RSS

Monthly Archives: April 2014

JFK: Debunking Scott Aaronson’s “Twenty Reasons to Believe Oswald Acted Alone”

JFK: Debunking Scott Aaronson’s “Twenty Reasons to Believe Oswald Acted Alone”

Richard Charnin
April 30, 2014

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

JFK Blog Posts
JFK Calc Spreadsheet Database
Tables and Graphs

I came across this blog post by Scott Aaronson: Twenty Reasons to Believe Oswald Acted Alone. http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1596

I replied with a brief one paragraph comment which was not posted. This is a response to each of the twenty reasons.

Aaronson is a 33 year old quantum physicist who readily admits he is unfamiliar with the evidence and is new to the JFK assassination. But it is the detailed factual evidence which proves a conspiracy. Aaronson states opinions which rehash the standard disinformation playbook of myths contrived to frame truth seeking researchers as conspiracy theory (CT) buffs. His lack of knowledge of relevant historical events prior and subsequent to the assassination is apparent. One can only conclude that he has been brainwashed by a complicit corporate media and academia which has covered up the assassination evidence for fifty years.

Why would someone so disciplined in the scientific method fail to do his homework? He notes that his heroes Carl Sagan and Bertrand Russell were conspiracy believers. It may be that for the 50th anniversary of the assassination, Scott felt compelled to write something quickly – without getting into the wealth of inconvenient details and facts. But the devil is in the details.

Aaronson states: I also started dipping, for the first time in my life, into a tiny fraction of the vast literature about the JFK assassination. The trigger (so to speak) for me was this article by David Talbot, the founder of Salon.com. http://www.salon.com/2013/11/06/the_jfk_assassination_we_still_dont_know_what_happened/.
I figured, if the founder of Salon is a JFK conspiracy buff—if, for crying out loud, my skeptical heroes Bertrand Russell and Carl Sagan were both JFK conspiracy buffs—then maybe it’s at least worth familiarizing myself with the basic facts and arguments.

But another reason is that I’m skeptical that anyone actually comes to believe the JFK conspiracy hypothesis because they don’t see how the second bullet came in at the appropriate angle to pass through JFK’s neck and shoulder and then hit Governor Connally.

RC: JFK was hit in the back 5.5 inches below the collar by a bullet on a downward trajectory which did not exit. I am more than skeptical – actually dumbfounded- that anyone actually believes the Single Bullet Theory. There are three possibilities: the believer is a) unfamiliar with the evidence, b) familiar with the evidence but is dumb as rocks, or c) a JFK disinformationist.

Scott is surely unaware of Gerald Ford’s moving the back wound up to conform to the Magic Bullet’s bogus point of entry: http://www.jfklancer.com/Ford-Rankin.html

Update: Philip Stahl is an astronomer, mathematician and physicist who posts as “Copernicus”. I sent him a link to this post. He closes the book on Aaronson with a series of devastating articles.
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/10/why-some-quantum-physicists-need-to.html http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/10/scott-aaronson-in-over-his-head-on-jfk.html http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/10/rebuttal-of-scott-aarons-2o-reasons-for.html http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/10/rebuttal-of-scott-aaronsons-20-reasons.html

Aaronson never considered the following facts and analysis before claiming to believe the Warren Commission report that Oswald was the “lone nut” assassin.

1) To believe that Oswald killed JFK you must believe the following: https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/09/15/to-believe-that-oswald-killed-jfk-you-must-believe-that/

2) 16 mindblowing facts about who killed JFK: http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/20557-16-mind-blowing-facts-about-who-really-killed-jfk

3) 20 questions and answers on the JFK Calc spreadsheet: https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/04/09/jfk-calc-questions-on-the-spreadsheet-analysis/

This is a summary of Aaronson’s twenty reasons followed by my comments.

1. Conspiracy Buff Psychology
Conspiracy theorizing represents a known bug in the human nervous system. Given that, I think our prior should be overwhelmingly against anything that even looks like a conspiracy theory.

RC: History has taught us just the opposite. People conspire all the time.

2. Ruby: Genesis of Conspiracy thinking
The shooting of Oswald by Jack Ruby created the perfect conditions for conspiracy theorizing to fester.

RC: So, wouldn’t that be a normal, rational response. To permanently silence the patsy? And Ruby himself confirmed it was a conspiracy multiple times.

3. Historical Lone Nuts
Other high-profile assassinations to which we might compare this one—for example, those of Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, RFK, Martin Luther King Jr., Gandhi, Yitzchak Rabin…—appear to have been the work of “lone nuts,” or at most “conspiracies” of small numbers of lowlifes. So why not this one?

RC: You don’t know that they were killed by “lone nuts”. Did it ever occur to you that the targets were all liberals who wanted change? JFK was a liberal who wanted to change things.

4. LHO the psychopath
Oswald seems to have perfectly fit the profile of a psychopathic killer (see, for example, Case Closed by Gerald Posner).

RC: You should know what people who knew Oswald had to say. Quite the opposite of the Posner propaganda piece. Here are some things you don’t know about Oswald. http://my.firedoglake.com/sancheq/2013/11/23/things-you-never-knew-about-lee-harvey-oswald/

5. No evidence of others
A half-century of investigation has failed to link any individual besides Oswald to the crime. Conspiracy theorists love to throw around large, complicated entities like the CIA or the Mafia as potential “conspirators”—but in the rare cases when they’ve tried to go further, and implicate an actual human being other than Oswald or Ruby (or distant power figures like LBJ), the results have been pathetic and tragic.

RC: Oswald never had a trial. Even Posner admits he would never have been convicted as there is no evidence that he was on the 6th floor of the TSBD at 12:30. The Altgens6 photo is strong evidence that he was on the first floor watching the motorcade. Conspirators included Clay Shaw, Jack Ruby, David Ferrie, Hunt and the Cubans, et al. You call the Shaw trial “pathetic and tragic”, but even though he was acquitted, the jurors said that they were convinced it was a conspiracy. Shaw was a contract CIA agent who lied at his trial. CIA Director Helms admitted Shaw was a CIA operative in 1979. David Ferrie was murdered shortly after he was named as a witness. Garrison’s case was sabotaged. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hqo2c_SxQag

There were at least 78 material witness deaths that were officially ruled unnatural and at least forty other suspicious heart attacks and sudden cancers. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#gid=1

6. Gen. Walker shooting
Oswald had previously tried to assassinate General Walker—a fact that was confirmed by his widow Marina Oswald, but that, incredibly, is barely even discussed in the reams of conspiracy literature.

RC: LHO did not shoot Walker. There is no evidence of that. Marina was forced to say it to protect her kids; she claimed it was not true years later. http://22november1963.org.uk/did-lee-oswald-shoot-general-edwin-walker
There are many problems with the case against Oswald. http://michaelgriffith1.tripod.com/faulty.htm

7. The Tippit canard
There’s clear evidence that Oswald murdered Officer Tippit an hour after shooting JFK—a fact that seems perfectly consistent with the state of mind of someone who’d just murdered the President, but that, again, seems to get remarkably little discussion in the conspiracy literature.

RC: LHO did not shoot Tippit. It was physically impossible.  LHO was seen standing at a bus stop near his rooming house at 1:04pm. According to 10 witnesses, Tippit was shot at 1:06. The Warren Commission ignored  all witness testimony. The WC claimed Tippit was shot at 1:15. They had to do this to give Oswald enough time to get to the scene. It was impossible for Oswald to travel one mile in two minutes. The world’s fastest milers need just under 4 minutes.  The bullets recovered  were from an automatic and did not match Oswald’s revolver. Eyewitnesses saw two shooters. Let’s end this crap. http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n2/tippit.pdf http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=12745

8. Oswald a violent, pathological liar
Besides being a violent nut, Oswald was also a known pathological liar. He lied on his employment applications, he lied about having established a thriving New Orleans branch of Fair Play for Cuba, he lied and lied and lied.

RC: Thriving branch? That’s a joke. Oswald was working for Guy Banister (FBI) to distribute leaflets to stage a fake altercation. Oswald was CIA and an FBI informer.

9. Oswald attitude in custody
According to police accounts, Oswald acted snide and proud of himself after being taken into custody.

RC: That is untrue. When will you provide specifics? See the testimony of Detective Will Fritz. Oswald could not reveal his ties to the FBI and CIA. He was calm, cool and asked for legal representation.

10. Conspiracy Theories are wildly inconsistent
Almost all JFK conspiracy theories must be false, simply because they’re mutually inconsistent.

RC: Cite the theories and the inconsistencies. Can you provide specifics? Yes, some theories are false, created by disinformationists to confuse the public (such as the REELZ “Smoking Gun” fiasco).

11. Witnesses are unreliable
The case for Oswald as lone assassin seems to become stronger, the more you focus on the physical evidence and stuff that happened right around the time and place of the event. To an astonishing degree, the case for a conspiracy seems to rely on verbal testimony years or decades afterward—often by people who are known confabulators, who were nowhere near Dealey Plaza at the time, who have financial or revenge reasons to invent stories, and who “remembered” seeing Oswald and Ruby with CIA agents, etc. only under drugs or hypnosis. This is precisely the pattern we would expect if conspiracy theorizing reflected the reality of the human nervous system rather than the reality of the assassination.

RC: There were 200 witnesses in Dealey Plaza. Over 90 said they heard shots from the Grassy Knoll; about 45 at the TSBD. Were they all liars or mistaken? Were they inventing stories? What about the Parkland doctors who all said the throat wound was one of entrance and the head wound an exit? You are sadly misinformed about one-sided witness testimony which indicates at least one addition shooter at the Grassy Knoll. Why do you avoid specifics? https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#gid=65

12. Assassination motive
If the conspiracy is so powerful, why didn’t it do something more impressive than just assassinate JFK? Why didn’t it rig the election to prevent JFK from becoming President in the first place?

RC: JFK had many enemies: Big Oil, Military Industrial Establishment, anti-Castro Cubans, mobsters, Joint Chiefs. The public execution gave a message to all future presidents.

13. Who hired the shooters?
Pretty much all the conspiracy writers I encountered exude total, 100% confidence, not only in the existence of additional shooters, but in the guilt of their favored villains (they might profess ignorance, but then in the very next sentence they’d talk about how JFK’s murder was “a triumph for the national security establishment”).

RC: 100% confidence is justified by ballistic, video, acoustic and eyewitness evidence which all point to at least one more shooter behind the picket fence at the Grassy Knoll.

14. Too big to cover up, someone would have talked
Every conspiracy theory I’ve encountered seems to require “uncontrolled growth” in size and complexity: that is, the numbers of additional shooters, alterations of medical records, murders of inconvenient witnesses, coverups, coverups of the coverups, etc. that need to be postulated all seem to multiply without bound.

RC: That’s because the evidence, which you are apparently unaware of, is overwhelming. Why do you ignore this evidence? There were over 100 material witness unnatural deaths. The probability is ZERO.

15. JFK the conservative
JFK was not a liberal Messiah. He moved slowly on civil rights for fear of a conservative backlash, invested heavily in building nukes, signed off on the botched plans to kill Fidel Castro, and helped lay the groundwork for the US’s later involvement in Vietnam. Yes, it’s possible that he would’ve made wiser decisions about Vietnam than LBJ ended up making; that’s part of what makes his assassination (like RFK’s later assassination) a tragedy. But many conspiracy theorists’ view of JFK as an implacable enemy of the military-industrial complex is preposterous.

RC: Yes, JFK moved slowly on civil rights, but then in 1962 he ordered integration at the Univ. of Alabama and gave the first great presidential speech for black equality. He did not seek to kill Castro; he was negotiating for peaceful coexistence with Castro and Khruschev behind the scenes. The CIA and the military were determined to force the issue, even after JFK ordered the anti-Castro camps shut down. He signed a memorandum to pull out of Vietnam by 1965 and the Test Ban Treaty with the Russians in 1963.

16. LBJ the liberal
By the same token, LBJ was not exactly a right-wing conspirator’s dream candidate. He was, if anything, more aggressive on poverty and civil rights than JFK was. And even if he did end up being better for certain military contractors, that’s not something that would’ve been easy to predict in 1963, when the US’s involvement in Vietnam had barely started.

RC: LBJ was NOT a liberal; he was forced to appear as one to placate the left and carry on JFK’s initiative on civil rights. LBJ gave the military the Vietnam War they wanted by staging the bogus Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964. He kept the oil depletion allowance for his Texas buddies.

17. Conspiracy buffs have a nervous system disorder
Lots of politically-powerful figures have gone on the record as believers in a conspiracy, including John Kerry, numerous members of Congress, and even frequently-accused conspirator LBJ himself. Some people would say that this lends credibility to the conspiracy cause. To me, however, it indicates just the opposite: that there’s no secret cabal running the world, and that those in power are just as prone to bugs in the human nervous system as anyone else is.

RC: What a ridiculous statement! Its just the opposite. So your heroes Sagan and Bertrand Russell suffered this disorder? Where is your logic? If anything, coincidence theorists like yourself suffer from massive propaganda disorientation. To believe everything the government claims is a severe attention disorder.

18. The intelligence agency incompetence canard
As far as I can tell, the conspiracy theorists are absolutely correct that JFK’s security in Dallas was unbelievably poor; that the Warren Commission was as interested in reassuring the nation and preventing a war with the USSR or Cuba as it was in reaching the truth (the fact that it did reach the truth is almost incidental); and that agencies like the CIA and FBI kept records related to the assassination classified for way longer than there was any legitimate reason to (though note that most records finally were declassified in the 1990s, and they provided zero evidence for any conspiracy). As you might guess, I ascribe all of these things to bureaucratic incompetence rather than to conspiratorial ultra-competence. But once again, these government screwups help us understand how so many intelligent people could come to believe in a conspiracy even in the total absence of one.

RC: It’s always incompetence, never venality. Sorry, the agencies are not incompetent. Total absence of a conspiracy? You ignore or are ignorant of the totality of evidence which proves a conspiracy.

19. Psychological need to call it a conspiracy
In the context of the time, the belief that JFK was killed by a conspiracy filled a particular need: namely, the need to believe that the confusing, turbulent events of the 1960s had an understandable guiding motive behind them, and that a great man like JFK could only be brought down by an equally-great evil, rather than by a chronically-unemployed loser who happened to see on a map that JFK’s motorcade would be passing by his workplace.

RC: Oh, really? We need a conspiracy to satisfy our need for excitement? Wrong. We need to learn the truth. You believe that only a Lone Nut would want to bring down JFK or RFK, or MLK, or John Lennon, or JFK,Jr, or Wellstone, or Gandhi, etc. It’s never a conspiracy. That is very naive. Newsflash! We live in a world of conspiracies. It makes the world go round.

20. Can’t Connect the Dots
At its core, every conspiracy argument seems to be built out of “holes”: “the details that don’t add up in the official account,” “the questions that haven’t been answered,” etc. What I’ve never found is a truly coherent alternative scenario: just one “hole” after another. This pattern is the single most important red flag for me, because it suggests that the JFK conspiracy theorists view themselves as basically defense attorneys: people who only need to sow enough doubts, rather than establish the reality of what happened. Crucially, creationism, 9/11 trutherism, and every other elaborate-yet-totally-wrong intellectual edifice I’ve ever encountered has operated on precisely the same “defense attorney principle”: “if we can just raise enough doubts about the other side’s case, we win!” But that’s a terrible approach to knowledge, once you’ve seen firsthand how a skilled arguer can raise unlimited doubts even about the nonexistence of a monster under your bed. Such arguers are hoping, of course, that you’ll find their monster hypothesis so much more fun, exciting, and ironically comforting than the “random sounds in the night hypothesis,” that it won’t even occur to you to demand they show you their monster.

RC
You avoid any and all analysis of the evidence. You make pompous claims which have no basis in fact and just perpetuate myths while admitting ignorance of the facts and evidence of the assassination. You employ Warren Commission apologist propaganda and parrot lies that have been promoted by the corporate media – who refuse to consider, much less debate, the evidence. Hear no evil; see no evil.

Advertisements
 
2 Comments

Posted by on April 29, 2014 in JFK

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

JFK Calc: Questions on the Spreadsheet Analysis

JFK Calc: Questions on the Spreadsheet Analysis

Richard Charnin
April 9, 2014
Updated:June 7, 2014

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

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.

The JFK Calc spreadsheet database includes 126 witnesses who died unnaturally and suspiciously (122 from 1964-78). https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#gid=1

This post will present the answers to questions that should legitimately be asked on the JFK witness mortality data and calculation methodology.

1) What is the data source of the witnesses?
See Jim Marrs’ “Crossfire” (103), Michael Benson’s “Who’s Who in the JFK Assassination (1400)”, Richard Belzer and David Wayne’s “Hit List” (50) and the Simkin Educational website (656).

The analysis is cited in Hit List, Crossfire, Judyth Baker’s Ferrie, Phil Nelson’s LBJ:Mastermind to Colossus, physicist/astronomer/mathematician Philip Stahl and political author Andrew Kreig.

Dealey Plaza eyewitnesses and associated probabilities are based on articles by these excellent researchers: Stewart Galanor, Harold Feldman, Vince Palamara and John Craig.

2) Of the 122 total suspicious deaths in JFK Calc, how many were officially ruled unnatural?
There were 78 officially ruled unnatural deaths (34 homicides, 24 accidents, 16 suicides, 4 unknown). But a statistical analysis based on historical accident, suicide and heart attack mortality rates indicates at least 84 homicides and 99 unnatural deaths.

......Homicide Unnatural Total
.....Ruled Est Ruled Est Deaths
1964... 12 19... 19 23... 25
1964-66 16 35... 35 42... 48
1964-78 34 84... 78 99... 122

3) Can you prove that the witnesses were relevant?
Ninety-six (96) of the 122 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 656 JFK-related biographies. Sixty-four (64) are in JFK Calc. In this group, 40 deaths were officially ruled unnatural, a one in 1 trillion^3 probability. There were 22 official homicides among the 40. But there were 47 estimated true homicides. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKindex.htm

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,
4) apply the applicable unnatural mortality rates for the period.
5) calculate the number of expected unnatural deaths.
6) calculate the probability using the Poisson distribution function. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/08/16/jfk-witness-death-probability-calculations-data-and-methodology/

5) Why do you claim that many officially ruled accidents, suicides and heart attacks were homicides?
Any analysis should consider the anomalous facts of each case (timing, etc.) which indicate homicide. We can estimate the approximate number of true homicides by calculating the statistically expected number of accidents, suicides and heart attacks. We use respective mortality rates for each cause of death. The official ruled number of accidents, suicides and heart attacks far exceeds the expected number. The difference between the official and expected numbers is a fair approximation of the number of true homicides. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/11/08/jfk-witness-deaths-how-many-accidents-suicides-and-natural-deaths-were-homicides/ https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1of deatZJYllKTnc#gid=74

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”, the number who died unnaturally, the cause of death, and the time period under study. The 67 who were sought to testify were obviously relevant – and so were the other 55. But to analyze the relevance of a given witness is a moot point. We must consider the total number. The motive for any given death is a non-issue in calculating the probability. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/07/17/jfk-assassination-paradigm-shift-deaths-of-witnesses-called-to-testify/

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 (the CIA stated that 418 witnesses testified). Approximately 600 were sought or testified in three subsequent investigations. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/02/25/executive-action-jfk-witness-deaths-and-the-london-times-actuary/

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 16 officially ruled homicides from 1964-66 based on the average 0.000061 national rate: 1.3E-23 (1 in 70 billion trillion); or the probability of 34 officially ruled homicides from 1964-78 using triple the average 0.000084 national rate: 7.6E-17 (1 in 1,000 trillion). https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#gid=0

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. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#gid=58

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. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#gid=27

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?
There were Ruby associates,reporters, FBI, CIA, anti-Castro Cubans, mafia, police and others. Most had inside information. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#gid=55

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) Has your study been peer-reviewed?
As stated above, the analysis is cited by Richard Belzer and David Wayne in Hit List and by Jim Marrs in Crossfire. Both are major JFK assassination historical references.

Philip Stahl (“Copernicus”), a prolific author, astronomer, space physicist and mathematician, has cited the JFK-witness death probability analysis in several of his blog posts: http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/even-liberals-can-be-victims-of.html

The analysis is available to anyone who wants to review it: JFK researchers, actuaries, mathematicians, media. Now what about McAdams, Posner, Bugliosi and the mainstream media? Not a word. Perhaps because they can’t refute the logic or the math. I asked McAdams to have one of the Marquette math professors review it. No luck.

15) Do you disagree with John McAdams’ survey that a majority of Dealey Plaza witnesses said shots came from the Texas Book Depository? Yes, for the same reasons Harold Feldman and Stewart Galanor disagree in their surveys. McAdams cooked his numbers by omission and commission. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/02/26/jfk-dealey-plaza-witnesses-john-mcadams-strange-list/ https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#gid=65

16) You claim the Zapruder film was altered. What is your evidence?
It is based on the following facts:
First, 33 of 59 witnesses said the JFK limo came to a FULL stop; 13 said NEAR stop. The probability is 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, 11 Hollywood photography experts have concluded that the film was altered.
Fifth, the chain of custody was broken. http://assassinationofjfk.net/the-two-npic-zapruder-film-events-signposts-pointing-to-the-films-alteration/ https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#gid=63

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. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#gid=69

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. Were all 47 mistaken?
The 1…2.3 pattern http://www.spmlaw.ca/jfk/shot_pattern_evidence.pdf
The Double Bang http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/11th_Issue/guns_dp.html https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/02/08/jfk-math-analysis-witness-testimony-of-time-interval-between-shots/ https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#gid=64

19) What if your estimates of the number of material witnesses, unnatural deaths and homicides are 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. It consists of two tables: a range of witness group size estimates vs ranges of unnatural deaths and homicides. The homicide table ranges from 1400-10000 witnesses and 34 (ruled) to 90 (expected) homicides. All plausible scenario combinations give ZERO probabilities – absolute proof of a conspiracy. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#gid=74

The Dallas 1964-78 homicide rate was triple the national and used in the following calculations.
– 34 officially ruled homicides and a plausible 1400 witness universe:
P= 7.6E-17 or 1 in 13,000 trillion.
– 84 expected homicides and an inflated 5000 witness universe:
P= 4.0E-28 or 1 in 2000 trillion trillion.

20) What about the unnatural deaths of Dealey Plaza witnesses?
There are 20 in JFK Calc. A sensitivity analysis assuming 200-600 witnesses and 8-15 homicides is another strong indicator of a conspiracy. Assuming 400 Dealey Plaza witnesses and given the
– 0.000084 average national homicide rate, the probabilities range from 1 in 15 million (8 homicides) to 1 in 60,000 trillion (15 homicides).
– 0.000253 average Dallas homicide rate, the probabilities range from 1 in 5000 (8 homicides) to 1 in 11 billion (15 homicides). https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/06/04/jfk-probability-analysis-suspicious-deaths-of-dealey-plaza-witnesses/

21) 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.

 
8 Comments

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

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

These articles are about John McAdams, a relentless Warren Commission apologist. http://richardcharnin.com/JMLaughingStock.html

The articles thoroughly debunk the pathetic arguments from the Professor of Disinformation. Read the 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: 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: 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….

 
1 Comment

Posted by on April 6, 2014 in JFK

 

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
Updated: March 27, 2015

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

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 until they were released in 1997 by ARRB: http://www.jfklancer.com/Fritzdocs.html

QUESTION 1: Assume Oswald was photographed in Altgens6. Then of course he could not have shot JFK. Would you expect that Will Fritz’s notes that Oswald was “out with Bill Shelley in front” would be hidden for 30 years? Yes or No?

QUESTION 2: In his WC testimony, Lovelady was asked to place a DARK arrow in the DARK area pointing to himself. The arrow appears to be pointing to Doorman on the TOP level. Frazier had placed an arrow pointing to Doorman in the light area. Do you agree that Lovelady and Frazier contradicted themselves since they both stated multiple times that Lovelady was standing in FRONT on the STEPS – not on the TOP level. Yes or No?

QUESTION 3: If a photo, video, document, testimony, etc. had to be altered or fabricated to convict Oswald, do you suppose it would have been? Yes or No?

QUESTION 4: If a witness could confirm that Oswald was standing out front, would he/she be allowed to so testify? Yes or No?

QUESTION 5: If a witness could confirm that Oswald was standing out front and was allowed to testify, would he/she be asked the question? Yes or No?

QUESTION 6: If a witness was a participant in the conspiracy to make LHO the patsy and was asked if LHO was out front, would he/she say he was? Yes or No?

QUESTION 7: Neither Lovelady, Shelley or others were asked directly if Oswald was out front. Would it have been a logical question to ask. Yes or No?

QUESTION 8:  Oswald told Will Fritz that he was OUT FRONT WITH BILL SHELLEY at 12:30.   Oswald was seen at 12:31 in the 2nd floor lunchroom by officer Baker and Roy Truly holding a coke. But he could not run from the 6th to the 2nd floor in 75-90 seconds, bought a coke and not show shortness of breath.   It takes 10 seconds to walk from the first floor to the 2nd floor lunchroom. Oswald must have told the truth to Fritz, since a) he already had an alibi, Bill Shelley, who was not asked by the WC if LHO was out front and b) he was seen by Truly and Baker at 12:31. Yes or No?

QUESTION 9: Lovelady died at age 41 in Jan. 1979 (during the HSCA investigation) from “complications” due to a heart attack. The probability of a 41 year old white male dying from a heart attack in 1979 was approximately 1 in 10,000. One must assume that as a critical witness Lovelady would have been sought to testify at the HSCA. Yes or No?

QUESTION 10: Many JFK researchers believe that Oswald was framed yet insist that he is not in the Altgens 6 photo. They say Doorman “looks like” Lovelady. But Doorman also “looks like” Oswald.  Is that a sufficient response in light of the fact that Doorman’s open shirt style is different from Lovelady’s? Yes or No?

QUESTION 11: Is it just a coincidence that the TSBD witnesses are not clearly shown in Altgens 6? Yes or No?

QUESTION 12 Do you believe the Oswald backyard photos were fakes? Yes or No.

QUESTION 13:  Do you believe the Z-film was altered? Yes or No?

QUESTION 14: Is there at least a possibility that Oswald is Doorman? Yes or No?

QUESTION 15: Do you believe Carolyn Arnold, a secretary at the TSBD, was mistaken in her statement that Oswald was on the first (i.e. ground) floor of the TSBD at 12:25pm? Yes or No?

http://22november1963.org.uk/carolyn-arnold-witness-oswald

QUESTION 16: Do you consider it odd that Arnold was not interviewed by the Warren Commission? Yes or No?

QUESTION 17: In the video at the 2 minute mark, a man looking like a balding Billy Lovelady appears at the lower right of the screen. He is facing the TSBD and is wearing a checkered shirt buttoned to the collar. No tee shirt is visible. It was NOT the shirt that Doorman was wearing. Do you agree that it appears to be Lovelady? Yes or No? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XNHtUDEDAI

QUESTION 18: In the Altgens6 photo, Doorman is wearing a long-sleeve shirt open to reveal his tee shirt. The  2/29/64 FBI photo of Lovelady shows him wearing a short-sleeve striped shirt. The FBI claimed Lovelady was wearing a short-sleeve shirt on 11/22/63, Does the fact that Doorman is wearing a long sleeve shirt seem odd to you? Yes or No.

QUESTION 19: Naysayers claim that Lovelady is Doorman because not one TSBD employee identified Oswald. But they could not say they saw Oswald in front since it had already been determined that he was the sole deranged, communist, Lone Nut assassin. Do you agree that is a plausible reason they would have been inhibited from testifying that Oswald was in front?  Yes or No.

QUESTION 20: Lovelady and Frazier both testified multiple times (see below)  that Lovelady was standing in front of Frazier on the steps. Frazier was on the TOP level (the first floor). Since Doorman was also standing on the TOP level,  Lovelady could not be Doorman. Yes or No?

CONCLUSION: Simple logic proves that Lee Harvey Oswald was Doorman standing in front of the TSBD in the Altgens6 photo taken at 12:30, the moment JFK was shot.  IT’S TIME TO CLOSE THE BOOK ON THE UNENDING PARLOR GAME. OSWALD SAID HE WAS “OUT WITH BILL SHELLEY IN FRONT “. THERE IS NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT HE WAS LYING. 

Click the GIF: http://oswald.shorturl.com/

WARREN COMMISSION TESTIMONY

William Shelley

Testified at the Warren Commission that he was standing on the TOP landing of the entrance to the TSBD. Billy Lovelady testified that he SAT on the steps in FRONT of Shelley. Doorman was standing on the TOP level (1st floor) in Altgens6.
——————————————————–
Mr. SHELLEY – Oh, several people were out there waiting to watch the motorcade and I went out to join them.
Mr. BALL – And who was out there?
Mr. SHELLEY – Well, there was Lloyd Viles of McGraw-Hill, Sarah Stanton, she’s with Texas School Book, and Wesley Frazier and Billy Lovelady joined us shortly afterwards.
Mr. BALL – You were standing where?
Mr. SHELLEY – Just outside the glass doors there.
Mr. BALL – That would be on the top landing of the entrance?
Mr. SHELLEY – yes.

Mr. BALL – Did you see the motorcade pass?

——————————————————–
Billy Lovelady
Confirmed that he was on the steps, not on the Top Level where Doorman was standing.
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/lovelady.htm

Mr. LOVELADY – That’s on the second floor; so, I started going to the domino room where I generally went in to set down and eat and nobody was there and I happened to look on the outside and Mr. Shelley was standing outside with Miss Sarah Stanton, I believe her name is, and I said, “Well, I’ll go out there and talk with them, sit down and eat my lunch out there, set on the steps,” so I went out there.
Mr. BALL – You ate your lunch on the steps?
Mr. LOVELADY – Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL – Who was with you?
Mr. LOVELADY – Bill Shelley and Sarah Stanton, and right behind me

Mr. BALL – What was that last name?
Mr. LOVELADY – Stanton.
Mr. BALL – What is the first name?
Mr. LOVELADY – Bill Shelley.
Mr. BALL – And Stanton’s first name?
Mr. LOVELADY – Miss Sarah Stanton.
Mr. BALL – Did you stay on the steps?
Mr. LOVELADY – Yes.
Mr. BALL – Were you there when the President’s motorcade went by?
Mr. LOVELADY – Right

Wesley Frazier
confirmed Lovelady was on the steps in 5 interviews from 1963-86
1. 11/22/63 to the DPD
2. 3/1/64 at the WC
3. 2/13/69 at the Garrison/Shaw trial
4. 1978 at HSCA
5. 1986 at the Oswald Mock Trial

1. 11/22 Dallas PD (handwritten statement and affidavit)
Lovelady was standing on the front steps.

2. 3/1/64 Warren Commission
Frazier testified that Lovelady was standing two or three steps below him. http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/frazierb1.htm

Mr. BALL – We have got a picture taken the day of the parade and it shows the President’s car going by. Now, take a look at that picture. Can you see your picture any place there?
Mr. FRAZIER – No, sir; I don’t, because I was back up in this more or less black area here.
Mr. BALL – I see.
Mr. FRAZIER – Because Billy, like I say, is TWO or THREE STEPS down in FRONT of me. (why would he say this if it were not true?)
Mr. BALL – Do you recognize this fellow?
Mr. FRAZIER – That is Billy, that is Billy Lovelady.
Mr. BALL – Billy? (Ball must be concerned with Frazier’s answer. He does not want him to say Lovelady is on the STEPS, so he uses guile to twist the testimony).
Mr. FRAZIER – Right
Mr. BALL – Let’s take a marker and make an arrow down that way. That mark is Billy Lovelady?
Mr. FRAZIER – Right.
Mr. BALL – That is where you told us you were standing a moment ago.
Mr. FRAZIER – Right.
Mr. BALL – In FRONT of you to the right over to the wall?
Mr. FRAZIER – Yes. (Frazier once again says that Lovelady was standing BELOW him on the STEPS, but then UNWITTINGLY CONTRADICTS himself by pointing to Doorman who was on the TOP Level).
Mr. BALL – Is this a Commission exhibit?
We will make this a Commission Exhibit No. 369.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 369 for identification.)

3. 2/13/69 Shaw/Garrison trial http://www.jfk-online.com/fraziershaw.html

MR. ALCOCK:
Q: Can you see the spot where you were situated when the presidential motorcade came by?
A:Yes,sir, I can.
Q: Will you take this symbol and place it at that location where you were standing?
Q: Mr.Frazier, do you recall who you were with during the presidential motorcade?
A: Yes, sir, I can. When I was standing there at the TOP of the stairs, I was standing there by a heavyset lady who worked up in our office, her name is Sara, I forget her last name, but she was standing right there BESIDE me when we watched the motorcade.
Q: Do you recall anyone else who may have been with you?
A: Right down in FRONT of me at the bottom of the steps my foreman Bill Shelley and Billy Lovelady were standing there.

4. 1978 HSCA interview by Moriarity and Day
Standing right on the STEPS

5. 1986 Oswald Mock trial
Gerry Spence: “You recall that 23 years later that BNL was standing in FRONT of you.About 4 steps in FRONT of you. Is that correct?”
Frazier: Yes it is..

This GIF conforms with Frazier’s and Lovelady’s testimony of where they were standing at 12:30. It shows that Altgens6 was ALTERED to MORPH Oswald’s face to Lovelady while Lovelady’s was BLOCKED out standing on the steps in front. It is reminiscent of the fake Oswald backyard photos where hos face was superimposed over another body. Oswald said he could prove it – but never got the chance. Now it all fits: http://betshort.com/loveos.gif

Lovelady’s Shirt: Plaid (11/22/63) vs Striped (2/29/64)
According to researcher Josiah Thompson, Lovelady told CBS News that the striped, short sleeved shirt he wore in this 2/29/64 FBI photo was NOT the shirt he was wearing on 11/22/63. He said he wore a PLAID, box-patterned shirt. The shirt matched the one seen in the Roger Craig interview at the 2 minute mark. https://conspiracycritic7.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/wpid-wpid-2013-07-22-21-36-33-picsay.jpeg

In 1971, Lovelady and his wife wrote this memo for Robert Groden, claiming he wore a plaid shirt on 11/22/63: https://conspiracycritic7.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/wpid843-wpid-6989002969_5633154508_z.jpeg

Oswald in the Doorway deniers also claim that there was not enough time to alter Altgens6. That is a canard.There was a window of opportunity.
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2013/09/jfk-cartha-deloach-fbi-memorandum-and.html

The figures to the left of Oswald have been blotted out. Why? http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/GrodenAnnot-one-half14.jpg

Latest update: Judyth Baker, author of “Me and Lee”, has done a pixel analysis of Oswald’s shirt vs. Lovelady’s which proves Oswald is Doorman. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1X2eD2Wl3xSmRHTuE02ntfYkb3ES2Kuo8wl3HHzzAlD8/pub


More evidence: Oswald’s shirt is proof that he was Doorman
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2013/02/newseum-displays-oswalds-shirt-proof.html

Did Officer Baker and Roy Truly encounter Oswald on the 2nd floor? http://jfkthelonegunmanmyth.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-lunchroom-encounter-that-never-was.html

Does this photo from the Darnell film show Oswald  (Prayerman) at the TSBD ?

Of 17 TSBD employees interviewed by the Warren Commission, 9 said the shots came from the Grassy Knoll (GK), 5 TSBD (TB), 1 Knoll and TSBD, 1 other, 1 not asked

TSBD employee, source of shots, WC Link
Adams, Victoria GK http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/adams_v.htm
Arce, Danny GK http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/arce.htm
Baker, Mrs. Donald GK http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/baker.htm
Burns, Doris GK http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/burns.htm
Dougherty, Jack TB http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/doughert.htm

Frazier, Buell Wesley GK http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/frazierb1.htm
Givens, Charles not asked http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/givens1.htm
Hine, Geneva TB http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/hine.htm
Jarman, James Other http://jfkassassination.net/russ/m_j_russ/jarman.htm
Lovelady, Billy GK http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/lovelady.htm

Molina, Joe GK http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/molina.htm
Norman, Harold TB http://jfkassassination.net/russ/m_j_russ/norman.htm
Piper, Eddie TB http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/piper2.htmSanders,
Reid, Mrs. Robert TB http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/reid.htm
Sanders, Pauline GKTB http://jfkassassination.net/russ/exhibits/ce1434.htm

Shelley, William GK http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/shelley1.htm
Truly, Roy GK http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/truly1.htm

 
5 Comments

Posted by on April 5, 2014 in JFK

 

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

 
Richard Charnin's Blog

JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud Analysis