Reclaiming Science: the JFK Conspiracy

24 Oct

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

Kindle version

Warren Commission defenders and the Corporate Media avoid the evidence and continue to promote the bogus Single Bullet Theory, claiming that Oswald was the lone shooter, despite overwhelming evidence that he was not on the 6th floor of the Texas Book Depository. In fact, he was photographed standing on the first floor watching the motorcade.

The mainstream media has lost all credibility and must be considered complicit in the ongoing 50 year cover-up.

The 1973 film Executive Action disclosed that an actuary engaged by the London Sunday Times calculated a one in 100,000 trillion probability of eighteen material JFK-related witness deaths in the three years following the assassination. The calculation was mathematical proof of a conspiracy. After all, a professional actuary who has passed difficult mathematical exams would be expected to come up with a good estimate of the odds; that is what he does for a living.

In 1978 the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) dismissed the actuary’s odds, stating the odds were invalid because the universe of witnesses was “unknowable”. But there were 552 Warren Commission witnesses and approximately five hundred others who were sought to testify at the Garrison trial, Church senate hearings and the HSCA. The HSCA did not consider unnatural deaths which comprised the majority of suspicious deaths; it noted just 21 suspicious deaths. But when there were at least 122 by 1978. The actuary’s identity and methodology was never revealed.

In 1989 Jim Marrs published Crossfire in which he listed 103 convenient JFK-related deaths. Along with Jim Garrison’s On the Trail of the Assassins, Crossfire was the basis for Oliver Stone’s historic JFK. In 2003, using Marrs’ list, I calculated the probability of at least 15 unnatural witness deaths in the first year, essentially confirming the actuary’s calculation. My analysis is referenced in Marrs’ updated 2013 edition of Crossfire.

In 2014, I wrote Reclaiming Science: the JFK Conspiracy. It is a comprehensive statistical and reference analysis of unnatural JFK-related deaths, Dealey Plaza eyewitness observations, medical, acoustic and photographic evidence. Reclaiming Science challenges the corporate media to let scientific and JFK experts present the facts and debate Warren Commission apologists in full public view.



Posted by on October 24, 2014 in JFK


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

16 responses to “Reclaiming Science: the JFK Conspiracy

  1. Ramon F Herrera

    October 25, 2014 at 8:45 pm

    “They claim that Oswald was the lone shooter, despite overwhelming evidence that he was not on the 6th floor of the Texas Book Depository but rather in front on the first floor watching the motorcade.”

    Not even Lee claims that, esteemed David.

    Note: I am on the CT side, and believe that mathematics is essential to solve this. I wish somebody did the Physics work required to show that the “jet effect” and “random neurological impulses” theories are impossible. The only remaining explanation -the kinematic force- kept the Z-film in a safe box for more than a decade.

    • Richard Charnin

      October 27, 2014 at 7:47 am

      Lee told Captain Will Fritz that he was “out front with Bill Shelley”. It’s in the Fritz notes which were not released until 1993.I wonder why.

    • Ramon F Herrera

      December 28, 2014 at 11:40 am

    • Ramon F Herrera

      January 2, 2015 at 8:10 am

      Richard: I would like to add these 2 contradictory statements by Mr. Gary Mack:

      (1) First, he has no clue about statistical distribution and says “what people don’t tell you about this theory is that those people died years later, and that the conspirators must have had incredible patience to let them live so long and then, all of sudden […]”

      Fast Forward to 3:40′

      (2) “I just want to know what happened.”

      Fast Forward to 7:05′

      • Richard Charnin

        January 5, 2015 at 4:07 pm

        He works hard for the money.

      • Ramon F Herrera

        January 5, 2015 at 4:42 pm

        [Richard:] “He works hard for the money”


        True, but having said that, the presence of a deep voice, physically intimidating, former wrestler, seems to bring sincerity to Mr. Mack. 🙂

        (Minute 18)

  2. David Medici

    October 26, 2014 at 8:39 pm

    Mr. Charnin, a friend of mine, upon reading your post on unnatural deaths at my suggestion, responded as follows:

    “Current thoughts on the issue:

    1. The article pre-supposes that we have “good data” to work with, meaning that data contains in death certificates are accurate. I am not entirely convinced this is true. Case in point (just doing a simple Google search that found an article which states):

    Robert Anderson, chief of mortality statistics for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said some doctors don’t grasp the significance of death certificates. “I’ve had instances where the physician just doesn’t understand the importance of what they’re writing down,” said Anderson, who trains doctors in how to certify deaths. “I’m appalled when I hear that.” State officials in Washington and Maryland routinely check the veracity of death certificates, but most states rarely do so, Anderson said.

    2. The blog post started with the following: “This post will graphically prove a JFK conspiracy based on a probability analysis ….” What the numbers may indicate is that there is a correlation. With deep set theory, there may be an underlying set that has much more to do with the suspicious deaths. Or even, perhaps, we should not compare all people to these people. If we considered the Clinton administration, for instance, the percentage of number of deaths may be more inline. Bottom line is that the logic is fallacious.

    I am not saying that it is not interesting or that there is a conspiracy here, but I am saying that the graphical representation of unnatural deaths does not indicate there was a conspiracy in this case.”

    I would be most interested in your comments.

    • Richard Charnin

      October 27, 2014 at 7:41 am

      Does not indicate a conspiracy? That is quite a statement – and reveals your naivete regarding the data and the analysis. A minimum of 78 officially ruled unnatural deaths in a group of approximately 1400 JFK-related individuals over a 15 year time period is not indicative of a conspiracy? The probability of that occurrence is 2.76E-62 (1 in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion) based on the distribution of the 78 unnatural causes of death. Do the math yourself. Here is the calculation:

      The official,ruled causes of death are confirmed; the unnatural and natural mortality rates from 1963-78 are public information. The Poisson distribution is the accepted, standard function used to calculate the probability of rare events (e.g. homicides, accidents, suicides). Note that the official number of homicides (34) from the universe of 1400, must be much lower than the true number. This is due to the fact that the number of officially ruled deaths caused by accident, suicide, heart attack and sudden cancer are much higher than the respective statistically expected numbers based on published mortality rates for the given period. Probabilities are calculated for both official and estimated actual true causes of death.

      The various witness groups all point to one conclusion: the odds are astronomical there was a cleanup operation (i.e. a conspiracy). The actuary engaged by the London Times in 1967 was correct; the odds of 18 material witness deaths (thirteen unnatural) in the three years following the assassination is 100,000 trillion to one. But there were at least 40 unnatural deaths in the three year period.

      You can view the data and calculations in JFK Calc. I challenge your friend to refute them.

  3. Kazik

    December 25, 2014 at 12:59 pm

    Mr Charnin, I just finished reading your book. Good job for several reasons. I like science and am interested in JFK subject. I suggest that in next editions you illustrate small probabilities not just in numbers but in terms of grains of sand on the Earth, 10 Earths etc, 100 Earths, etc. It would be easier for a reader to understand the magnitude of such probability if (for instance) you state that a given probability is equal to choosing a one grain of sand from 100 Earths. You could start with page 9 by introducing Earth scale there. Most people do not have a good understanding of number of stars in our visible universe. I think that there is a typo on page 178 (answer to quiz question 11 should be 11a (not 11c). Can you explain calculations for question 11 on page 182 (at least problem)? In addition, Can you explain graph on your book’s cover page (calculations behind it). You can reply to my email as well. Thanks, Kazik

    • Richard Charnin

      December 28, 2014 at 8:50 am


      Thanks for your comments. You caught a few typos.

      1- Typo. The correct answer is 11a. The expected number E of unnatural deaths in T years among N individuals given mortality rate R: E = N*T*R

      2- I mention the grains of sand on earth; stars in the universe on page 25. Will consider your suggestion

      3- The graph on the cover displays probabilities of unnatural deaths for 1500, 2000, 2500 witnesses over 15 years for 1 to 53 witnesses (x-axis).

      4-Another typo: The probability P that at least 18 of 552 Warren Commission witnesses would die unnaturally in the period from 1964-78 is P= Poisson(17,2.36,true)= 8.8E-11 = 1 in 11 billion
      E= N*P*R = 2.36= 552*15*0.000285

      • Kazik

        December 28, 2014 at 2:10 pm

        Thanks for reply. I would like more details for:

        3. For example, For 21 witnesses please provide exact formula/calculations showing probabilities (~7%, ~14%, ~15%). The only formula in your book is E^n * exp (-E) / n!
        I have difficulty to get such results

        4. How do you calculate Poisson(n,E, true)?
        It is my understanding that Poisson (n, E, false)=E^n * exp (-E) / n!
        Poisson (n, E, true)=?
        Again, I would like formula for Poisson(17,2.36,true)= 8.8E-11

        Thanks, Kazik

  4. Richard Charnin

    December 28, 2014 at 2:50 pm


    You will have to check out the Poisson function yourself.
    There are two types of calculations:
    1. Calculate the probability of EXACTLY n unnatural deaths in a group of N.
    PROB= POISSON (n, N*T*R), false)
    2. Calculate the probability of AT LEAST n unnatural deaths in a group of N (cum).
    PROB= POISSON (n-1, N*T*R), true)

    You must distinguish between the exact and cumulative probabilities.
    The formula is for exactly n deaths.
    But we need the probability of at least n deaths.

    For example, say n=5.
    To get the probability of at least n = 5 deaths,
    Prob (n>4) = 1-prob(n=0)- prob (n=1) -prob (n=2) – prob (n=3)- prob (n=4)

    So you have to do the calculation for n=0,1,2,3,4

    • Kazik

      December 28, 2014 at 3:24 pm

      Thanks for explanation. So your graph is for cumulative probabilities? That is, for n>25 (at least) the cumulative probability for N=2500 is ~16%?

      • Richard Charnin

        December 28, 2014 at 3:35 pm

        No, the probability is 16% for EXACTLY n=25 unnatural deaths out of N=2500 witnesses over 15 years..

      • Kazik

        December 28, 2014 at 4:42 pm

        ok. NTR=4.7625 (2500*15*0.000127), Poisson (25, 4.76, false)=4.81E-11? not 0.16

  5. Kazik

    January 6, 2015 at 8:55 pm

    Richard, Can you explain why my calculations for NTR=4.7625 (2500*15*0.000127), Poisson (25, 4.76, false)=4.81E-11 differ from yours (0.16). I just want to learn more about such statistics. I want to better understand your graph.


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: