RSS

2016 Presidential Election: True Vote Model Preliminary Analysis

2016 Presidential Election: True Vote Model Preliminary Analysis

Richard Charnin
July 2, 2015

Look inside the book: Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts

It is way too early to make any predictions 16 months in advance. But we can run True Vote Model scenarios to see what it would take for Clinton, Bush and Sanders to win.

There are two calculation methods:
Method 1: returning voters based on the 2012 recorded vote- Obama had 51%.
This calculation assumes the election will be fraudulent

Method 2: returning voters based on the 2012 True Vote – Obama had 55%.
This calculation assumes that the election will be fraud-free.

There is no reason to believe the election will be fraud-free. The Democratic True Vote is always greater than the recorded vote.
Base case assumptions:
1) 2012 recorded vote shares.
2) 1.25% annual voter mortality (total 5%)
3) 95% turnout of living Obama and Romney voters.

For Clinton to win, she needs at least 90% of returning Obama voters, 7% of returning Romney voters and 55% of new voters.

Sensitivity Analysis
View four sensitivity analysis tables:

Clinton’s total vote share and margin for incremental changes in her shares of
1) New (51-59%) and returning Romney voters (5-9%)
Vote margins (in millions): Low: -0.12, Base: 3.5, High: 7.1
2) Returning Obama (88-92%) and Romney voters (5-9%)
Vote margins: Low: -1.1, Base: 3.5, High: 8.1

3) Clinton’s total vote share for (89-97%) Obama and (93-97%) Romney voter turnout
Vote margins: Low: -0.31, Base: 3.5, High: 5.5

4) Clinton’s popular vote win probability for (88-92%) of returning Obama voters and Romney (5-9%) voter turnout.
Win probabilities: Low: 20%, Base: 99%, High: 100%

For Sanders to win, he needs at least 50% of returning Obama voters, 20% of returning Romney voters and 40% of voters who did not vote in 2012 (recorded vote basis).

For Bush to win, it is a fair guess the media will report that he had 8% of returning Obama voters, 95% of returning Romney voters and 45% of voters who did not vote in 2012 (recorded vote basis).

To calculate what Bush really needs to win, we assume the 2012 True Vote as a basis.
He needs at least 17% of returning Obama voters, 92% of returning Romney voters and 47% of voters who did not vote in 2012..

View the Clinton, Sanders, Bush Win Scenarios at the bottom of this sheet
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdFpDLXZmWUFFLUFQSTVjWXM2ZGtsV0E&usp=sheets_web#gid=11

Track record:
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/09/14/summary-2004-2012-election-forecast-1968-2012-true-vote-model/

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on July 2, 2015 in 2016 election

 

Tags: , , ,

JFK: Sensitivity Analysis of Unnatural Deaths and Homicides

JFK: Sensitivity Analysis of Unnatural Deaths and Homicides

Richard Charnin
June 30, 2015

JFK Blog Posts
Twitter Chronological Links

The cover of Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy shows a graph displaying probabilities of unnatural witness deaths assuming 1500, 2000 and 2500 witnesses over a range of 0 to 50 unnatural deaths. Of the 122 suspicious deaths in the JFK Calc spreadsheet,78 were ruled unnatural (34 homicides, 24 accidents, 16 suicides, 4 unknown).

The x-coordinate of the peak in each curve is the EXPECTED number of unnatural deaths given the number of JFK-related witnesses.

The graph illustrates the power of SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS to display how a target variable (the probability) changes as input variables change in value. In the JFK Calc spreadsheet, the calculation is given by the Poisson function.
P= Poisson (n, E, false) where
n= number of unnatural deaths
E= expected number of unnatural deaths

N= 1500 = number of witnesses (the universe),
T= 15 years from 1964-78.
R= 0.000822= unnatural national mortality rate (unweighted).
E= N*R*T = 18.5= 1500*0.000822*15

Note: The applicable unnatural rate is the JFK-weighted rate: 0.000247. The true weighted probabilities are actually much lower than those given below.

UNNATURAL DEATHS
The graph shows the probability of
30 unnatural deaths; 1500 witnesses: 0.0034 (1 in 300)
40 unnatural deaths; 2000 witnesses: 0.0011 (1 in 1000)
50 unnatural deaths; 2500 witnesses: 0.0003 (1 in 3000)

The probability of 78 unnatural deaths for
1500 witnesses: 4.15 E-25 (base case: 1 in a trillion trillion)
2000 witnesses: 5.00 E-18 (1 in a 200,000 trillion)
2500 witnesses: 3.92 E-13 (1 in 2 trillion)

HOMICIDES
There are 34 officially-ruled JFK-related homicides in JFK Calc. A statistical estimate of the expected cause of death indicates that approximately 50 of 88 official accidents, suicides, heart attacks, sudden cancers and other suspicious deaths were actually homicides. Therefore, there were least 80 homicides among the 122 suspicious deaths.

Given the average 0.000084 homicide rate for 1964-78, the probability of
34 homicides; 1500 witnesses: 1.4 E-30 (1 in a million trillion trillion)
50 homicides; 2000 witnesses: 3.7 E-46 (1 in a billion trillion trillion trillion)
80 homicides; 3000 witnesses: 6.7 E-75 (1/trillion^6)
80 homicides; 1500 witnesses: 3.7 E-98 (1/trillion^8)

If we triple the average homicide rate to 0.000252, the probability of
34 homicides; 1500 witnesses: 5.4 E-16 (1 in 2,000 trillion)
50 homicides; 2000 witnesses: 1.7 E-24 (1 in a trillion trillion)
80 homicides; 3000 witnesses: 5.0 E-40 (1 in a trillion trillion trillion)
80 homicides; 1500 witnesses: 1.3 E-61 (1/trillion^5)

JFK Calc: Sensitivity Analysis Tables

SIMKIN JFK INDEX
Of the 656 names, 66 deaths are suspicious, of which 42 were ruled unnatural (including 22 homicides).

Unnatural deaths; probability
42 1.65E-17 (1 in 60,000 trillion – base case)
45 9.72E-20 (1 in 10 million trillion)
50 1.21E-23 (1 in 80 billion trillion)

Homicides; probability
22 5.89E-24 (1 in 100 billion trillion – base case)
30 5.44E-36 (1 in 1 trillion trillion trillion)
40 2.63E-52 (1 in 1 trillion trillion trillion trillion)

JFK Calc: Simkin JFK Index

WARREN COMMISSION
552 testified, 31 deaths suspicious, of which 16 were ruled unnatural (4 homicides).

Unnatural deaths; probability
16 4.91E-09 (1 in 200,000 billion – ruled base case)
18 8.81E-11 (1 in 100 billion)
21 1.43E-13 (1 in 7 trillion)

Homicides; probability
4 4.92E-03 (1 in 200 – base case)
10 3.77E-11 (1 in 30 billion)
17 3.11E-18 (1 in 300,000 trillion)

JFK Calc: Called to Testify

DEALEY PLAZA
20 Suspicious deaths: 13 unnatural, 14 testified at Warren Commission

Witnesses; Probability of Unnatural Death
300; 3.60E-10 (1 in 2.7 billion)
400; 1.06E-08 (1 in 90 million)
500; 1.36E-07 (1 in 7 million)
600; 1.02E-06 (1 in 1 million)

JFK Calc: Dealey Plaza

HSCA – 1977
Suspicious deaths of 7 FBI officials called to testify in 6 month period
Official cause of death: 5 heart attacks, 2 accidents
FBI est.
called ; Probability
8 8.72E-18 (1 in 100,000 trillion)
20 5.22E-15 (1 in 200 trillion)
50 3.07E-12 (1 in 300 billion)
100 3.68E-10 (1 in 1 billion)

LONDON SUNDAY TIMES ACTUARY
Calculated a 1 in 100,000 trillion probability of 18 material witness deaths (13 unnatural) in the three years following the assassination (actually over 40).
Weighted average unnatural mortality rate: 0.000209

Witnesses; probability of at least 13 unnatural deaths
454; 9.83 E-18 (1 in 100,000 trillion)
600; 3.36 E-16 (1 in 3,000 trillion)
800; 1.25 E-14 (1 in 80 trillion)
1000; 2.00 E-13 (1 in 5 trillion)
1200; 1.89 E-12 (1 in 500 billion)
1500; 2.85 E-11 (1 in 35 billion)
2000; 8.76 E-10 (1 in 1 billion)
5000; 1.99 E-05 (1 in 50,000)
10000; 7.07 E-03 (1 in 140)

References:
Michael Benson: Who’s Who in the JFK Assassination 1400+ JFK-related individuals (97 suspicious deaths).
John Simkin: Spaartacus Educational JFK Index 656 JFK-related individuals (66 suspicious deaths).
Jim Marrs: Crossfire
Richard Belzer and David Wayne: Hit List
Craig Roberts: Dead Witnesses

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on June 30, 2015 in Uncategorized

 

Tags:

Michael T. Griffith: Evidence of Alteration in the Zapruder film

Michael T. Griffith: Evidence of Alteration in the Zapruder film

Richard Charnin
June 19, 2015

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

The following is a summary of Griffith’s key points in his 1997 essay.
http://johnfitzgeraldkennedy.net/evidenceofalterationinthezapruderfilm.htm

GRIFFITH’S KEY POINTS

What follows are some of the indications that the Zapruder film has been altered. By “altered” I mean that certain frames have been removed and that others are composites. Why was the film altered? To remove episodes and images that clearly showed there were more than three shots (at least one from the front) and therefore that there were multiple gunmen involved in the shooting.

The Limo Stop
* Numerous witnesses, over 40, including the escort patrolmen to the rear of the limousine, said the limousine stopped or slowed down drastically for a second or two. This event is not seen in the Zapruder film; in fact, the limousine never comes close to performing this action in the current film.

Impossible timings
* In Z353-356 we see Malcolm Summers diving to the ground. Summers is to the right of James Altgens. In Z353 Summers’ left leg is extended most of the way out. But, in the very next frame, Z354, amazingly, the foreleg is bent markedly backward. Can anyone flex their foreleg to that degree so quickly? In 1/18th of a second?

* Another seemingly impossible action in the Zapruder film is the extremely rapid and precise movement of Charles Brehm’s son in Z277-287. In Z277 Brehm junior is standing behind his father. Then, from Z277-287, or in just over half a second, he bolts out from behind his father and comes to stand beside him, clapping his hands no less.

JFK reaction
* Several witnesses said Kennedy was knocked visibly forward by a shot to the head, and Dan Rather reported seeing this event when he viewed the film the day after the shooting. No such motion of the head is now visible in the film, only the split-second forward movement from Z312-313, which no one could have noticed.

* Former FBI official and J. Edgar Hoover aide Cartha DeLoach recently provided further evidence of alteration in the Zapruder film (albeit unintentionally and unknowingly, I’m sure). DeLoach recalls in his book HOOVER’S FBI that he watched the Zapruder film at FBI HQ the day after the shooting and that he saw Kennedy “PITCHING SUDDENLY FORWARD” in the film. No such motion, of course, is seen in the current film.

* Special Agent George Hickey, riding in the follow-up car, said the final shot made Kennedy “fall forward and to his left.”

* William Newman, who was standing on the Elm Street sidewalk right in front of the grassy knoll and who had one of the best views of the shooting, tried to tell New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison that JFK was knocked forward and to the left as if struck by a baseball bat, but Garrison wouldn’t believe him because the event wasn’t in the film.

I believe the above is good evidence that the original Zapruder film showed Kennedy being knocked rapidly forward. How do defenders of the film’s authenticity explain this testimony?

The head snap
*The violent, dramatic backward head snap in Z313-323, which for so many years was thought to be concrete proof of a shot from the front, actually constitutes further evidence of alteration. It has been established that no bullet striking the front of the skull could have caused the backward head snap. However, no bullet striking from behind could have caused this motion either. Warren Commission supporters have put forth two theories to explain how a bullet striking from behind might have caused the head snap, the jet-effect theory and the neuromuscular-reaction theory. Both theories are untenable.

So if neither a bullet from the front nor a bullet from behind could have caused the head snap, what caused it? So how can we explain it? Dr. David Mantik, who holds a doctorate in physics, suggests that what we now see as the head snap was originally a much slower motion and was actually the action of Jackie lifting her husband back up to look at him.

Visual anomalies
* Seemingly impossible inconsistencies occur in the streaking of background figures in relation to the camera’s movement. Mathematician Daryll Weatherly’s vector analysis of image streaking constitutes powerful evidence of alteration in the Zapruder film.

* A white spot on the grass behind the limousine is seen to behave in an unnatural manner. When the spot’s width is measured in relation to the camera’s tracking, the spot should be at its smallest when the image is at the left edge of the frame. But it doesn’t do this. On some occasions, the spot’s width is two to three times what it should be.

* The head turn of the driver, William Greer, from Z315-317 is too fast–it seems to be well beyond human capability. His head turns about 165 degrees in six frames, or in only 1/3rd of a second.

Blood and brain splatter to the left rear
* At least four witnesses saw blood and brain from Kennedy’s skull blow out toward the rear of the limousine. Blood and brain splattered onto the left side of the follow-up car’s windshield and onto the driver’s arm. A considerable amount of blood and brain also splattered onto the two patrolmen who were riding to the limousine’s left rear. At least one of those witnesses specified that the brain matter blew out from the back of the skull, and dozens of witnesses, including doctors and nurses, saw a large hole in the right rear part of President Kennedy’s head. In the Zapruder film no blood or brain is seen to spray backward. (It cannot be said that the right frontal explosion of blood and brain, which is itself suspect, caused all the blood splattering. In the Zapruder film the right-frontal spray blows mainly forward, and also up and toward the camera, and quickly dissipates–in fact it dissipates in no more than three frames. This effusion of spray could not have caused all of the blood splattering that occurred.)

Right-rear head exit wound
*Kinney’s description of a large, blown-out right-rear exit wound matches the reports given by numerous Parkland doctors and nurses and by several witnesses at the autopsy. Also, his account of particulate matter exploding out the back of the skull and landing on his windshield and left arm agrees with Patrolman Bobby Hargis’s report that the head shot sent blood and brain flying toward him so fast that when it struck him he initially thought he himself had been hit and that the debris got all over his motorcycle and uniform (in an interview he gave a few years ago, Hargis described the head shot as an “explosion”). Hargis, of course, was riding to the left rear of the limousine.

*Another example is the account of surveyor Chester Breneman, who was allowed to study enlargements of Zapruder frames to aid him in determining locations and distances. Breneman insisted that on some of the frames he saw a blob of blood and brain blow out from the back of Kennedy’s head. No such event is visible on the current film. (As mentioned, some witnesses in the plaza likewise saw blood and brain blown backward.)

One frame right-frontal explosion
* The bloody spray from the right-frontal explosion that is seen in the film blows upward, forward, and also toward the camera, and is really clearly visible for only one frame, and dissipates in two to three frames–or in no more than 1/6th of a second. Yet, in films of two ballistics tests the resulting spray is visible for multiple frames. In other words, the right-frontal effusion in the Zapruder film seems to disappear too quickly, with unnatural speed.

More anomalies
* There is a “remarkably symmetric” plus sign at the center of Elm Street in Z028 (Z28). This might have been used as a register mark for aligning the film when it was being copied by those who altered the film.

* There are magnification anomalies in the film for which there appears to be no credible natural or innocent explanation. One clear example of this is the measured width between the two posts on the back side of the Stemmons Freeway sign from Z312-318. This distance increases by over 12 percent in only six frames. Yet, from Z191-207 the interval remains constant.

Location of start of film
*Abraham Zapruder told CBS News that he began filming as soon as the President’s limousine turned onto Elm Street from Houston Street, as one would logically expect him to have done. But the present Zapruder film begins with the limousine already on Elm Street at Z133. On the day after the assassination, Dan Rather of CBS News watched what was quite possibly an earlier version of the film. Rather reported that in the film he watched that day the limousine “made a turn, a left turn, off Houston Street onto Elm Street.” Again, no such event is now seen in the film.

Why forge the rapid head snap?
Before I conclude, I would like to address two questions that have been raised by those who deny alteration: Why would the forgers, who were presumably trying to conceal or remove evidence of multiple gunmen and of shots from the front, produce an altered film that included the rapid backward head snap seen in the current film? And, why would the forgers have produced a film that contained indications of more than three shots? My answer to both of these objections is twofold:

One, they do not explain the evidence of alteration. If there is scientific proof of alteration, then these philosophical objections must be rejected.

Two, I do not believe the forgers were at all satisfied with the results of their tampering. I think they had to create the backward head snap because they had to remove images that were even more unacceptable and problematic.

We must keep in mind that the Zapruder film was suppressed from public view for over a decade. In short, I believe the forgers concluded that even after all of their editing the film was still unacceptable, and that this is why the film was suppressed for so long.

Extensive editing
A strong case can now be made for extensive editing of the Zapruder film. In fact, the conclusion seems inescapable–the film was deliberately altered. No other explanation is in the same league, in terms of explanatory power, for the myriad of anomalous characteristics that are seen everywhere in this case. Many frames were excised, some individual frames were extensively altered, others were changed only enough to fill in for missing frames, and others were left alone. . . .

Too many anomalies to dismiss
Even if some of the apparent technical anomalies in the Zapruder film can be explained, strong indications of tampering would still remain. To put it another way, if opponents of alteration are able to explain the absence of background streaking in certain frames, the magnification anomalies, the odd behavior of the white spot, and other seeming difficulties, would this establish the film’s authenticity? No.
Do we dismiss..
1-the witnesses who reported the limousine stopped or slowed drastically?
2-the witnesses who saw blood and brain blown visibly to the rear?
3-the fact that the backward head snap is physically impossible according to everything we know about physics and the human body?
4-the fact that Zapruder said he filmed the motorcade from the time it turned onto Elm Street?
5-the fact that Brehm’s son is positioned behind his father one moment but half a second later is standing calmly clapping at his side?
6-the fact that the 12/5/63 Secret Service survey placed the last shot at Z358 and that this placement matches the testimony of Emmett Hudson and James Altgens regarding the explosive head shot?

Questions
The numerous indications of alteration in the Zapruder film naturally raise some disturbing questions. The answer to the question of why the film was altered is fairly apparent–to conceal obvious evidence of a frontal shot, of multiple gunmen, and of more than three hits. But, who performed the alteration? Whoever they were, they were very well connected (so as to gain access to the film) and had at their disposal considerable technical expertise. It would seem self-evident that those who altered the Zapruder film were either working with or following orders from the men who were responsible for the assassination of President Kennedy.

Doug Horne (Chief ARRB Analyst for Military Records)

The following post contains a link to an essay by Doug Horne  and to a video on the Z-film chain of custody.
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/02/04/jfk-assassination-mathematical-proof-that-the-zapruder-film-was-altered/
Horne interviews Dino Brugioni (a photo interpretation expert) who viewed the original Zapruder film on the weekend following the assassination. http://assassinationofjfk.net/the-two-npic-zapruder-film-events-signposts-pointing-to-the-films-alteration/
Horne writes:
“As discussed earlier in this paper, Dino Brugioni opined during his July 9, 2011 interview with the author that the head explosion seen today in the extant Zapruder film is markedly different from what he saw on 11/23/63, when he worked with what he is certain was the camera-original film. The head explosion he recalls was much bigger than the one seen today in frame 313 of the extant film (going “three or four feet into the air”); was a “white cloud” that did not exhibit any of the pink or red color seen in frame 313 today; and was of such a duration that he is quite sure that in the film he viewed in 1963, there were many more frames than just one graphically depicting the fatal head shot on the film he viewed in 1963. Mr. Brugioni cannot, and does not, accept frame 313 of the extant Zapruder film as an accurate or complete representation of the fatal head shot he saw in the camera-original Zapruder film on the Saturday evening following President Kennedy’s assassination”.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on June 19, 2015 in JFK

 

Tags: ,

JFK: Analysis of Suspicious Witness Deaths in Simkin’s JFK Index

JFK: Analysis of Suspicious Witness Deaths in Simkin’s JFK Index

Richard Charnin
Updated: June 27, 2015
Click Reclaiming Science:The JFK Conspiracy to look inside the book.
JFK Blog Posts
https://twitter.com/richardcharnin
JFK Calc Spreadsheet Database

This is a summary update of a previous post on John Simkin’s Index of 656 JFK-related individuals. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/12/25/jfk-related-unnatural-and-suspicious-deaths-in-the-jfk-calc-spreadsheet-and-simkins-jfk-index/

Simkin’s Index: http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKindex.htm

The list is in JFK Calc for reference and probability calculations.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#gid=81

Sixty-six (66) individuals in the JFK Index are also included among 122 suspicious deaths in the JFK Calc spreadsheet. Of the 122 suspicious deaths in JFK Calc, approximately 67 were called to testify in four investigations. The fact that both lists contain more than 60 names is proof that they are relevant. Naysayers can no longer make the ridiculous argument that they are not JFK-related.

Of the 66 suspicious deaths in Simkin’s index, 42 were OFFICIALLY RULED UNNATURAL, including 22 homicides. Only 8 unnatural deaths and ONE homicide would be expected in a random group of 656 from 1964-78 based on historical mortality rates.

The probability of 22 homicides among the 656 is 1 in 150 billion trillion (6.4E-24). If we triple the 0.000084 national homicide rate, the probability of 22 homicides is higher: 1 in 23 trillion (4.3E-14).

But these probabilities are too HIGH. Statistical expectation indicates that of the 45 suspicious deaths (officially ruled accidents, suicides, heart attacks and sudden cancers) approximately 26 were HOMICIDES. So there were approximately 48 homicides among the 66 suspicious deaths.

The probability of 48 homicides from 1964-78 among the 656 in the JFK Index is 1 in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion!

The Simkin JFK Index of 656 key individuals consists of 4 categories.
Suspicious deaths include:
10 of 190 Important Figures;
15 of 86 Important Witnesses;
5 of 206 Investigators, Researchers and Journalists;
36 of 174 Possible Conspirators

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on June 12, 2015 in Uncategorized

 

Tags: ,

Why Criminal Investigation(s) Must Look At Election Fraud

Richard Charnin
June 8, 2015

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

This is an excellent article written by a Wisconsin blog which summarizes my analysis of the 2012 recall election and links to a number of related posts. http://voicesnewspaper.blogspot.com/2013/10/criminal-investigations-must-look-at_24.html

From the article:
“Remember how during Scott Walker’s historic 2012 recall election, all day the media across the Badger State proclaimed the race “too close to call” and told viewers/listeners to prepare for a long night?

Remember how candidate Tom Barrett conceded defeat while people in Milwaukee were still in line to vote? Doesn’t make any sense, does it?

Does it make any sense that Scott Walker won a high-intensity/turnout election in June by about 9 percentage points and then within 5 months, Obama won a high-intensity/turnout election in November by about 9 points?

Friends – that is almost a 20 point swing at the top of a statewide race within a few months – sounds like fiction, doesn’t it?”

read more at the link….

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on June 8, 2015 in Uncategorized

 

Oswald in the Doorway: Why is the preponderance of the evidence dismissed?

Originally posted on Richard Charnin's Blog:

Oswald in the Doorway: Why is the preponderance of the evidence dismissed?

Richard Charnin
May 30, 2015

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

Why is it so important for the naysayers to insist that LHO was not in front? Is it to maintain a sliver of doubt that maybe Oswald did actually run from the 6th floor to the 2nd floor as the Warren Commission wants us all to believe?

The answer is simple. It would finally close the book on the framing of Oswald. The Parlor game would be over. JFK researchers would have to change the focus of their analysis. There would no longer be any doubt. It would be 100% proof of the BIG LIE.

One might say that it’s a moot point since the evidence is clear that Oswald was on the first floor at the time of…

View original 757 more words

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on June 2, 2015 in Uncategorized

 

Oswald in the Doorway: Why is the preponderance of the evidence dismissed?

Oswald in the Doorway: Why is the preponderance of the evidence dismissed?

Richard Charnin
May 30, 2015

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

Why is it so important for the naysayers to insist that LHO was not in front? Is it to maintain a sliver of doubt that maybe Oswald did actually run from the 6th floor to the 2nd floor as the Warren Commission wants us all to believe?

The answer is simple. It would finally close the book on the framing of Oswald. The Parlor game would be over. JFK researchers would have to change the focus of their analysis. There would no longer be any doubt. It would be 100% proof of the BIG LIE.

One might say that it’s a moot point since the evidence is clear that Oswald was on the first floor at the time of the shooting – but may have gone up to the second floor lunchroom. So why the big fuss? Well, only a fool takes anything in the Warren Report seriously. It sure makes you wonder.

These are facts that no one has discussed. Namely the testimony of Lovelady and Frazier that Lovelady was standing on the steps in front of Frazier and Sarah Stanton. If you believe their testimony, then it must be Oswald on the TOP level (the first floor entrance).

There is ZERO evidence that Lovelady was Doorman. ALL of the evidence (including the pixel analysis of Doorman’s shirt) points to Oswald as Doorman standing on the first floor (TOP level) while LOVELADY WAS STANDING IN FRONT A FEW STEPS BELOW FRAZIER who was standing to the left of Oswald on the TOP level.

The testimony of Frazier and Lovelady has been hidden in plain sight. It is proof that LHO was standing at the entrance to the Doorway since Lovelady was standing on the STEPS in front of Frazier; IT’S THE CLINCHER. HOW COME THIS HAS NOT BEEN A POINT OF DEBATE IN 51 YEARS?

THIS IS ABOUT CLOSING THE BOOK ON ALL THESE LIES:
1) OSWALD SHOT JFK FROM THE 6 FLOOR OF THE TSBD
2) HID THE MANNLICHER-CARCANO,
3) RAN FROM THE 6TH TO THE 2ND FLOOR,
4) BOUGHT A COKE,
5) WAS NOT BREATHING HARD WHEN SEEN BY TRULY AND BAKER,
6) AND DID ALL THIS IN 75-90 SECONDS.

REALLY?

The naysayers have yet to explain the following.

-Oswald (LHO) told Fritz he was “out front with Bill Shelley”.
-Why would Oswald lie when he had Shelley as an alibi?
-Fritz’s notes were not made public until 1997. Why not?

-Lovelady and Frazier both testified multiple times that Lovelady was standing on the steps in front of Frazier – not on the first floor where Doorman was standing.

-In their initial 11/22/63 testimony, Roy Truly and Marrion Baker did not say they encountered Oswald in the lunchroom on the second floor.
-TSBD witnesses said LHO always ate lunch in the Domino room on the first floor.
-LHO was seen on the first floor a few minutes before and after the 12:30 shooting.
-It’s a 10 second walk from the Domino room to the TSBD entrance.

-Witnesses were intimidated, ignored or testimony altered.
-Carolyn Arnold told the FBI that she saw Oswald on the first floor at 12:25 – but was never interviewed by the Warren Commission.

-Doorman’s V-neck open shirt was that of Oswald – not Lovelady.
-Pixel analysis of the shirt is scientific proof that Doorman was not Lovelady.

-Lovelady died at 41 in Jan. 1979 during the HSCA from complications due to a heart attack. He was never interviewed by the HSCA. The probability of a 41 year old white male dying from a heart attack in 1979 were approximately 1 in 10,000.

-Since Oswald was on the first floor, one must assume he would watch the motorcade.
-The process of witness elimination indicates that Oswald was “Prayer Man” with hands folded watching the motorcade on the first floor.

-The Altgens 6 photo printed in the 11/22 Oakland Times differs from the Groden version. The figure standing in front (who had to be Lovelady according to the testimony of Lovelady and Frazier) was whited out.

This is the “evidence” naysayers claim that proves Lovelady was Doorman.
1) “Doorman looks like Lovelady”.
But Doorman also “looks” like Oswald. And they disregard the obvious: Doorman is wearing Oswald’s shirt. http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2013/02/newseum-displays-oswalds-shirt-proof.html

2) No one testified that they saw Oswald out front.
But would they be allowed to give the testimony? Witnesses were ignored, intimidated and testimonies altered. Oswald was the designated patsy – come hell or high water.
http://garyrevel.com/jfk/girlonstairs.html

3) There is no evidence that Altgens 6 was altered.
But note the differences between the early Oakland Tribune photo and later Groden version. A memo from FBI official Cartha DeLoach indicates that Altgens 6 could have been altered shortly after the assassination.The Zapruder film and the Oswald backyard photos were also once believed to be authentic.
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2013/09/jfk-cartha-deloach-fbi-memorandum-and.html

Related Posts Indicating that Oswald was Doorman:

JFK: Oswald on the Top Level; Lovelady on the Steps 2 JFK: Judyth Baker’s analysis of the shirt proves Oswald is Doorman 3 JFK: To Believe Oswald was NOT standing in front of the TSBD you must believe  4 JFK: Oswald was “Out with Bill Shelley in Front” 5  JFK: Oswald in the Doorway – an Opinion Survey 6- Evidence Oswald was on the first floor minutes before the shooting

Oswald on the first floor of the TSBD watching the motorcade:
https://scontent-mia1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xft1/v/t1.0-9/11202578_10204293270752101_3880872768881082301_n.jpg?oh=cf1cf186c261d928d687facbf2cb7443&oe=55ED1841

 
2 Comments

Posted by on May 30, 2015 in JFK

 

Tags: ,

 
Richard Charnin's Blog

JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud Analysis

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 800 other followers