Exposing John McAdams: World-class Professor of Disinformation

07 Oct

Exposing John McAdams: World-class Professor of Disinformation

Richard Charnin
Oct.7, 2013
Updated: July 29, 2014

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

JFK Blog Posts
JFK Calc Spreadsheet Database

McAdams just responded to a post of mine on the JFK Forum website he administers- a gathering place for disinformationists and lone nutters who defend the Warren Commission Report regardless of the fact that it has been relegated to the fairy tale section in the library. They defend the WC by outright lies and omissions concerning factual evidence.

McAdams’ disinformation on a) Jack Ruby, b) the Single Bullet Theory, c) Lee Harvey Oswald and d) the medical evidence has been thoroughly debunked:

In this post I will focus on bogus comments made by McAdams and others regarding the deaths of JFK witnesses. My website contains links to all of my JFK-related blog posts.

I will clear the air on the inane comments made by McAdams and others. Some comments may have been due to innocent ignorance; most are from lone nutters who must make outrageous comments to discredit my work. But they are just self-flagellating. The vast majority of Americans do not believe the Warren Report. They are quite convinced that there was a conspiracy to kill JFK.

So why do the apologists make these attempts to undermine the witness death probability analysis? Is it just a hobby or do they really believe what they write? Is McAdams such a tool that he must resort to these pathetic tactics? The “professor” lies about virtually everything. He has no shame. This is what McAdams wrote in response to my post. I refute each of his egregiously false comments below.

“This guy comes around every so often, and claims to have statistical evidence of an abnormal number of deaths among “JFK assassination witnesses.” But he’s published his list, and the vast majority of people on it are not witnesses. With very few exceptions, they have some extremely tangential connection with the assassination.

For example, the mayor of New Orleans in on the list! Further, Charnin provides no evidence of all about what the expected mortality among people of that age distribution is. Worse, the people on the list are not some objectively chosen group of people with an objectively defined “connection” with the assassination. They are people who are on the list *because* they died.

So Charnin, prove you are not merely a crackpot. Defend what you are claiming.

John McAdams, you are slipping. You forgot to call me a “buff” and criticize my “factoids”. But thanks for giving me the chance to prove that I am not a “crackpot”.

If you actually read my analysis, you did not understand it; if you did not read it, you have no basis for making those false statements. Here are the 122 JFK Calc witnesses, date and cause of death, connection, investigation in which they were called to testify and links to their testimony and bios.

Here are the graphs and probability calculations which prove a conspiracy:

You say that the majority of people are not witnesses. Well, 67 of the 122 suspicious deaths were sought to testify in 4 investigations, starting with the Warren Commission in 1964 and ending at HSCA in 1978. They were relevant enough to be called as WITNESSES.

You say that I have not taken into account expected mortality rates. Oh yes I have. Here are the mortality rates for 1963-1978:

You say that I have not taken into account age distribution. Wrong again. The mortality table rates are age-adjusted for natural deaths (heart attacks, cancer, etc.). Of course, unnatural deaths are not age-adjusted. A bullet does not know the age of its victim; accidental deaths and suicides are not a function of age, either. That fact is obvious to everyone – except you. Eight-five of the 120 deaths in JFK Calc were UNNATURAL. As a professor, you should know the difference between UNNATURAL and NATURAL deaths. The HSCA noted just 21 witness deaths.

You say that the names on they list are “not some objectively chosen group of people”. More than half of those on the list were called to testify. That’s an objective list, professor. The other half were well-known material witnesses who were never called to testify. Like Lee Oswald and Dorothy Kilgallen.

You say the witnesses were chosen for the death list because they died. That’s like Groucho Marx asking his guests: Who was buried in Grant’s Tomb? You bet your life they are on the list because they died – unnaturally or suspiciously. That’s the whole point, isn’t it?

The following are bogus statements made about the JFK witness death analysis – and my responses.

– I did not account for the age of the witnesses
The 1963-1978 mortality tables are age-adjusted for natural deaths (heart attacks, cancer, etc.). Unnatural deaths (homicides, accidents, suicides) comprise 85 of 120 witnesses in the JFK Calc spreadsheet. Age is irrelevant for unnatural deaths. A bullet does not know the age of its victim, does it John?

-The mortality rates of these witnesses are higher than the general population (such as 7 FBI officials who died just before their scheduled HSCA testimony).
Even assuming the FBI officials were 3 times more likely to die from heart attacks, the odds are 1 in 100 billion; assuming the same rate, 1 in 190 trillion.

– Witnesses died in high-crime locations
Yes, and 51 out of  122 (42%) were in the Dallas area. How do you account for that John? Dallas has 2% of the U.S. population.

– The number of witnesses is unknowable. The HSCA statistician used that bogus claim to show that the actuary’s 100,000 trillion to one odds were invalid.
But the number of witnesses who testified at WC is known; we have data for the number called to testify in three other investigations. There were approximately 1100 called in total. Who’s Who in the JFK Assassination lists 1400 names of individuals related to the assassination.

– According to John McAdams, the analysis has not been peer-reviewed.
He’s right, it hasn’t. The analysis has been open to the public on the Net for a year; no one has come forward to refute it. So what gives him the right to give it negative reviews?

McAdams obviously does not consider himself qualified to do a peer-review. I have asked him to review it line by line but he has not done so. He would rather just outright lie: like when he claims that I have not analyzed defined groups of witnesses; or that the witnesses have no relevance. His statements are on the record. As the saying goes: John, you own them. They will be your legacy.

John has not done a mathematical analysis because a) he is incapable, b) is too lazy, c) realizes that a thorough, robust analysis would destroy his case. All of his posts defending the Warren Commission and his calling all respected researchers “buffs” and all witnesses “mistaken” would make him an even bigger laughingstock than he is now.

– The 122 Witnesses in the JFK Calc database are not relevant or connected to JFK
This is absurd, typical McAdams; at least 67 were sought to testify. And they had no connection?

-There is no evidence to explain motive for the killings.
Motive is not an issue; it is irrelevant. All that matters is how many were called to testify, how many died unnaturally, and the time period. This is a PARADIGM SHIFT in the analysis. Keep in mind that an unknown number of “accidents”, “suicides”, “heart attacks” and “sudden cancers” were actually homicides.

– How come Mr. Buell Wesley Frazier is still alive? Why was he not eliminated?
Wesley told the Warren Commission that the package he saw Oswald carrying into the TSBD was too small to contain a rifle. Let’s turn the question around. Do you believe Frazier or the Warren Commission which ignored his testimony? The Warren Commission ALWAYS ignored evidence which did not support its foregone conclusion that Oswald did the shooting. But to answer the question: Why not ask how come “only” 95 of the 1400 listed in Whos Who in the JFK Assassination died suspiciously? Why just focus on Frazier? Would you expect that 100 of the 552 who testified at the Warren Commission would need to be be eliminated when “only” 20 to 30 were necessary to silence and send a message to the others. To question why any specific Warren Commission witness would not be eliminated while at the same time ignoring the statistically impossible number who were eliminated is patently ridiculous.

– Even though the probability that the witnesses died unnaturally is 1 in a trillion, it is not absolute ZERO so it is possible.
Yes, someone actually said that.

– The letter from the London Sunday Times Legal Manager to HSCA refutes the actuary’s calculation.
But the Sunday Times Legal Manager did not mention the actuary’s methodology or the fact that 13 of the 18 deaths were unnatural. The letter closes with the astounding statement that no one at the Times knew the actuary’s name!

– Bugliosi in his book claimed there were 2479 names in the Warren Commission index and that according to an actuary he consulted, the probability of the deaths was 1 in 1.2.
But a) the 2479 names in the index included non-witnesses like George Washington, Abe Lincoln and FDR and b) Bugliosi did not mention that total mortality rates were used in the calculation. That is incorrect. Unnatural deaths must be used.

– The London Times actuary’s odds were ridiculous and declared invalid by the HSCA.
The actuary probably worked for one of London’s largest insurance companies. The calculation was confirmed for 13 unnatural deaths among 459 witnesses and 18 total deaths among 560 witnesses.

-McAdams claims that there is no evidence that the 7 FBI agents who died mysteriously within 6 months in 1977 were called to testify at the HSCA.
But it is a fact. His statement shows desperation. He has no wiggle room to retort.

1977 mortality rates

0.004137 Heart Attack
0.000488 Accident
0.000092 Homicide
0.003094 Official weighted rate: 5 heart attacks, 2 accidents
0.001826 Speculative weighted rate: 4 homicides, 3 heart attacks

The probability of n deaths among N witnesses over T years, given mortality rate R, is
P = POISSON(n, T*N*R, false)

Assume N=20 FBI were called to testify at HSCA.

Scenario I: 7 heart attacks (reference illustration)
P= 3.95E-14= POISSON(7,.5*20*.004137, false)
Probability: 1 in 25 trillion

Official Cause of Death
Scenario II: 5 heart attacks, 2 accidents

P= 5.23E-15= POISSON(7,.5*20*.003094, false)
Probability: 1 in 190 trillion

Speculative Scenario III: 3 heart attacks, 4 homicides
P= 1.32E-16= POISSON(7,.5*20*.001826, false)
Probability: 1 in 7000 trillion

Speculative Scenario IV: 7 homicides
P= 1.11E-25= POISSON(7,.5*20*.000092, false)
Probability: 1 in 9 trillion trillion

Probability Sensitivity Analysis

Three scenarios of FBI heart attack mortality, assuming 20 FBI were called to testify at HSCA : 1) equal, 2) double and 3) triple the national rate. Even if FBI heart attack mortality is triple the national rate, the probability of 7 deaths in 6 months is still infinitesimal: 1 in 100 billion.

1- 0.003094 5.23E-15 1 in 190 trillion (same rate as population)
2- 0.006049 5.54E-13 1 in 1.8 trillion (double the rate)
3- 0.009004 8.70E-12 1 in 100 billion (triple the rate)

Assume that an impossible 100 FBI were called to testify.
P= 3.6E-10 or 1 in 2.7 billion.

All 7 heart 5 heart/ 3 heart/
FBI attacks 2 accid. 4 murders 7 murders
08. 6.63E-17 8.72E-18 2.18E-19 1.81E-28
20. 3.95E-14 5.23E-15 1.32E-16 1.11E-25
30. 6.61E-13 8.79E-14 2.23E-15 1.89E-24
100 2.61E-09 3.61E-10 9.56E-12 8.61E-21


Posted by on October 7, 2013 in JFK


Tags: , , , , , , , ,

6 responses to “Exposing John McAdams: World-class Professor of Disinformation

  1. K

    October 9, 2013 at 5:11 pm

    I have a question – how do these numbers compare to unnatural and unnatural deaths that occur when witness tampering is officially and historical recognized, such as in a mob case. For example, Al Capone was notorious for tampering with juries.

    • Richard Charnin

      October 9, 2013 at 9:33 pm

      I cannot answer that. It is beyond my purview. I am only interested in the analysis of factual data which is known and of sufficient magnitude to calculate statistical probabilities.

  2. tOM rOSSLEY

    October 14, 2013 at 11:26 pm

    jOHN mCadams IS A “dunce”


  3. Sasha Cash

    November 11, 2013 at 6:42 am

    The term “conspiracy nut” soon evolved into “conspiracy theorist” as code for “psychotic,” “paranoid” or “kook.” Consider how quickly that label, once pinned on a person, prevents any further consideration of the person’s rhetoric, writings or discoveries.So people who wonder why the “government” doesn’t give two figs for finding out who killed President Kennedy, a Liberal Democrat, who worked every day of his time as President to keep the peace, make life better for ALL Americans, and make the world a better place (which is a lot more than most presidents since have done or even tried) are called “nuts.” That’s what Allen Dulles, J Edgar Hoover, and their stooges and sub-stooges in Congress and the White House worked to do. And to think so many today continue their work, spreading lies. The hell with such people.Here’s a bit of real work by David Talbot. The editor of, Talbot’s a more accomplished journalist, writer, researcher and an all-around better source than Kos ever will be, IMFO.

  4. Rosanne U. Mccray

    November 27, 2013 at 11:14 am

    and cited evidence found within the 26 volumes of the Warren Report and in his interviews with witnesses which seemed to suggest bullets coming from multiple directions striking Kennedy and hence a conspiracy. The Freedom of Information Act was also passed that year, which had the effect of permitting researchers greater access to once-secret government files, particularly those connected to the Warren Commission.

  5. Larry Rivera

    February 10, 2014 at 12:30 pm

    They did not have to kill Frazier. They drafted him into the Army shortly after the assassination and dangled him at Fort Lewis for a year, scaring the bejesus out of him with the threat of being sent to Vietnam during the most intense years of fighting there. Great work!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: