RSS

JFK: Exposing another disinformationist on Facebook

14 Jan

Richard Charnin
Jan.14, 2015
Updated: Jan.19, 2015
JFK Blog Posts

Look inside the book:
Reclaiming Science:The JFK Conspiracy

In response to my Facebook post exposing Carmine Savastano, another troll pops up. They are like a swarm of bees. Add this one to the list: John Iacoletti. He exhibits all the trademarks of a troll:
1) ASK THE SAME QUESTIONS OVER AND OVER AGAIN ALTHOUGH THEY HAVE ALREADY BEEN ANSWERED AND 2) MAKE INANE COMMENTS WHICH DISPLAY A STUNNING IGNORANCE OF THE FACTS.

John Iacoletti surely knows that he is just a shill. He parrots John McAdams, the Godfather of Warren Commission defenders and disinformationists (see below). Everything he said has been refuted and covered. He is just copying from the Lone Nutter playbook. That is obvious. It is truly amazing that he would make such a fool of himself with his outrageous comments.

This guy cannot be a quantitative programmer. He does not understand 1) the difference between a poll and descriptive mortality statistics from official sources, 2) does not know that heart attacks and cancer can be induced, 3) does not realize that national historical mortality rates are age-adjusted, 4) does not comprehend the mathematical fact that tripling the NATIONAL homicide rate (since 51 of 122 suspicious JFK-related deaths took place in Dallas) has virtually no effect on the probability of 34 JFK-related homicides in a 15 year period. IT IS STILL 1 IN 13,000 TRILLION.

Iacoletti has REVEALED himself in no uncertain terms.He is the POSTER CHILD for JFK disinformationists. The actual Facebook thread follows this summary.

John, you have just revealed your agenda to disinform and discredit. As you claim to be engineer at IBM, I would not expect that from you. Let’s take them one at a time.

1- You question ONE of 122 suspicious deaths and really believe that discredits my analysis? In choosing Benavides, you give yourself away; that is the one death that all Lone Nutters refer to in their feeble attempts to discredit my analysis. You are using the same playbook. I got Benavides from the Penn Jones original list – and he was on Jim Marrs list of 103 names in the original “Crossfire”. Even if they were wrong about the date of Benavides’ death, it is just ONE name out of 122 that you and your ilk keep bringing up. Very telling.

2- You claim that I do not take age into account. I gave you a link to National mortality rates for various causes of death 1963-1978 which are clearly identified as age-weighted. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc&usp=sheets_web#gid=41

And here are the 122 deaths – including the age of the suspicious heart attack victims. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc&usp=sheets_web#gid=55

3- You ask: how can a heart attack be induced? Are you that naive? Simple. By suffocation with a pillow – and other means. http://www.globalresearch.ca/cia-targeted-assassinations-by-induced-heart-attack-and-cancer/5326382

4. You ask: how can cancer be injected? Unbelievable. Have you read “Me and Lee”? Are you aware that humans were used as guinea pigs and injected with cancer viruses developed to kill Fidel Castro? Are you aware that Jack Ruby claimed he was injected with cancer a few days after he was granted a new trial? And that he died 29 days later due to cancer?

5. You ask: “Why do you assume that JFK witnesses as a group are a representative sample of the population and can be compared directly to total US mortality schedules? For example it’s not that remarkable that mobsters are murdered at a greater rate than the general population, whether they have anything to do with JFK or not. It’s not that notable that elderly people have accidents and heart attacks at a rate higher than the general population. There is very little age info in your tables”.

That is a canard. You failed to read the post. The victims ranged from the 20s to the 60s. I gave the ages of the heart attack victims. Billy Lovelady died of a heart attack at age 41. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc&usp=sheets_web#gid=1

So you are saying that the suspicious deaths of 7 top FBI officials (5 heart attacks, 2 accidents) in a 6 month period in 1977 who were due to testify at HSCA was just a 1 in 200 trillion coincidence? https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/10/01/jfk-witness-deaths-7-fbi-officials-due-to-testify-athet-hsca/

I provided the link to the source data for age-weighted mortality rates from the U.S. National Center for Health Statistics, but you did not bother to look at the spreadsheet: I gave you the mortality rates for the general population and multiplied by 3 to account for the fact that over 50 of the 122 witnesses died in the Dallas area which has a higher death rate then the general population. Even after TRIPLING THE NATIONAL HOMICIDE RATE, the probability of 34 homicides in fifteen years among the 122 witness is 7.6E-17 or 1 in 13,000 trillion. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc&usp=sheets_web#gid=74

I even gave you a spreadsheet to calculate the probabilities yourself by inputting mortality rates (R), number of unnatural deaths (n) for a selected number of witnesses (N) and time period (T): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc&usp=sheets_web#gid=78

Your repeated questions and comments indicate BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that you are just another sophisticated troll with an agenda. I know that you are not stupid. I doubt that you are ignorant. BUT YOU ARE NOT A SERIOUS SEEKER OF THE TRUTH. YOUR COMMENTS AND REPEATED QUESTIONS WERE MEANT TO DISCREDIT MY WORK. I HAVE RESPONDED ACCORDINGLY.

John replied:
Richard’s methodology is flawed. He’s taking a list of 122 “suspicious” deaths that he got from elsewhere, without doing any verification or validation of any kind (the presence of Eddie Benavides on his list proves that), and comparing the causes of death with mortality rates for the entire United States. He has no inkling that his 122 is not a representative sample of the United States. He doesn’t adjust or account for age, weight, smoking, lifestyle, diet, occupation, and other known factors for cancer and heart disease in any way. He assumes without evidence that it’s even possible to induce a sudden cancer death via injection, or to induce a heart-attack in such a way that it’s undetectable. He doesn’t consider, for example, that mobsters might be murdered at a higher rate that the general population. He just waves his hand and his equations and declares therefore that X number of these people were murdered because statistics. That is junk science at its finest. Then when questions like this are raised, he doesn’t attempt in any way to address the issues, answer the questions, or incorporate feedback in any way, like a real scientist would do. Instead he insults you, calls you a troll, and avoids the questions. He then will challenge you to buy his book, which he is busy self-promoting all over Facebook pretty much every day.

Richard Charnin:
Not a representative sample? Wow. Of course not. It is a selected group of JFK-related witnesses who died unnaturally. This is not a poll. You have completely ignored everything I posted regarding mortality rates. I thought you were a smart guy. Was I wrong.

I suggest you take this up with Richard Belzer (“Hit List”), Jim Marrs (“Crossfire”), Craig Roberts (“JFK: The Dead Witnesses” and Philip Stahl (Brane-space). Penn Jones (“Forgive my Grief 1-4”) is turning over in his grave. You have just made a total fool of yourself with that asinine response.

You still believe heart attacks and cancers cannot be induced after I have showed you the evidence? You are amazingly obtuse in your arrogance and self-induced ignorance. You want me to verify 122 deaths by providing official documents? You really think that anyone would respond to that ridiculous request? I ALREADY GAVE YOU THE OFFICIAL, RULED CAUSES OF 122 DEATHS. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#gid=1
BUT YOU DISMISS IT IN WITH YOUR ARROGANCE.

YOU ARE LOOKING TO WASTE MY TIME WITH SUCH AN ASININE DEMAND. YOU ARE SO TRANSPARENT.
YOU ARE INSULTING THE INTELLIGENCE OF EVERYONE READING YOUR TRIPE. You are now officially an INTERNET LAUGHINGSTOCK just like your mentor John McAdams whose DISINFORMATIONIST PLAYBOOK you are shamelessly using..

…………………………………………………………

Original Facebook Thread

John Iacoletti
I totally see the rantings of a trolling disinformationist. But his name is Charnin. It seems like you don’t understand probability any better than the appropriate use of your caps lock key. Also, why are you posting this diatribe here to a person who isn’t even a member of this group?
Yesterday at 1:05pm · Edited · Like · 1

Richard Charnin
John Iacoletti, you have just revealed your ignorance and complicity. You call ME a disinformationist? Now I pass the challenge on to you. Go ahead, debunk my work with specifics. I dare you to even try..
Yesterday at 1:22pm · Like

Richard Charnin
GO AHEAD John Iacoletti, DO IT! No generalities, I want to see you SPECIFICALLY comment on the CONTENT. Your comment about the CAPS lock is PATHETIC. It is typical drivel from one who does not care to deal with the CONTENT.
Yesterday at 1:27pm · Edited · Like

John Iacoletti
I noticed you didn’t answer the question about why you’re badmouthing a person who isn’t even in this group. Where can I find your raw data on the people whose deaths you studied (names, ages, causes of death)? I don’t see this in your spreadsheets or articles….See More
Yesterday at 1:28pm · Like

Richard Charnin
I did not post this TO a person. I posted this to everyone else to show how pathetic disinformationist trolls are. Sorry if you object.
Yesterday at 1:29pm · Like

John Iacoletti
…and while I’m here, does anybody really care how Richard’s ebook is ranking every single day?
Yesterday at 1:31pm · Edited · Like

John Iacoletti
I think perhaps your biggest flaw is your assumption that JFK witnesses as a group are a representative sample of the population and can be compared directly to total US mortality schedules.
Yesterday at 1:37pm · Like

Richard Charnin
You will have to research that for yourself. You did not read my posts. You can start with these books: Hit list (Richard Belzer, David Wayne), Crossfite (Jim Marrs), They Killed Our President (Jesse Ventura, Dick Russel,David Wayne), Dead Witnesses (Roberts), Who’s Who in the JFK Assassination (Benson), Forgive my Grief (Penn Jones), JFK Index (John Simkin). I give all the links in my blog posts or in the JFK Calc spreadsheet. Now go ahead and try your best to defend Carmine.
Yesterday at 1:51pm · Edited · Like

Richard Charnin
People want know which are the most popular conspiracy books. I gave them the list. Sorry if you object. I apologize for including my book on the list.
Yesterday at 1:43pm · Like · Remove Preview

Richard Charnin
And while I’m at it, does anybody give a damn what you think?
Yesterday at 1:44pm · Like

John Iacoletti
“Research it yourself” is a copout. You’re publishing summary tables without disclosing your raw data. Why should anybody take your word for it? That’s bad science, Richard.
Yesterday at 1:45pm · Like

Richard Charnin
But I will defend the right of you to make a fool of yourself, just like Carmine and 5 LNs who gave my book a one star rating on Amazon. Why don’t you join the crew?

John Iacoletti
Not even attempting to address questions or objections to your method is bad science, Richard. Why don’t you answer the questions? Arrogance is not an answer. Changing the subject is not an answer.
Yesterday at 1:54pm · Like · 1

Delbert Grady
This is why we can’t have nice things…
21 hrs · Like

Freda Ann Dillard
Richard, I find it interesting that you resort to name-calling for anyone who questions you. For that reason alone, I have no interest in anything you have to say just as I do with anyone who resorts to such behaviour.
18 hrs · Edited · Like

Richard Charnin
Freda Ann Dillard, fine with me. You have no idea of what I have had to put up with through the years of being attacked unfairly. So you have no justification in making that statement without knowing the facts. Name-calling? Come on.
18 hrs · Like

Richard Charnin
Freda Ann Dillard, just who started the ad hominems in this thread?
18 hrs · Like

Freda Ann Dillard
You know what they say…. if you can’t stand the heat….
18 hrs · Like

Richard Charnin
John Iacoletti, you say I did not provide the raw data? Are you serious? What raw data? You sound just like Carmine.Here is all the data, here are all the calculations. And I even tripled the mortality rates for the probability calculations considering…See More
18 hrs · Edited · Like

Richard Charnin
And here are the national mortality rates. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005124.html
Deaths by Major Causes, 1960–2011
INFOPLEASE.COM
18 hrs · Like · Remove Preview

Richard Charnin
The national rates are used to calculate the weighted average JFK mortality rates right here…
18 hrs · Like

Richard Charnin
Freda Ann Dillard, oh I can take the heat, all right. I WELCOME A SINCERE DESIRE TO DISCUSS MY DATA/ ANALYSIS RATIONALLY.- LIKE THE DATA AND CALCULATIONS IN THESE SUMMARY TABLES…
17 hrs · Edited · Like

Richard Charnin
This is how the probability of JFK-related unnatural deaths is calculated: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisson_distribution

John Iacoletti
Thanks for the pointer to the other tabs. You haven’t addressed my objections, which I will state again. Why do you assume that JFK witnesses as a group are a representative sample of the population and can be compared directly to total US mortality…See More
2 hrs · Like

Richard Charnin
You have not understood what I just said. I calculated probabilities using U.S. mortality rates and TRIPLED those rates to account for the fact that 51 of the 122 suspicious deaths occurred in Dallas, which had double or triple the homicide rate of th…See More
1 hr · Like

Richard Charnin
You can do the calculations yourself using this sheet….:
1 hr · Like

Richard Charnin
And here are the calculations for various witness groups over various time periods for official and true causes of death. That is a mouthful, yes? So take a close look. I hope that all this puts your mind at ease. I HAVE DONE THE WORK AND CONSIDERED VIRTUALLY ALL OF THE MATHEMATICAL VARIABLES.
1 hr · Like

Richard Charnin
John Iacoletti, I have been writing math models all my life. I have three degrees in applied mathematics. Began my career as aa numerical control engineer in the aerospace industry, as a “Quant” on Wall Street working in investment banking/corporate f…See More
1 hr · Edited · Like

Freda Ann Dillard
Buddy Walthers was killed in the line of duty while trying to apprehend an escaped convict. Another deputy was also wounded.
So, my question is how does this relate to JFK?
1 hr · Like

Richard Charnin
You are assuming that the murder had nothing to do with Walther’s knowledge and activities in regard to Ruth Paine and Roger Craig’s testimony. He confirmed Craig’s testimony when he went out to Paine’s house and saw the Rambler. As you know, Roger…See More

Freda Ann Dillard
My dad was a Dallas police officer who had his own role that weekend. He had a heart attack in 1977. He survived which would, thankfully, make him ineligible for this study. He’s also had a brain tumor. Maybe this was all part of the conspiracy also.
1 hr · Like

Freda Ann Dillard
Richard, I assume nothing. I look at the facts without trying to make it fit my own agenda… that is if I had an agenda.
1 hr · Like

Richard Charnin
http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKindex.htm
The Assassination of John F. Kennedy
Read the essential details about the Assassination of John F. Kennedy. Main index menu covering the Important…
SPARTACUS-EDUCATIONAL.COM
1 hr · Like · Remove Preview

Richard Charnin
That statement about your father was uncalled for and reeks of misplaced sarcasm. I stand by my work. If you have problems with it, I say, go ahead, refute the list of 122 witnesses (and that is a conservative number). And the associated probability calculations.
1 hr · Edited · Like

Freda Ann Dillard
As I tell my clients who ask, yes, there are some questionable deaths, but if you were alive on November 22, chances are pretty good that you are going to die sometime after.
1 hr · Like

Freda Ann Dillard
Richard, you and others expect folks to accept what y’all say just because you say it and, if we don’t, we are made fun of, called names and ridiculed. You have posted so many links here to prove your point that it’s ridiculous. Thank goodness, I have tougher skin than that but then I’m not looking for fame and glory, not to mention that I suck at math.
———————————————————-

Note: several comments followed after I saved the above. The administrator deleted the full thread.

Sensitivity analysis probabilities:10-50 unnatural deaths; 1500-2500 witnesses.

IACOLETTI AND JOHN MCADAMS: TWO PEAS IN A POD.

John Iacoletti appears to be an avid follower of John McAdams. He has apparently copied McAdam’s talking points which I debunked in this post: https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/07/08/debunking-john-mcadams-debunking-of-jim-marrs-witness-list/

1. MORTALTY RATES
John McAdams, you will never give it up will you? You keep stating things that are absolutely untrue. Like I don’t show the mortality statistics I use. You would see them if you clicked on the link that I provided. Here it is again:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc…

You don’t do your homework, John. Here is the source link for the rates which appear on the sheet whose link I just gave you.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005124.html

2. JM- AGE-ADJUSTED?
OK, Information Please almanac was your source of “expected” deaths. But for the numbers to have any meaning, they would have to be adjusted for age and sex.

2. RC
They were age-adjusted, John. Read the heading. But you fail to comprehend that unnatural deaths are not age-adjusted. A bullet does not know the age of its victim

3. JM- DANGEROUS OCCUPATIONS?
Also, they would need to take into account the fact that a fair number
of people on the list were in more-dangerous-than-average occupations (cops, mobsters).

RC
That is a canard John, Do you mean the 7 top FBI officials who all died within a 6 month period in 1977 just before their scheduled HSCA testimony? Five supposedly died by heart attacks and two by accidents (gunshot mistaken for a deer and a fall)? Very dangerous occupations? What a joke.

I’ve got you dead to rights, John. Now you resort to a pathetic statement about Simkin’s list when they are all relevant. YOU MUST DISPARAGE EVERYONE IN YOUR UNENDING DISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN. That the names are relevant is obvious to everyone but you, John.

4. JM – AMATEUR?
Huff and puff all you want. It can’t conceal the fact that you are an amateur, who just doesn’t know what he’s doing.

RC
I’m an amateur? With 3 degrees in mathematics and a lifetime of experience creating quantitative solutions in aerospace/defense (Grumman, Kollsman Instrument), Wall Street Investment Banking (Merrill Lynch White Weld, Smith Barney, E.F. Hutton and a number of foreign banks (Bank of Montreal, Nomura Securities, Algemene Bank) and consumer products manufacturers (Pepsi, Kodak, ATT, etc.). I know who you are. Do you know who I am?

I COULD GO ON AND ON. I CONFIRMED THE LONDON TIMES ACTUARY’S CALCULATION FOR 18 WITNESS DEATHS IN THREE YEARS. THAT’S WHY THE INSURANCE COMPANY PAID HIM THE BIG BUCKS. THAT’S WHY HE PASSED HIS ACTUARIAL EXAMS. OF COURSE, WE NOW KNOW THAT THERE WERE OVER 40 UNNATURAL DEATHS IN THE FIRST THREE YEARS.
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/…/jfk-witness-deaths-w…/

I CHALLENGE YOU TO FIND ONE PROFESSIONAL MATHEMATICIAN OR ACTUARY WHO IS PREPARED TO REFUTE MY ANALYSIS.

JM
It’s not my job to find a professional to refute you. Common sense is enough.

RC
Not your job?. I know, your job is to obfuscate. But why don’t you mosey on down to the Math department at Marquette and ask them to look at my work? And/or contact your buddies Bugliosi and Posner? And/or your life insurance company? Common sense would tell you to do that – if you really want to refute my work.

5. JM – PEER REVIEW?
But if you were any sort of intellectually serious person, you would submit your work to a scholarly journal, and see if it could pass peer review. Deep down, I think you know it could not, and would be laughed at by editors and reviewers.

RC
I have submitted my work to millions. So far, NOT A SINGLE PERSON, INCLUDING YOU, HAS REFUTED IT. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO IS BEING LAUGHED AT. MEANWHILE, HERE ARE SOME TABLES AND GRAPHICS YOU SHOULD MULL OVER.
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/…/jfk-witness-deaths-g…/

6. JM – WITNESS CONNECTIONS?
To actually do the probabilities that Charnin is claiming to do, one would need a list of people “connected to the assassination” BY OBJECTIVE CRITERIA. The fact that some buff claims they have a connection doesn’t really make them “connected.” The list so haphazard that nobody can figure out the population from which it is drawn. But that population clearly includes many thousands of people.

For example, you can get on the list for being an actual witness (but very few people on it are actual witnesses), knowing an actual witness, being part of Dallas law enforcement, being FBI, or CIA, or Secret Service, or anti-Castro Cuban, or a journalist covering the assassination, or an employee of TIME-LIFE, or having any connection at all with the mafia, or just being somebody that some buff author *suspects* of having an connection to the assassination. If *all* of these people had any knowledge dangerous to a conspiracy, that would imply a massive conspiracy that could not possibly be concealed. But the worst thing about all this nonsense is that clearly a lot of people are considered “connected” BECAUSE THEY DIED.

So of course, if one makes a list of “connected” people, and simply having died constitutes a “connection,” the list of “connected” people is going to include a lot of people who died. Charnin doesn’t understand this.

RC
OH, BOY, THE PATHETIC “SOMEONE WOULD HAVE TALKED” ARGUMENT. YOU KNOW AS WELL AS I, JOHN, THAT MANY DID. THERE HAS BEEN A MASSIVE CONSPIRACY TO HIDE THE FACTS – AND YOU ARE A BIG PART OF IT.

John, you say: “But that population clearly includes many thousands of people”. How many John? Do you have a list? Does it include George Washington and Abraham Lincoln who are among the 2479 names in the Warren Commission Index cited by Bugliosi?

The FBI said they interviewed 25,000 witnesses. The probability that 38 would be killed in 3 years is less than 1 in 10 BILLION TRILLION. The probability that 80 would be killed in 15 years is less than 1 in 2 TRILLION.

WHAT A JOKE. THEY ARE CONNECTED BECAUSE THEY DIED? THAT’S WHY THERE IS A LIST! AND WHAT YOU ARE MISSING IS THAT THE REASON THEY ARE ON THE LIST IS NOT THAT THEY DIED, BUT HOW AND WHEN THEY DIED. DUH.

OK, JOHN, GO DOWN THE LIST OF 120 SUSPICIOUS DEATHS- ONE BY ONE. TELL US WHY EACH IS NOT “CONNECTED”.

AND THEN SHOW US YOUR LIST. WHO DO YOU SAY WAS CONNECTED TO THE ASSASSINATION? GIVE US THE NAMES. DO YOU HAVE A LIST?

ALAN BELMONT
ALBERT BOGARD
Allen Sweatt
BETTY MACDONALD
BILL CHESHER
Bill Decker
BILL HUNTER
Bill Waters *
Billy Lovelady
BUDDY WALTHERS
C.D. Jackson
Carlos Prio Soccaras
CHARLES CABELL
Charles Mentesana *
Charles Murret
Charles Nicoletti
CLAY SHAW
Clayton Fowler
CLIFF CARTER
Clint “Lummie” Lewis
Clyde Johnson
Darrell W. Garner
Dave Yaras
DAVID FERRIE
DAVID MORALES *
Delesseps Morrison
Desmond Fitzgerald
Donald Donaldson
DONALD KAYLOR *
Dorothy Hunt
DOROTHY KILGALLEN
EARLE CABELL
Earle Wheeler *
Earlene Roberts
Eddie Benavides
Edward Voebel
Eladio Del Valle
Felix Rodriguez
FLORENCE SMITH
Francis G. Powers *
FRANK MARTIN
GARY UNDERHILL
GEORGE DE MORENSCHILDT
George McGann
GRANT STOCKDALE *
GUY BANISTER
HALE BOGGS
HANK KILLAM
HAROLD RUSSELL
Henry Delaune
Hiram Ingram
HUGH WARD
J. EDGAR HOOVER
J.A. Milteer
J.D. TIPPIT
J.M. ENGLISH *
JACK RUBY
JACK ZANGRETTI
JAMES CADIGAN
James Chaney
James Plumeri *
James Truitt
James Weston
JAMES WORRELL
JIM KOETHE
JIM REEVES *
Jimmy Hoffa
John Crawford
John D. Sullivan *
John Holbrook *
JOHN PAISLEY *
JOHNNY ROSELLI
Joseph C. Ayres
KAREN CARLIN
Karyn Kupcinet
Ken O’Donnell
LEE BOWERS
LEE HARVEY OSWALD
Leonard Pullin *
LISA HOWARD *
Lou Staples
LOUIS NICHOLAS *
Lucien Sarti
MAC WALLACE *
MANUEL ARTIME
Manuel Quesada
MARILYN WALLE
MARY PINCHOT MEYER
MARY SHERMAN
MAURICE GATLIN
Michael Groves *
NANCY CAROLE TYLER
Nicholas Chetta
Paul Dyer *
Paul Helliwell *
Paul Raigorodsky
Phil Geraci III (father)
Ralph Yates *
REGIS KENNEDY
Richard Cain
Robert Alan Surrey
ROBERT F. KENNEDY
ROGER CRAIG
Roland Masferrer
ROSCOE WHITE
ROSE CHERAMIE
Roy Kellerman
Sam Giancana
Sheffield Edwards
Thomas E. Davis
Thomas Karamessines
TOM HOWARD
WARREN REYNOLDS
William H. Cooper
William Harvey
William Pawley *
WILLIAM PITZER
WILLIAM SULLIVAN
WILLIAM WHALEY
Winston Scott *
Google Drive

 
6 Comments

Posted by on January 14, 2015 in JFK

 

Tags: , , ,

6 responses to “JFK: Exposing another disinformationist on Facebook

  1. John Iacoletti

    January 14, 2015 at 4:18 pm

    Richard’s methodology is flawed. He’s taking a list of 122 “suspicious” deaths that he got from elsewhere, without doing any verification or validation of any kind (the presence of Eddie Benavides on his list proves that), and comparing the causes of death with mortality rates for the entire United States. He has no inkling that his 122 is not a representative sample of the United States. He doesn’t adjust or account for age, weight, smoking, lifestyle, diet, occupation, and other known factors for cancer and heart disease in any way. He assumes without evidence that it’s even possible to induce a sudden cancer death via injection, or to induce a heart-attack in such a way that it’s undetectable. He doesn’t consider, for example, that mobsters might be murdered at a higher rate that the general population. He just waves his hand and his equations and declares therefore that X number of these people were murdered because statistics. That is junk science at its finest. Then when questions like this are raised, he doesn’t attempt in any way to address the issues, answer the questions, or incorporate feedback in any way, like a real scientist would do. Instead he insults you, calls you a troll, and avoids the questions. He then will challenge you to buy his book, which he is busy self-promoting all over Facebook pretty much every day.

     
    • Richard Charnin

      January 14, 2015 at 7:15 pm

      I will leave your utterly ridiculous comment for others to view and laugh at. It is truly entertainment value. Not even worth a response. It speaks for itself. You are not the smart guy I thought you were. Don’t bother in posting any additional outrageous comments. They will be deleted.

       
  2. John Iacoletti

    January 14, 2015 at 4:39 pm

    Richard claims:

    ” 1- You question ONE of 122 suspicious deaths and really believe that discredits my analysis? ”

    Already answered. The presence of Benavides on the list shows that you aren’t concerned with the accuracy of your input data. Garbage in, garbage out.

    Richard claims:
    ” 2- You claim that I do not take age into account. I gave you a link to National mortality rates for various causes of death 1963-1978 which are clearly identified as age-weighted. ”

    Fair enough. But of your 122 deaths, you have ages for exactly 9 people in your tables. What is your basis for comparison of the other 113? And why don’t you account for weight, sex, smoking, lifestyle, diet, occupation, and other known factors for cancer and heart disease at all? That question has been asked at least 3 times and avoided every time.

    Richard claims:
    ” 3- You ask: how can a heart attack be induced? Are you that naive? Simple. By suffocation with a pillow – and other means.
    4. You ask: how can cancer be injected? Unbelievable. Have you read “Me and Lee”? Are you aware that humans were used as guinea pigs and injected with cancer viruses developed to kill Fidel Castro? Are you aware that Jack Ruby claimed he was injected with cancer a few days after he was granted a new trial? And that he died 29 days later due to cancer? ”

    Already addressed in the Facebook thread, which you conveniently left out of this blog post. Jack Ruby also claimed that Jewish women and children were being killed in the building he was being held in. Do you believe that too?

    A person who is interested in the truth and valid science would acknowledge his flaws, not avoid, evade, insult and declare victory.

     
  3. conspiracycritic7

    January 14, 2015 at 5:57 pm

    In response to your #4, you point to Judyth Baker’s unsubstantiated claims of concocting a fast acting cancer with absolutely no proof other than her word. “Jack Ruby claimed he was injected with cancer” you say…go back and look at Jack Ruby’s 1957 mugshot and compare it to the one in 63. He went from looking like a thick neck brutish goomba, to a shadow of his former self. He likely was sick already from something, and also a paranoid schizophrenic. The mind is capable of healing body or alleviating pain. This has been proven through use of placebos in controlled testing environments. If one truly believed the opposite that they were injected with cancer and the mind believed it, in addition to all the stress and worry he was already under, it would have been a lethal combination anyway.

     
  4. John Iacoletti

    January 14, 2015 at 7:31 pm

    “Not even worth a response”…the last refuge of a scoundrel who cannot begin to defend his shoddy work from the slightest amount of critical examination.

     
    • Richard Charnin

      January 14, 2015 at 8:11 pm

      I told you John. That’s it. Anything more from you will be deleted.

       

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

 
Richard Charnin's Blog

JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud Analysis

%d bloggers like this: