence or design – or both. Lone Nutters never deal in facts.

This was my post:
Given: a group of 1400 people of whom 21 died unnaturally in 1964:
12 homicides, 3 accidents, 4 suicides, 2 sudden cancers. Only one unnatural death would normally have been expected.

The probability of at least 21 unnatural deaths in a randomly-selected group of 1400 in one year is P= 6.7E-35 or
P = 1 in 1 trillion trillion trillion.

There are 3 possibilities:
1) It was just a 1 in 1 trillion trillion trillion coincidence.
2) It was a fraudulent study.
3) The 1400 were not randomly-selected; they were connected.

We can eliminate
1) the probability is too low to be a coincidence.
2) the 21 unnatural deaths were ruled official.
Therefore, we must conclude that
3) there was a connection between the 1400 in the group: they were JFK-related material witnesses.

The following proof shows that the LN was not serious and only interesting in discrediting my work. View the responses to the post below the proof.

The Lone Nutter…
1) refused to click the link to the data source I provided in the spreadsheet:
U.S. National Center for Health Statistics, National Vital Statistics Reports. Deaths by Major Causes 1960–2011

2) was apparently looking at CDC mortality data for 2010-2011.

3) failed to note that I utilize mortality data based on the relevant period of the witness death analysis: 1964-78. I used 1964 mortality rates because that is the year analyzed in the above post.

4) failed to even note that 1964 mortality rates for all causes of death were much different than 2011.

5) knew that readers would not compare 1964 rates to 2011.

6) was not interested in a rational discussion of appropriate mortality rates, otherwise he would not have immediately commented that my data was “faulty”.

7) sought to discredit the witness death probability analysis as invalid. The fact that no one has refuted the analysis has been painful for WC apologists.

Note: LN may not have even been aware of the facts, but was just interested in discrediting my work. Facts have no place in the agenda of disinformationists.

This timeline graph shows the trend in rates:
LN comments on the above post – and my replies
Why does a simple lookup at the CDC tell us that your numbers – the BASIS for which you base ALL your conclusions – shows you are using faulty data? What is your primary source for U.S. mortality figures?

Faulty data? No, as usual, it’s faulty understanding on your part. You don’t read the full content of my posts. You make statements you cannot back up. Click on the INFOPLEASE link at the top of this sheet for the data.

You made a grave mistake in calling my mortality numbers “faulty”. That’s no way to start a conversation – unless you are a troll – especially when you don’t provide specifics or compare my mortality rates to yours. In fact, I bet you are looking at current mortality rates – not 1964-78.

I am convinced that you don’t understand the difference between unnatural and natural national rates and the comparable weighted average rates applicable to JFK deaths. The problem is more complicated than you are capable of understanding – even though I explain everything in my posts.

I am not here to teach you. How can one have rational discourse with a LN? Your job is to discredit and attack. You are not interested or trained for anything else. You should know by now that I am very precise in my research and analysis.

You do not read English well. Let’s keep this sweet and short: What is your primary source for U.S. mortality figures?

Did I give you the link? Yes. Did you click it? No. And you tell me I cannot read. You have just proven once again why you are an LN. You started this by stating that my mortality rates were “faulty”. PROVE IT.

No – I am not clicking on your work – until I know what your primary source for mortality rates are. Aren’t you proud of the research? Can’t you cite this source?

Are you proud to be known as a Lone Nutter? Are you proud to parade your stupidity in full view? Are you proud to not provide proof that my data is “faulty”, but are willing to call it that without even looking at it?

An LN? That is news to any intelligent person who knows me. Can’t you just cite your source for your mortality rates used for your thesis? Pleeeze? Just a simple cite – that will make us WANT to check out your work??? Is that really too tough a request? Someone asked you to merely cite your source, and you refused to do so. Three times now. Your refusal to cite your source speaks volumes … YARCATBALTP – Yet Another RC Article To Be Avoided Like The Plague.

I gave you this link to the source and the data, and you refused to look at it.
What does it say about you? That you are not interested in the facts but only in wasting my time, hoping that readers won’t pay attention or are as dumb as you are. Well, the readers are not dumb. Unlike you, they are here for information.

Leave a comment

Posted by on March 14, 2014 in JFK


Tags: , , , ,

JFK Assassination: Will the media ever ask the right questions?

JFK Assassination: Will the media ever ask the right questions?

Richard Charnin
March 2, 2014

JFK Blog Posts
JFK Calc Spreadsheet Database
Tables and Graphs

What is the probability that…

Ruby would shoot Oswald to prevent Jackie Kennedy from having to go through the ordeal of a trial.
Oswald’s interrogation would not be recorded or transcribed.
Oswald lied when he told Fritz he was out in front with Bill Shelley at 12:30.
Oswald would run from the 6th floor to the 2nd floor in less than 90 seconds.
Oswald would be calmly holding a coke and not even breathing hard.
Oswald would not be seen on the stairs by Victoria Adams.

What is the probability that…

Warren Commission witness Markham was mistaken when she testified Tippit was murdered by 1:06pm.
Dallas Sheriff Roger Craig was incorrect that police radio reported the Tippit shooting at 1:06.
Oswald would walk one mile in 2 minutes and shoot Tippit at 1:06pm.
The Warren Commission would claim that Oswald shot Tippit at 1:16pm.
Oswald would use a revolver but the recovered bullets were from an automatic.
The Warren Commission would claim Oswald shot Tippit but two types of bullets (3 copper-coated Winchester Western; one lead Remington-Peters) were removed from Tippit’s body.

Dealey Plaza
What is the probability that…

At least 90 witnesses were mistaken in claiming shots came from the Grassy Knoll.
All 46 witnesses were mistaken in stating the JFK limo came to a full or near stop.
The Zapruder film would not show a stop, contrary to the eyewitnesses.
At least 44 witnesses were mistaken in stating they heard a nearly instantaneous “double bang” between the second and third shots. The bolt-action Mannlicher Carcano rifle took at least 2.3 seconds to reload telescoped on the target.
Three “tramps” at Dealey Plaza would be questioned but never identified.

What is the probability that…

All Parkland witnesses were mistaken in claiming an entrance wound in JFK’s neck.
All 44 Parkland and autopsy witnesses were mistaken in describing a gaping wound at the right rear of JFK’s head.
There would be more fragments in Connally than were missing from the magic bullet.
SS agent Roy Kellerman was mistaken when he testified: “President Kennedy had four wounds, two in the head and shoulder and the neck. Governor Connally, from our reports, had three. There have got to be more than three shots.”
SS agent Clint Hill was mistaken when he testified that there was a massive exit wound in the back of JFK’s head.
The autopsy photos would not show an exit head wound in the front or the back.

Magic Bullet
What is the probability that…

A bullet would enter JFK’s back 5” below the collar and exit his throat.
The bullet Would then change direction and cause 5 wounds to Connally.
Gerald Ford would move the back wound 5″ up to conform with the SBT.

The Rifle
What is the probability that…

Four Dallas police deputies would be mistaken in identifying a 7.65 Mauser.
The 7.65 Mauser found on the 6th floor would morph into a Mannlicher Carcano.
A paraffin test would prove that Oswald did not fire a rifle.
An expert would be mistaken in matching the fingerprint found on the 6th floor of the TSBD to Mac Wallace.

What is the probability that…

Experts were mistaken in proving the photos of Oswald with a rifle were fakes.
MIT experts were mistaken in confirming Mary Moorman’s Badgeman photo as authentic.
Experts were mistaken in confirming Lifton’s #5 in the Badgeman photo as authentic.
Experts were mistaken in proving the Altgens6 photo of Oswald was altered.
WC interrogator Ball would tell Billy Lovelady to place a black arrow pointing to himself in the black area of Altgens6.

Dallas Police Captain Will Fritz and the Warren Commission would not reveal that Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig was in Fritz’s office where he identified Oswald getting into a Nash station wagon at 12:45. This would have destroyed the WC fiction that Oswald took a bus and cab. A photo released in 1969 proved Craig was in his office.

What is the probability that…

Fritz’s notes of his Oswald interview would be hidden for 30 years.
Oswald’s note to the Dallas FBI office would be destroyed.
Hume’s original autopsy notes would be burned.
The CIA would withhold evidence in multiple investigations.

Unnatural Deaths
What is the probability that…

Ruby’s lawyer and two reporters who met in Ruby’s apt. on Nov. 24, 1963, would die within a year (two were murdered).

Gary Underhill, CIA agent, would predict his death and murdered shortly afterwards.

Grant Stockdale, a friend of JFK, would jump off a building after claiming “people are trying to get me”.

Warren Reynolds would be shot in the head, after telling the FBI that the man he saw running from the Tippit scene was NOT Oswald. He miraculously recovered and said it was Oswald.

Mary Pinchot Meyer, JFK mistress, would be shot while jogging. She said the WC was a “whitewash” and would reveal all in a book. Her diary was taken by CIA chief Angleton and never made public.

Dr. Mary Sherman would be electrocuted the same day the Warren Commission came to New Orleans. Sherman worked with Ferrie, Judyth Baker and Oswald to develop a cancer virus to assassinate Castro.

William Pitzer would commit suicide by gunshot. He was a Navy photographer who attended the autopsy and was near retirement.

Guy Banister, an ex-FBI official who knew Ferrie and Oswald, would have a “heart attack” even though a bullet hole was found in his back.

Dorothy Kilgallen, a New York reporter, would die from a drug overdose within one week after stating she would “break the case wide open”. She gave a copy of her notes and manuscript to close friend Florence Smith.

Smith would die within a few days of Kilgallen at age 45 from a cerebral hemorrhage. The notes and manuscript were never found.

Jack Ruby was mistaken when he said that the assassination went to the “top”.
Ruby would die from a rapid cancer 29 days after being “injected” for a cold and awarded a new trial.

David Ferrie would die of a brain aneurysm (karate chop?) just after being named by Garrison as a witness in the Clay Shaw trial but leave a suicide note.

Clay Shaw would lie about being a CIA contract employee.

Robert Kennedy would be shot in the back of the head at close range. Sirhan Sirhan, a “Manchurian Candidate” shooting from the front, was declared the lone assassin. RFK would have investigated the JFK assassination as president.

Cliff Carter, a close LBJ aide, would die of pneumonia in Washington, DC, because “penicillin was unavailable”.

Mac Wallace, LBJ hitman, would die in an auto crash; asleep at wheel.

Roger Craig, a Dallas Deputy Sheriff, would commit suicide by rifle shot after surviving a number of attempts on his life. Craig identified the “7.65 Mauser” on the 6th floor of the TSBD with three other police officials, first heard on his radio that Tippit was killed at 1:06 pm and saw Oswald get into a Nash Station wagon at 12:40.

Seven top FBI officials who were due to testify at HSCA would die within 6 months in 1977 – before they could testify.

William Sullivan, FBI #3, would be shot, “mistaken for a deer,” just before his scheduled testimony at HSCA. He predicted he would be murdered.

Regis Kennedy, FBI official would die of a “heart attack” the day he was to be interviewed at HSCA.

George de Morenschildt, Oswald’s friend with ties to big oil and intelligence, would shoot himself the day of his HSCA interview. George Bush’s (CIA) phone number was in his wallet.

John Paisely of the CIA would be shot and thrown in the ocean before testifying at HSCA.

William Pawley who was involved in the Executive Action program to assassinate foreign leaders, would shoot himself just prior to his scheduled HSCA testimony.

Donald Donaldson would be murdered by a gunshot to the head in 1977 when the HSCA was in session. A LIFE Magazine official,he was a double agent brought to U.S. by FDR. He told Frank Church and Rep. Ford that Allen Dulles was responsible for the assassination.

Robert Alan Surrey would die by gunshot (ruled suicide) before his scheduled testimony at HSCA. He was a member of the right wing Minutemen and an aid to Gen. Walker who wrote the “JFK-wanted for Treason” poster.

Billy Lovelady, a TSBD employee who was standing in front of the TSBD watching the motorcade, died from heart complications at 41 during the HSCA.

Other Insiders
What is the probability that…

FBI agent Abraham Bolden would state that an informant named “Lee” (Oswald?) warned of a possible JFK assassination attempt in Chicago three weeks before Dallas.

HSCA investigator Sprague would be fired for wanting to subpoena all CIA documents.
HSCA investigator Blakey would admit many years later that the CIA was covering up.

E. Howard Hunt would fabricate his death-bed confession implicating major CIA players and LBJ in the “Big Event”.

1 Comment

Posted by on March 2, 2014 in JFK


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


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 752 other followers