## JFK Calc: Questions on the Spreadsheet Analysis

09 Apr

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
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.

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

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.

Posted by on April 9, 2014 in JFK

### 8 responses to “JFK Calc: Questions on the Spreadsheet Analysis”

1. April 9, 2014 at 8:12 pm

Good rebuttal — right to the point and very easy to read. I sent you a few emails — your earlier statistical work in 2012 is related to your work here. Great crimes demand even more criminality.

Is a shadow government behind JFK’s murder and America’s greatest coup detat? Are those influences still around today?

Did the criminal cabal behind Herbert Walker/Prescott Bush/George I & II benefit? The walker/bush clan attempted a coup against FDR:

Are they now committing bloodless coups by stealing elections?

http://www.hermes-press.com/criminal_vote.htm

http://www.hermes-press.com/criminal_vote2.htm

We know that the bush family fortune did not come from oil — it came from the Nazis — the underwrote Adolph Hitler and financed his war machine.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar

The koch brother’s inherited wealth has Nazi origins too — and joseph stalin to boot?

http://unknownjournal.wordpress.com/2010/10/06/%E2%96%BC-report-the-kochs-their-nazi-past-american-oil-the-foundation-of-republican-ideology/

Is there a JFK connection and if so, what does this mean today?

2. April 25, 2014 at 6:41 pm

Interesting numerical take on the case. I second Badger’s comment “Are those influences still around today?” http://www.talkigy.com/chat/jfk-coup

3. April 25, 2014 at 10:01 pm

I think depending on the timing, you should also include cancer in this analysis. One of the better theories as to WHY JFK was killed is that he was about to blow the whistle on the research into weaponizing the cancer-causing SV40 virus that was distributed to over 90 million Americans in tainted polio vaccinations. Supposedly while the secret program to try to cure this virus before cancer rates skyrocketed failed, the weaponization program succeeded in creating a variant that kills in 21 days, which given to several key witnesses and attempts were made to give it to Castro.

• April 26, 2014 at 8:02 pm

Cancer is included..see Ruby, etc.

4. May 9, 2016 at 11:58 pm

Nice piece – I am thankful for the analysis – Does anyone know if my assistant could grab a blank FRB 500 Form URLA PE document to use ?

Richard Charnin's Blog

JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud Analysis