JFK Assassination: Exposing Another Admitted Lone Nutter

Richard Charnin

March 25, 2014

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

** JFK Blog Posts
JFK Calc Spreadsheet Database
Tables and Graphs**

**Motivation**

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.

KG

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.

RC

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. **

KG

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.

RC

**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.* https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#gid=1

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. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#gid=0

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.

Clash of Clans

May 26, 2014 at 4:24 pm

Hi there, I discovered your blog by the use of Google whilst looking for a related subject, your website

came up, it seems good. I have bookmarked it

in my google bookmarks.

Hi there, just turned into alert to your blog through Google, and found that

it is really informative. I’m going to watch out for

brussels. I’ll be grateful in case you continue this in future.

Many other people can be benefited from your writing.

Cheers!