These Lone Nutters “reviewed” my book on Amazon. They all gave it one star. No surprise there; I must be doing something right. The LNs achieved their goal of getting the average Amazon rating down. But their “reviews” gave me an opportunity to expose them in my replies.
Compare their comments below to the five star reviews.
Caution – Selection Bias At Work
Henry Sienzant “We’re really in nut country now, Toto”on March 12, 2015
Anyone who thinks Richard Charnin has established anything needs to consider that his list has a selection bias at work. It’s akin to looking at an obituary page of the NY Times and asking “what are the odds that these people on this page would all die within a day or two of each other?” The odds, calculated beforehand, are miniscule. The odds, calculated after the fact, are 100%, because we already know all of them are dead.
Wait for the bargain bin if you really want to read this book
Steve Roe on March 31, 2015
Refuse to read this book, knowing the author’s serious lack of research and knowledge of the JFK assassination. Here is his fan base that inflate his reviews. […]
Bernadette Hackett on March 4, 2015
Too much in the statistical bend.
Junk Science (sans the Science)
Mark Ulrik on November 27, 2014
I would advise against buying this book unless you have a perverse fascination with poorly applied logic and math. Let the following nugget from the author’s blog suffice.
=== Quote Begin ===
Researcher Harold Feldman wrote that of 121 eyewitnesses: 51 (42%) said shots came from the Grassy Knoll area, 32 from the TSBD, and 38 had no opinion. http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/12th_Issue/51_wits.html
Given P = 0.42 is probability of a witness being correct in stating that shots came from the Knoll, then the probability PM = 0.58 = 1-.42 that the witness was mistaken. The joint probability PA that ALL 51 witnesses were mistaken and there was NOT a Grassy Knoll shooter is 0.58 to the 51st power.
PA = 0.58^51 = 8.6E-13 = 0.000000000000861 or of 1 in 1,161,909,568,739 or 1 in 1.16 trillion.
=== Quote End ===
It’s certainly not a “given” that P is probability of a particular answer being “correct.” The 0.42 figure is nothing more than the probability of a random witness giving the author the answer he’s looking for. The 0.58^51 figure is the probability of repeating the experiment (asking random witnesses) 51 times and not getting the preferred answer even once. How is this supposed to “prove” anything meaningful? We already knew that – if you ask a lot of people – odds are you’ll eventually get the answer you’re looking for.
Don’t waste your money
Norman Logsdon “movie lover”on December 3, 2014
This book is bogus from the on-set. Lee Oswald was not on the street watching the motorcade. The man misidentified as Oswald is Billy Lovejoy and various people have identified him. I don’t need to read anymore to know this book is worthless. Don’t waste your money.
Reclaiming $5.95 – Mathematical/Logical Theorem
John G. Jazwiec on January 5, 2015
I can sum up the entire book in a paragraph. This is not to say the author is wrong. It’s only to say that it is redundant, defensive and didn’t have enough new material to warrant a book costing $5.95.
Garbage In, Garbage Out
Wisconsin Badger on November 30, 2014
The author seems to to understand the concept of “garbage in, garbage out”. This is a Psuedo-scientific account. Not worth the time or money.
New Lipstick… Same Old Pig
Mike Davinroy on November 4, 2014
Over many years I have read, and enjoyed well over a hundred books on the JFK assassination. I’ve found the vast majority of them to have something new or interesting. Perhaps this book would have been interesting in 1973, but much of what the author states in this “book” are long ago worn out theories that have been largely discounted by most serious researchers of the assassination. In my opinion this author abandons common sense and puts far too much faith in mathematics. It’s been said, “if your only tool is a hammer, you look at every problem as a nail.” This author needs more tools.
This author’s statistics “prove” absolutely nothing about the existence of some assassination conspiracy, and if he were as smart as he thinks he is, he would have surely submitted his material for scientific peer review long ago if he had any hope of gaining credibility. Instead, he blames the media and people equipped with common sense for not believing his preposterous conclusions. As much as I admire serious assassination researchers and personally believe it’s theoretically conceivable that there was some type of limited assassination conspiracy (although I know of no defensible evidence pointing to such) – this type of nonsense only hurts the cause of honest conspiracy research.