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 the major cause of  discrepancies between the exit polls and the recorded vote. The 2000  and 2004 unadjusted exit poll timelines had Gore and Kerry winning consistently from the early to final timeline.  The red-shifts far exceeded 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 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.

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:

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”.


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.


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


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%

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%

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

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

2004 Red-shift:

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

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?

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.

Probability 1.67E-18
1 in 600,124,005,655,459,000

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.

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
-South Dakota:

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.

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.

-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).

Cumulative vote shares of selected Maryland counties:


Baltimore County

Baltimore City







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:

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”!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:

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?

Stahl posted on McAdams a long time ago:

“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.”

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:

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:

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:

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.

Trolls and Disinformationists




Stahl responds to frequently asked questions on the assassination:
1- Oswald’s Background:
2- Oswald’s Sheep-Dipping:
3- Garrison Investigation:
4a- Warren Commission:
4b- Warren Commission:
5- Bullets, Wounds:

6- Oswald’s Rifle and The WC Rifle Tests:
7- HSCA Investigation:
8- Nix and Zapruder Films and the Evidence Therein:
9- Earlier Plots, Designated Assassins, Oswald Double:
10- Media Complicity in Coverup, Gerald Posner, Vince Bugliosi:


Leave a comment

Posted by on February 13, 2015 in JFK


Tags: , , , , ,

2014 Florida Governor Election Fraud: Cumulative Precinct Vote Shares

2014 Florida Governor Election Fraud: Cumulative Precinct Vote Shares

Richard Charnin
Feb. 11, 2015
Updated: Feb.13, 2014

Previous posts applied cumulative vote share analysis using graphics to confirm 2014 election fraud in Wisconsin and South Dakota. This post will do the same for the Florida governor election.

Cumulative Vote shares
Precinct votes for 12 Florida counties were downloaded. The data was sorted in ascending order from the smallest to the largest precincts. In each of the 12 counties, the trend never reversed: Crist‘s vote share declined in every case.

There was a 4.25% average decline in Crist’s vote share from the 25% mark to the final (100%). The decline occurred in each of the 36 cumulative vote share observations at 50%, 75% and 100% of the total vote. The probability of ALL 36 moving in one direction (to Scott) is the same as flipping a coin 36 times and getting 36 heads! P= 0.5^36 = 1.46E-11 or 1 in 68.7 billion!

The unweighted average change in the Scott margin from the 25,000 vote mark to the final was +10.4%.

The analysis indicates that approximately 150,000 Crist votes flipped to Scott in the 12 counties which comprised about 60% of the total state vote. Assuming the same ratio in the remaining counties, we can estimate that approximately 250,000 votes were flipped. This result confirms results from Governor True Vote analysis for the 2010 and 2014 elections.

The Law of Large Numbers
Why does a baseball players batting average fluctuate less and less as the number of at bats increase? How come in coin flipping the percentage of heads approaches 50.0% as the number of flips increase? One would expect Crist’s cumulative vote share to INCREASE SLIGHTLY as PRECINCT SIZE INCREASES since the larger urban districts are usually more Democratic than the smaller rural districts. But Crist’s share decreased in all 12 counties – a counter-intuitive result.

Actual precinct voting data shows that the changes in vote shares moving in the direction of Scott are impossible statistically and demographically – indicating fraud. Cumulative vote share analysis (CVS) is a tool for uncovering the most fraudulent counties – such as Duval. The overall county results confirmed the True Vote Model (TVM) and the 2010 unadjusted exit poll.

Dade, Palm Beach and Broward are large, highly Democratic counties. The percentage vote switches from Crist to Scott from the 25,000 vote mark were 3.6%, 2.6%, -1.4%, respectively. Therefore the lines are nearly flat.

2014 was an exact match to 2010
In previous posts, we concluded that Scott stole the 2010 and 2014 elections. In 2010, Scott won the recorded vote by 49.6-48.4% (62,000 votes) or 50.59% of the 2-party vote. Sink, the Democrat, won the unadjusted exit poll by 50.8-45.4% (283,000 votes).

In 2014, Scott won the recorded vote by 48.2-47.1%. His 2-party vote share (50.58%) was within 0.01% of his 2010 (50.59%) share! Crist won the True Vote by 52.0-48.0%.

Florida 2014 Exit Poll
The poll was forced to match forced to match the bogus recorded vote by adjusting the unavailable actual exit poll results. Exit pollsters ALWAYS assume ZERO election fraud. It is standard operating procedure and has no scientific basis. They are complicit in perpetuating the fraud. The exit pollsters had to force a match to the bogus FL recorded vote in every demographic crosstab.

For example, the Party_ID crosstab had to be adjusted to an implausible Dem 31-Rep 35-Ind 33%. A plausible (conservative) 34-33-33% split results in Crist winning by 49.4-45.6%. Note that 91% of Democrats voted for Crist and 88% of Republicans voted for Scott. Crist won Independents by 46-44%.

View the cumulative precinct votes, shares and corresponding graph for each county.

Palm Beach




Tags: , , , , , ,

JFK Lone Nutters and Trolls: A compendium of lies, stupidity and ignorance

JFK Lone Nutters and Trolls: A compendium of lies, stupidity and ignorance

Richard Charnin
Jan. 27, 2015

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

It is very easy to spot a JFK disinformationist/troll. They all use variations of the same Lone Nutter playbook to deceive readers and divert discussions. They ignore facts, avoid the scientific method and apply logical fallacies. This post is a work in progress which illustrates these points. Note that I have blocked a dozen Facebook trolls who are not included in the following list.

John McAdams
Falsified the testimony of Dealey Plaza witnesses on the source of the shots.
McAdams was also wrong in attempting to debunk the relevance of witness deaths provided by JFK researchers Penn Jones, Sylvia Meagher, Jim Marrs, Richard Belzer, David Wayne, Craig Roberts, etc.

Dale Myers
He has created three fictional accounts which he claims are scientific proofs:
1- With Malice a fraudulent attempt to prove that Oswald killed Tippit.
2- A bogus animation to prove the impossible Magic Bullet Theory.
3- An article disputing HSCA acoustic experts who proved a Grassy Knoll shooter.

Myers is easily proven to be a fraud on all three counts:

1- According to FBI agents Sibert and O’Neill who attended the autopsy, the magic bullet entered JFK’s back 5.5” below the collar and did not exit!
2- Oswald could not have shot Tippit at 1:16pm as the Warren Commission claimed. Why?Tippit was declared dead in the hospital at 1:16pm! All of the eyewitnesses heard shots no later than 1:06pm. Oswald was seen outside his apartment at 1:04pm, 0.9 miles from the shooting.
3- Based on gunshots recorded on a dictabelt at the assassination, acoustic experts calculated a ZERO probability that six shots would coincidentally syncronize with the Zapruder film:

Ed Cage
This Lone Nutter is relentless. He asks the same idiotic questions over and over even though they have been answered. But he ignores the evidence which proves his idiocy. For example, the magic bullet: Cage refuses to consider that FBI agents Sibert and O’Neill attended the autopy and claimed that the so-called “magic bullet” NEVER EXITED. Cage writes regarding the Dale Myers cartoon: “I have been to DP 18 to 20x with stepladder, measuring tool, camera and a wooden rifle with a scope. If you watched the first 4 min of the video I posted narrated by Peter Jennings it should make sense. If you are still doubtful let me ask you … Where do you think the ce399 exit from JFK’s throat went?”
FBI O’Neill:
FBI Sibert:

Zachary Jendro
He claims that in the Altgens6 photo, the black man in front of Doorman raised his arm showing the same pattern shirt as Doorman. What are the odds? Jendro will go to any (arms) length to try and debunk Judyth Baker’s pixelation analysis of Doorman’s shirt which proved he was Oswald:
The pixelation analysis:

Jendro cannot refute the Warren Commission testimony of both Lovelady and Frazier that Lovelady was standing on the steps in front of Frazier. Frazier testified that he was on the top level (first floor entrance) standing next to Sarah Stanton. Lovelady has to be the cutout figure in front.Therefore, by a simple process of elimination Oswald is Doorman standing on the top level. Judyth Baker’s pixel analysis is therefore confirmed:

Mike Davinroy
This charlatan posted on Facebook about a year ago. He failed to debunk my witness death analysis. Now he is on Amazon posting a “review” of my book which just reveals his ignorance. He calls my book “Lipstick on a Pig” and wrote: “As much as I admire serious assassination researchers and personally believe it’s theoretically conceivable that there was some type of limited assassination conspiracy (although I know of no defensible evidence pointing to such) – this type of nonsense only hurts the cause of honest conspiracy research.”
A rational reader replied: You’re saying you admire serious researchers and “honest conspiracy research,” yet know of no evidence to support a conspiracy. So who are these “serious” researchers you admire? Bugliosi? McAdams? Posner?

John Iacoletti
His claim to fame is his firm belief that heart attacks and cancers cannot be induced. He also does not comprehend that I was conservative in tripling the national homicide rate from 0.000084 to 0.000253 to calculate the probability of 34 official JFK-related homicides among 1400 witnesses from 1964-78. The conservative probability is 1 in 13000 trillion.

Note: the 34 official homicides were grossly understated. Official ruled accidents, suicides and heart attacks exceeded their mathematical expectation. Therefore, the difference between the official and expected numbers were most likely homicides.

Mark Ulrik

Mark is another Facebook troll from Denmark who tried to discredit my work a year ago. He showed up again, this time on Amazon where he gave my book a one-star review just like Davinroy. He calls it “junk Science” but like all the others, reveals his mathematical ignorance. Mark claims that surveys of Dealey Plaza witnesses as to the source of the shots is like weather forecasting. Mark is too brain-damaged to realize that witnesses testified as to what they heard, not what they expected to hear. Mark does not comprehend that a survey is not a prediction:

Lance Upperton
Has dedicated a web site in which he disparages anyone who believes that Oswald was Doorman standing at the entrance to the TSBD. It’s been six months since I first asked Lance to answer simple YES or NO questions on this topic. He refuses to do so with the lame excuse that the questions contain assumptions. But it is not a test. It is merely designed to ascertain his beliefs. Here are the questions:

Kyle Gizas
Kyle claims that the statistical analysis of witness deaths is equivalent to a pre-election poll in which respondents are asked who they will vote for. This is like the laughable Mark Ulrik (above) comparing witness surveys of what DID HAPPEN to weather forecasting to predict what MIGHT HAPPEN. Kyle is too dense to understand that the dead witnesses were not polled and asked to predict their cause of death:

Last, but not least, another brilliant unnamed Lone Nutter wrote on another forum this retarded statement (paraphrased): Even though the probability of the unnatural deaths is ONE in 100,000 TRILLION, it was still possible! Sorry, I don’t have the link to this insanity.

Stay tuned. This post will be updated with additional examples of JFK trolling insanity.

Leave a comment

Posted by on January 27, 2015 in JFK


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


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 792 other followers