Proving Election Fraud: Cumulative vote shares (2014 MD Gov.)

Proving Election Fraud: Cumulative vote shares (2014 MD Governor)

Richard Charnin
Feb.27, 2015

Look inside the books:
Reclaiming Science:The JFK Conspiracy
Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts
Proving Election Fraud: Phantom Voters, Uncounted Votes, and the National Exit Poll

In previous posts, cumulative vote share analysis (CVA) applied to the 2014 Florida, Wisconsin and South Dakota governor elections strongly indicated they were fraudulent. This is a corresponding CVA for the 2014 Maryland governor election.

These are the steps used In calculating cumulative precinct vote shares:
1- Precinct votes for selected counties are sorted in ascending order by vote size.
2- Each precinct’s votes are added to the cumulative sum of the smaller precincts.
3- Cumulative vote shares are calculated.
4- Vote shares (Y) are displayed graphically for cumulative vote totals (X).

The Law of Large Numbers (LLN) suggests that as the number of precinct votes increase, the cumulative vote share margin should approach a constant value.

Given the nature of voting patterns, one would reasonably expect that smaller (rural) cumulative vote shares would favor Republicans and larger (municipal) shares would trend to the Democrats. But due to the LLN, the vote share trend lines should be nearly parallel at 50% of the total vote.

In general, it appears that vote switching mostly occurs in the largest precincts in highly Republican counties controlled by the GOP election workers; they provide the biggest bang for the buck. Vote switching is minimal by definition in small, strong GOP counties with just a handful of Democratic votes. In the largest Democratic counties, the percentage of votes switched is low, but the number of votes switched is high.

In the Maryland race, we see the following pattern: early vote shares (3000-10000) favor the Republican. The trend initially reverses in favor of the Democrat for a short duration. But then there is a counter-intuitive upward trend in the Republican vote share as we move into the larger, presumably Democratic precincts. One would reasonably expect a flattening out of the trend lines after the initial Republican spike.

The Republican Hogan’s cumulative 2-party vote share increased from 50.3% at 25% of the total, to 51.7% at 50% and 53.6% at the final 100%. The 3.3% increase from 25% to 100% is an estimate of the percentage of votes that may have been switched on Election Day. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17SpMcLyJ0607RyasTG4tRqrFmyDEKmEG45DKGGLZFmA/edit#gid=1626337891

In each of the following elections, the cumulative vote trend moved to the GOP
-Florida: https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2015/02/11/2014-florida-governor-election-fraud-cumulative-precinct-vote-shares/
-Wisconsin: https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/12/02/11623/
-South Dakota: https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2015/01/02/south-dakota-2014-cumulative-vote-share-analysis/

Over the past ten years, I have developed a number of models for analyzing election fraud. Precinct Cumulative Vote share analysis is a recent addition to the toolkit.

-True Vote Model (TVM): plausible returning voters and current election exit poll vote shares. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/11/19/the-exit-poll-smoking-gun-how-did-you-vote-in-the-last-election/

-Exit Poll discrepancies: Probability analysis of deviations between unadjusted exit polls and the recorded vote (all exit polls are adjusted to match the recorded vote). https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/11/14/florida-2014-governor-true-voteexit-poll-analysis-indicates-fraud/

Cumulative vote shares of selected Maryland counties:
Alleghany

Anne_Arundel

Baltimore County

Baltimore City

Frederick

Harford

Howard

Montgomery

Wicomico

 

John McAdams on Philip Stahl’s review of “Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy”

John McAdams on Philip Stahl’s review of “Reclaiming Science:The JFK Conspiracy”

Richard Charnin
Feb.24, 2015

JFK Blog Posts
Twitter Chronological Links
Look inside the book:
Reclaiming Science:The JFK Conspiracy

Philip Stahl is a Physicist/Mathematician/JFK Researcher, a prolific writer on many subjects. He just wrote a very positive review of my book:http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/02/a-jfk-assassination-book-all-serious.html

John McAdams, the notorious JFK disinformationist, posted the following comment on Stahl’s review:
“No academic appointment. No job as a scientist with any reputable organization. Usually, “peer review” means reviewed by a bonafide expert for a scholarly journal. Here is what I can find on Stahl: Mr. Stahl has been an atheist for over 25 years and has written dozens of articles on atheism in major newspapers. He’s also engaged in numerous one-on-one debates with priests, ministers. He lives in Colorado and enjoys hiking, computer chess, writing science fiction and GO. And this was published on his blog, not in any reputable journal. Not even in a reputable popular outlet” https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/rcGX-ZxJKKQ
……………………………………………………………..

McAdams’ post is graphic proof that Warren Commission apologists do not do their homework, have an agenda to spread disinformation and are not interested in the truth. McAdams omits Stahl’s accomplishments and completely ignores the content of his review. And you wonder why McAdams was fired from Marquette? His post is a pure hatchet job. Classic McAdams. Who cares if Stahl is an atheist? So was Einstein. But this is the kind of garbage we have come to expect from McAdams. He is very predictable.

Stahl has written extensively on JFK: https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2015/02/13/a-physicist-mathematician-astronomer-reviews-reclaiming-science-the-jfk-conspiracy/

On his blog, Stahl notes that he has specialized in space physics and solar physics, developed the first astronomy curriculum for Caribbean secondary schools and has written twelve books – the most recent: Modern Physics: Notes, Problems and Solutions; and earlier, BEYOND ATHEISM, BEYOND GOD; Astronomy & Astrophysics: Notes, Problems and Solutions'; ‘Physics Notes for Advanced Level’ Mathematical Excursions in Brane Space; Selected Analyses in Solar Flare Plasma Dynamics; and ‘A History of Caribbean Secondary School Astronomy’ which details the background of his development and implementation of the first ever astronomy curriculum for secondary schools in the Caribbean.

Here are some of Stahl’s books that John McAdams ignores. He never read them. McAdams has plenty of time to read them now that he is no longer teaching. But he won’t because he knows he is incapable of understanding physics and math. What do you expect from a disinformationist? http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/stahlpa

Stahl posted on McAdams a long time ago:http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/13-pages-on-conspiracy-industry-and.html

“Then there is Jack Dickey’s article which mainly extols one of the top disinformationists around, Prof. John McAdams. According to Dickey’s piece, based on talking to McAdams, he is a “debunker”. Just like the guys that debunk UFOs John sees his job as debunking conspiracy theories, and hence being a proper apologist (like Vince Bugliosi) for the Warren balderdash.

Long before there was Twitter, Facebook or Blogs, there was something called Usenet where entities known as “newsgroups” sprang up to encourage debate and discussion on any number of issues, topics. I had observed McAdams putdowns in the (un-moderated) newsgroup alt. conspiracy.jfk for some months before actually engaging in a one on one exchange with him. This was concerning my REAL FAQ that I had published in the newsgroup as an antidote to a pro-lone nut FAQ by frequent poster John Locke.

In one particular confrontation, McAdams complained about my reference to Jackie “climbing over the limo trunk” in an effort to retrieve part of JFK’s blown out skull fragment (later inferred to be the Harper bone fragment retrieved by William Harper). He insisted she wasn’t “climbing over anything” to which I then said, Ok, she’s moving across it to the rear – which shows a frontal shot”. He tried to “debunk” this but a picture says a thousand words. And in my FAQ Part 5 readers can see the image for themselves.

I added more kapow to my response citing her Warren Commission Testimony (from Volume Five of the special hearings) where she says:

“You know, then, there were pictures later of me climbing out the back, but I don’t remember that at all.”

And from her secret testimony (excised from original version), op. cit., p. 16:
“I was trying to hold his hair on. But from the front there was nothing. I suppose there must have been. But from the back you could see, you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on.”

But once again, McAdams disputed my sources and said Jackie also must have been mistaken, as there was no time at which she climbed across the trunk. SO much for John’s “debunking” which is largely a matter of denying reality.

Perhaps the best information ever assembled on John McAdams (nee, “Paul Nolan”) was put together by Jim Hargrove. The basic thrust is to answer questions concerning McAdams and his background because it so much seems to fit the sort of CIA assets described in the CIA document 1035-960 wherein it specifies under subsection (3b) the objective: “to employ propaganda assets to negate and refute the attacks of the critics”. While TIME author Dickey waxes on about, oh no, move along, no CIA here with McAdams, he never does cite the CIA document that legitimized the role for assets including in Usenet newsgroups.

Hence, when McAdams blabs: “These people think the CIA cares about them. It does not!”

One is led to ask, ‘Oh really? Then how account for the CIA document that explicitly states in one primary objective: “To employ propaganda assets to [negate] and refute the attacks of the critics”.

How can this be reconciled with a guy who “just likes to brawl”? Well, if brawling consumes more time than useful communication about facts (like Jackie’s limo trunk action) and files (like Oswald’s 201-289248 CI/SIG) than one can say the objective has been achieved.

If McAdams has been a real CIA propaganda asset, it makes sense one of his first obligations would be to neutralize any outlets for serious JFK assassination discussion he doesn’t control (like his moderated newsgroup). Thus his intrusions into the un-moderated group shed definite light on his intentions. Consider, for example, this McAdams post from (John McAdams) Date: 14 Feb 1997 22:17:02 -0700:

“You buffs have been cooperating marvelously with my scheme to make this group a shambles. And you know the bizarre part? My scheme is not a secret. I have publicly announced it. I have made it perfectly obvious. I have rubbed you buffs’ noses in it. It’s blatantly obviously to everybody.”
.John

Hmmmmmm……sounds like a fuckin’ CIA asset to me.

Now, let’s clear our heads and think about this a bit: Would a normal everyday professor of Political Science be doing these things? Would he be bragging about leaving a Usenet newsgroup a “shambles”? It doesn’t add up. Bill Hargrove, in his “McAdams FAQ” provides the Charter Policy written by McAdams himself for his own moderated group. Reading its first paragraph sheds a lot of light:

CHARTER AND MODERATION POLICY
This group will be for the purpose of providing an area for serious discussion and research of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. The group will be moderated to prevent the noise and chronic personal attacks which have plagued alt.conspiracy.jfk and made it nearly useless as a vehicle for intelligent research. Questions surrounding JFK’s death have made this one of the most talked about and controversial issues of our generation. This will be the one usenet group which deals seriously with this importanttopic.

But as Hargrove observes:
“One supposes that since the noise and chronic personal attacks which have plagued the alt.conspiracy.jfk group were and are part of McAdams freely admitted plans to turn the group into a shambles, the moderated group can only be seen as his personal vehicle for selective manipulation of content”

Which is totally logical, and again, it comports with CIA doc. 1035-960! Hargrove then quotes McAdams from a letter written to The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:
“(Dr) Gary Aguilar accused me on the politics forum of being A CIA sponsored disinformationist because I was once the Marquette Official representative of the I.C.P.S.R. an utterly unspooky social science data archive.”

In truth, The ICPSR is housed in the Institute for Social Research, or ISR which itself has been documented as recipient of “spook” (e.g. CIA) research grants. They also have a webpage: http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/

Which the interested reader can explore for himself. My own take is that it could easily be a CIA (Clandestine Operations) front for psy-ops intelligence operations which could easily include anti-conspiracy propaganda. We already know that the founder of American Propaganda – Edward Bernays – was steeped in the social sciences and firmly believed the public was too irrational to entrust to its own thought and conclusions and therefore had to be manipulated toward specific directions. In his own words: “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society”

What better way to do that than from a networked academic consortium – interwoven into all the social sciences – with access to a central data clearinghouse that’s amassed everything from the latest frequency of teen pregnancies, to homicides by race or gender, or assorted other historical arcania. It’s literally a propagandist’s dream.”

 

A Physicist/ Mathematician/ Astronomer reviews “Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy”

Richard Charnin
Feb. 15, 2015
Updated: Feb.22, 2015
JFK Blog Posts
Twitter Chronological Links
Look inside the book:
Reclaiming Science:The JFK Conspiracy

A Physicist/ Mathematician/ Astronomer reviews Reclaiming Science:The JFK Conspiracy: http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/02/a-jfk-assassination-book-all-serious.html

Philip Stahl is a prolific writer who posts daily on a variety of scientific, political and other subjects. He has specialized in space physics and solar physics, developed the first astronomy curriculum for Caribbean secondary schools and has written twelve books – the most recent: Modern Physics: Notes, Problems and Solutions; and earlier, BEYOND ATHEISM, BEYOND GOD; Astronomy & Astrophysics: Notes, Problems and Solutions'; ‘Physics Notes for Advanced Level' Mathematical Excursions in Brane Space; Selected Analyses in Solar Flare Plasma Dynamics; and ‘A History of Caribbean Secondary School Astronomy’ which details the background of his development and implementation of the first ever astronomy curriculum for secondary schools in the Caribbean.

https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/12/26/jfk-mathematicianphysicist-philip-stahl-brain-space-blog/

Trolls and Disinformationists
1- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/11/top-ten-ways-to-test-conspiracy-claims.html
2- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/11/hyper-skepticism-of-conspiracy-phobics.html
3- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/10/beware-conspiracy-theorists-no-beware.html
4- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/13-pages-on-conspiracy-industry-and.html
5- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/killing-kennedy-what-it-got-wrong-pt-2.html

6- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/ny-times-reviewer-jill-abramson.html
7- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/10/author-philip-shenon-is-he-idiot-or-dupe.html
8- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/even-liberals-can-be-victims-of.html
9- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-southern-poverty-law-center-still.html
10- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-second-assassination-today-fifty.html

11- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/10/bob-schieffer-not-worthy-to-be-called.html
12- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/12/why-i-trust-oliver-stone-over-bob.html
13- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/10/larry-sabatos-new-book-does-not.html
14- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/glenn-garvin-fact-dont-matter-in-jfk.html
15- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/11/be-still-my-heart-oreilly-does-jfk.html

16- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/04/vince-bugliosis-magnificent-obsession.html
17- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/04/vince-bugliosis-magnificent-obsession_29.html
18- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/04/vince-bugliosis-magnificent-obsession_30.html
19- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/what-have-we-learned-this-past-week.html

Stahl responds to frequently asked questions on the assassination:
1- Oswald’s Background:http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/frequently-asked-questions-on-jfk.html
2- Oswald’s Sheep-Dipping:http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/frequently-asked-questions-on-jfk_10.html
3- Garrison Investigation:http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/frequently-asked-questions-on-jfk_12.html
4a- Warren Commission:http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/frequently-asked-questions-on-jfk_13.html:
4b- Warren Commission:http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/frequently-asked-questions-on-jfk_14.html
5- Bullets, Wounds:http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/frequently-asked-questions-on-jfk_15.html

6- Oswald’s Rifle and The WC Rifle Tests:http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/frequently-asked-questions-on-fhe-jfk.html
7- HSCA Investigation:http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/frequently-asked-questions-on-jfk_19.html
8- Nix and Zapruder Films and the Evidence Therein:http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/frequently-asked-questions-on-jfk_20.html
9- Earlier Plots, Designated Assassins, Oswald Double:http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/frequently-asked-questions-on-jfk_21.html
10- Media Complicity in Coverup, Gerald Posner, Vince Bugliosi:http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/frequently-asked-questions-on-jfk_22.html

Miscellaneous:
1- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/analysis-of-pixel-diffusion-in-oswald.html
2- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-pre-assassination-framing-of-lee.html
3- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-pre-assassination-framing-of-lee_1807.html
4- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/09/jfk-and-national-security-state-1.html
5- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/09/jfk-and-national-security-state-2.html
6- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/12/yes-americans-deserve-to-know-what-cia.html
7- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/dallas-city-with-death-wish-in-its-eye.html
8- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/ike-jfk-also-hostage-to-national.html
9- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/04/secret-service-scandalnot-first.html
10- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2011/10/stephen-kings-new-scifi-tale-fun-but.html
————————————————————————————-

 

2014 Florida Governor Election Fraud: Cumulative Precinct Vote Shares

2014 Florida Governor Election Fraud: Cumulative Precinct Vote Shares

Richard Charnin
Feb. 11, 2015
Updated: Feb.13, 2014

https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/my-book/

Previous posts applied cumulative vote share analysis using graphics to confirm 2014 election fraud in Wisconsin and South Dakota. This post will do the same for the Florida governor election.

Cumulative Vote shares
Precinct votes for 12 Florida counties were downloaded. The data was sorted in ascending order from the smallest to the largest precincts. In each of the 12 counties, the trend never reversed: Crist‘s vote share declined in every case.

There was a 4.25% average decline in Crist’s vote share from the 25% mark to the final (100%). The decline occurred in each of the 36 cumulative vote share observations at 50%, 75% and 100% of the total vote. The probability of ALL 36 moving in one direction (to Scott) is the same as flipping a coin 36 times and getting 36 heads! P= 0.5^36 = 1.46E-11 or 1 in 68.7 billion!

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1H3nozgY4T-rdF-RrM8rw5K_FRsoULsGDdLVYpiFVNeQ/edit#gid=1299990885

The unweighted average change in the Scott margin from the 25,000 vote mark to the final was +10.4%.

The analysis indicates that approximately 150,000 Crist votes flipped to Scott in the 12 counties which comprised about 60% of the total state vote. Assuming the same ratio in the remaining counties, we can estimate that approximately 250,000 votes were flipped. This result confirms results from Governor True Vote analysis for the 2010 and 2014 elections.

The Law of Large Numbers
Why does a baseball players batting average fluctuate less and less as the number of at bats increase? How come in coin flipping the percentage of heads approaches 50.0% as the number of flips increase? One would expect Crist’s cumulative vote share to INCREASE SLIGHTLY as PRECINCT SIZE INCREASES since the larger urban districts are usually more Democratic than the smaller rural districts. But Crist’s share decreased in all 12 counties – a counter-intuitive result.

Actual precinct voting data shows that the changes in vote shares moving in the direction of Scott are impossible statistically and demographically – indicating fraud. Cumulative vote share analysis (CVS) is a tool for uncovering the most fraudulent counties – such as Duval. The overall county results confirmed the True Vote Model (TVM) and the 2010 unadjusted exit poll.

Dade, Palm Beach and Broward are large, highly Democratic counties. The percentage vote switches from Crist to Scott from the 25,000 vote mark were 3.6%, 2.6%, -1.4%, respectively. Therefore the lines are nearly flat.

2014 was an exact match to 2010
In previous posts, we concluded that Scott stole the 2010 and 2014 elections. In 2010, Scott won the recorded vote by 49.6-48.4% (62,000 votes) or 50.59% of the 2-party vote. Sink, the Democrat, won the unadjusted exit poll by 50.8-45.4% (283,000 votes).

In 2014, Scott won the recorded vote by 48.2-47.1%. His 2-party vote share (50.58%) was within 0.01% of his 2010 (50.59%) share! Crist won the True Vote by 52.0-48.0%. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1SnErWihwCvq5puGw3sBF9E4jr585XV2NChqvxGObLAU/edit#gid=841488888

Florida 2014 Exit Poll
The poll was forced to match forced to match the bogus recorded vote by adjusting the unavailable actual exit poll results. Exit pollsters ALWAYS assume ZERO election fraud. It is standard operating procedure and has no scientific basis. They are complicit in perpetuating the fraud. The exit pollsters had to force a match to the bogus FL recorded vote in every demographic crosstab. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1SnErWihwCvq5puGw3sBF9E4jr585XV2NChqvxGObLAU/edit#gid=678958238

For example, the Party_ID crosstab had to be adjusted to an implausible Dem 31-Rep 35-Ind 33%. A plausible (conservative) 34-33-33% split results in Crist winning by 49.4-45.6%. Note that 91% of Democrats voted for Crist and 88% of Republicans voted for Scott. Crist won Independents by 46-44%. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/11/14/florida-2014-governor-true-voteexit-poll-analysis-indicates-fraud/

View the cumulative precinct votes, shares and corresponding graph for each county. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1H3nozgY4T-rdF-RrM8rw5K_FRsoULsGDdLVYpiFVNeQ/edit#gid=0

Palm Beach

Dade

Broward

 

JFK Lone Nutters and Trolls: A compendium of lies, stupidity and ignorance

JFK Lone Nutters and Trolls: A compendium of lies, stupidity and ignorance

Richard Charnin
Jan. 27, 2015

JFK Blog Posts
Look inside the book:
Reclaiming Science:The JFK Conspiracy

It is very easy to spot a JFK disinformationist/troll. They all use variations of the same Lone Nutter playbook to deceive readers and divert discussions. They ignore facts, avoid the scientific method and apply logical fallacies. This post is a work in progress which illustrates these points. Note that I have blocked a dozen Facebook trolls who are not included in the following list.

John McAdams
Falsified the testimony of Dealey Plaza witnesses on the source of the shots. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/02/26/jfk-dealey-plaza-witnesses-john-mcadams-strange-list/
McAdams was also wrong in attempting to debunk the relevance of witness deaths provided by JFK researchers Penn Jones, Sylvia Meagher, Jim Marrs, Richard Belzer, David Wayne, Craig Roberts, etc. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/07/08/debunking-john-mcadams-debunking-of-jim-marrs-witness-list/

Dale Myers
He has created three fictional accounts which he claims are scientific proofs:
1- With Malice a fraudulent attempt to prove that Oswald killed Tippit.
2- A bogus animation to prove the impossible Magic Bullet Theory.
3- An article disputing HSCA acoustic experts who proved a Grassy Knoll shooter.

Myers is easily proven to be a fraud on all three counts: https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2015/01/15/jfk-debunking-emmy-award-winning-researcher-dale-myers/

1- According to FBI agents Sibert and O’Neill who attended the autopsy, the magic bullet entered JFK’s back 5.5” below the collar and did not exit!
2- Oswald could not have shot Tippit at 1:16pm as the Warren Commission claimed. Why?Tippit was declared dead in the hospital at 1:16pm! All of the eyewitnesses heard shots no later than 1:06pm. Oswald was seen outside his apartment at 1:04pm, 0.9 miles from the shooting.
3- Based on gunshots recorded on a dictabelt at the assassination, acoustic experts calculated a ZERO probability that six shots would coincidentally syncronize with the Zapruder film:http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/10/larry-sabatos-new-book-does-not.html

Ed Cage
This Lone Nutter is relentless. He asks the same idiotic questions over and over even though they have been answered. But he ignores the evidence which proves his idiocy. For example, the magic bullet: Cage refuses to consider that FBI agents Sibert and O’Neill attended the autopy and claimed that the so-called “magic bullet” NEVER EXITED. Cage writes regarding the Dale Myers cartoon: “I have been to DP 18 to 20x with stepladder, measuring tool, camera and a wooden rifle with a scope. If you watched the first 4 min of the video I posted narrated by Peter Jennings it should make sense. If you are still doubtful let me ask you … Where do you think the ce399 exit from JFK’s throat went?”
FBI O’Neill: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMzhKy-O4T4
FBI Sibert: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDNZBfPkbPk

Zachary Jendro
He claims that in the Altgens6 photo, the black man in front of Doorman raised his arm showing the same pattern shirt as Doorman. What are the odds? Jendro will go to any (arms) length to try and debunk Judyth Baker’s pixelation analysis of Doorman’s shirt which proved he was Oswald: http://judythvarybakertruth.blogspot.com/2015/01/zachary-jendro-maybe-judyth-needs-to.html
The pixelation analysis: https://www.facebook.com/groups/Project.Innocent.Lee.Harvey.Oswald/permalink/1388580938105429/

Jendro cannot refute the Warren Commission testimony of both Lovelady and Frazier that Lovelady was standing on the steps in front of Frazier. Frazier testified that he was on the top level (first floor entrance) standing next to Sarah Stanton. Lovelady has to be the cutout figure in front.Therefore, by a simple process of elimination Oswald is Doorman standing on the top level. Judyth Baker’s pixel analysis is therefore confirmed: https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/08/07/10851/

Mike Davinroy
This charlatan posted on Facebook about a year ago. He failed to debunk my witness death analysis. Now he is on Amazon posting a “review” of my book which just reveals his ignorance. He calls my book “Lipstick on a Pig” and wrote: “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.”
A rational reader replied: You’re saying you admire serious researchers and “honest conspiracy research,” yet know of no evidence to support a conspiracy. So who are these “serious” researchers you admire? Bugliosi? McAdams? Posner?http://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-Science-Conspiracy-mathematical-disinformation/dp/1502715996/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1414159047&sr=1-1&keywords=Reclaiming+Science:The+JFK+Conspiracy&tag=amazonsearchshop-20

John Iacoletti
His claim to fame is his firm belief that heart attacks and cancers cannot be induced. He also does not comprehend that I was conservative in tripling the national homicide rate from 0.000084 to 0.000253 to calculate the probability of 34 official JFK-related homicides among 1400 witnesses from 1964-78. The conservative probability is 1 in 13000 trillion. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#gid=74

Note: the 34 official homicides were grossly understated. Official ruled accidents, suicides and heart attacks exceeded their mathematical expectation. Therefore, the difference between the official and expected numbers were most likely homicides. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2015/01/14/jfk-exposing-another-disinformationist-on-facebook/

Carmine Savastano
He claims that 122 JFK-related witness deaths are not suspicious nor verifiable.. In so doing, he disparages the many excellent JFK researchers who have published names, dates and cause of JFK-related deaths. Carmine is provably mathematically challenged since he cannot comprehend that the coroner’s reports are irrelevant. The FACT is that at least 122 of approximately 1400 JFK-related individuals died in the 1964-78 period – OF WHICH 78 WERE UNNATURAL DEATHS. The 78 officially-ruled unnatural deaths far exceeded the mathematical expectation based on the cause of death mortality rates. The probability is less than 1 in a trillion trillion. Yes, it’s hard to believe, but Carmine is really serious in demanding that I look up 122 coroner’s reports. It’s a classic red herring, and betrays an utter disregard and ignorance of actuarial mathematics. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2015/01/24/jfk-a-math-phobic-troll-claims-jfk-related-witness-deaths-are-not-suspicious/

Mark Ulrik
Mark is another Facebook troll from Denmark who tried to discredit my work a year ago. He showed up again, this time on Amazon where he gave my book a one-star review just like Davinroy. He calls it “junk Science” but like all the others, reveals his mathematical ignorance. Mark claims that surveys of Dealey Plaza witnesses as to the source of the shots is like weather forecasting. Mark is too brain-damaged to realize that witnesses testified as to what they heard, not what they expected to hear. Mark does not comprehend that a survey is not a prediction: https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/07/08/debunking-john-mcadams-debunking-of-jim-marrs-witness-list/

Lance Upperton
Has dedicated a web site in which he disparages anyone who believes that Oswald was Doorman standing at the entrance to the TSBD. It’s been six months since I first asked Lance to answer simple YES or NO questions on this topic. He refuses to do so with the lame excuse that the questions contain assumptions. But it is not a test. It is merely designed to ascertain his beliefs. Here are the questions: https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/04/05/10137/

Kyle Gizas
Kyle claims that the statistical analysis of witness deaths is equivalent to a pre-election poll in which respondents are asked who they will vote for. This is like the laughable Mark Ulrik (above) comparing witness surveys of what DID HAPPEN to weather forecasting to predict what MIGHT HAPPEN. Kyle is too dense to understand that the dead witnesses were not polled and asked to predict their cause of death: https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/03/16/9978/

Last, but not least, another brilliant unnamed Lone Nutter wrote on another forum this retarded statement (paraphrased): Even though the probability of the unnatural deaths is ONE in 100,000 TRILLION, it was still possible! Sorry, I don’t have the link to this insanity.

Stay tuned. This post will be updated with additional examples of JFK trolling insanity.

 

A math-phobic troll claims that JFK-related witness deaths are NOT suspicious

A math-phobic troll claims that JFK-related witness deaths are NOT suspicious

Richard Charnin
Jan.24, 2015

JFK Blog Posts
Look inside the book:
Reclaiming Science:The JFK Conspiracy

Carmine Savastano claims that the official, ruled causes of 100+ JFK-related witness deaths are not verifiable. But he goes even further: he states the deaths caused by homicide, accident, suicide, heart attack and sudden cancer are NOT suspicious. He demands that I post references to all the coroner’s reports. I told him that since he wants proof, he should just get them himself. This charlatan is transparent and completely illogical – a classic troll.

He is effectively calling great researchers incompetent in their books and articles on convenient JFK-related witness deaths: Penn Jones, Sylvia Meagher, Richard E. Sprague, Jim Marrs, Richard Belzer, David Wayne, Jesse Ventura, John Simkin and Craig Roberts, etc… Carmine is parroting his mentor John McAdams. But his comments are even more out of touch than McAdams.

The 122 JFK Calc witnesses official and estimated true cause of death:https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#gid=1

Graphical proof of a conspiracy:https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/10/14/jfk-witness-deaths-graphical-proof-of-a-conspiracy/

The Facebook thread:https://www.facebook.com/groups/JFKED/permalink/1541586816108007/

Carmine Savastano
Ah Richard…More insults, no evidence. I am noticing a pattern. What you have concluded means little without evidence to prove it. Well take that up with those who doubt it. I doubt your sources based on the evidence that can be verified.

Richard Charnin
Let’s pursue your statement in general. Provide us with evidence in the JFK assassination (do not include Judyth Baker’s evidence) that you consider to be verifiable and proven. Also display another list of evidence that you consider unverifiable and unproven. Cite your sources.

Carmine Savastano
instead how about she answers questions repeatedly asked instead of having others attempt to change the subject. Speculation is not my style. So is there evidence or not? It is a simple proposition. I am not claiming anything I cannot prove. I do not like making multiple lists as some do. Just evidence. I have offered the problems they can be addressed reasonably or you can insult and ignore reasonble questions. Simple really. Since I have not made the book with unproven claims I do not need to prove them. Have you got those coroner’s reports yet? The evidence is in these threads, easy to find if you look.

Richard Charnin
we would like to know what conclusions you have come to. Surely, there must be some evidence that you consider proven and verifiable and other evidence which is not. With all of your experience in investigating the claims of JFK researchers and others, as an intelligent critic you must have some opinions on this matter. You have already claimed that evidence heretofore presented (by myself and Judyth, for example) is unverifiable and unproven, right? So give us two lists: Column A- proven; Column B – unproven. We like Chinese food.

Carmine Savastano
Well I do appreciate the compliment even if it was sarcasm, that may be the nicest thing you have ever said to me. Levity aside, I consider significant amounts of evidence proven. I am happy to discuss them at length. However, is it too much to ask that Judyth answers the many questions others and I have posed before we change the subject?

Carmine Savastano
How about a few?

Richard Charnin
Do not discuss them at length. Just give us a list. With sources, please. I would say give us as much as you can, and not limit the number to just a few.

Carmine Savastano
Lists do not offer background and context. No if you want a list that might be possible when I get a few answers. Speaking of lists, did you review all the coroner’s reports? Perhaps you can answer a question while I wait for Judyth? Us? I see some are hungry to attack something, I fear you shall have to wait. I am waiting for my answers still, so you will have to as well.

Richard Charnin
You can list them in a sequence of chapters over the next day or two, as if you are writing a book.

Richard Charnin
Don’t ask me about the coroner’s reports. I asked YOU questions. Please do not try to divert from the issue at hand.

Carmine Savastano
Why thanks, how nice of you. You answer a question perhaps I will too.
No Richard you failed to answer them, now you presume to ask. Amusing.

Richard Charnin
You are still in avoidance and changing the subject. Please respond to MY questions. You may proceed.

Carmine Savastano
Still the same question, since you do not wish to answer it, shall I then conclude you did not read the coroner’s reports? Thus, the natural deaths are not contended by evidence. Just hypothesis, which is fine, it is possible, just not conclusive.

Richard Charnin
You are still in avoidance and changing the subject. Please respond to MY questions. You may proceed. You can read the coroner’s reports yourself. In fact, include them. Cite your sources.

Carmine Savastano
It is charming how you seek to turn this around. Yet it is you and JVB who will not offer evidence and answer questions. The subject never changed you just seek to change it.

Richard Charnin
Now, that you have attempted to change the subject, the onus is on YOU to cite the evidence of verifiable and unverifiable claims SPECIFICALLY. And please cite YOUR sources.

Carmine Savastano
Yes richard because its not about Judyth, you, or me, its about what evidence we have to prove our claims. Im still waiting. Here is my evidence that contends your claims. Care to comment? Seeking to make it about me will not prove your claims. Try as you might. Citations are in the article Are many Suspicious deaths supported by Evidence?
(A rebuttal of “A closer look at the HSCA list of 21 deaths” by Richard Charnin) http://tpaak.com/new-blog/2014/12/20/are-many-suspicious-deaths-supported-by-evidence
Some claim a large and expansive list of deaths related to the Kennedy assassination. This is in addition to the expansive plot that often accompanies such claims. That is evidence I support, want more?

Richard Charnin
I am not turning anything around. I asked you to enlghten us with some examples of verifiable and unverifiable evidence – and to cite your sources. Are you prepared to do that? You are the one who is expounding as if you are expert on verifiable and unverifiable evidence. Let’s see what you have. What is verifiable? What is not? And cite your sources.

Carmine Savastano
It is cited in the article. Here is more evidence.

http://tpaak.com/new-blog/2015/1/14/a-question-of-time

This supports Oswald did not know until november 19th, which does not support the story offered.

A Question of Time
Lee Harvey Oswald could not have been employed at the Texas School Book Depository without learning of the job from Ruth Paine. This infers he did not plan to be in the Depository in November. Secret Service Agent Forrest Sorrells changed the parade route on November 18th, not just before. Howeve…
TPAAK.COM

Richard Charnin
Just a summary list will suffice. Column A and Column B with a statement and a link We want to see very quickly where you stand..

Carmine Savastano
Keep asking I will keep posting articles. The evidence is listed already under References. I like lists with context. I support and you can verify the sources.

Carmine Savastano
So do you have answer on the coroner’s reports? Wikipedia? How about the dozens of unproven sources prior cited from JVB’s book. Since you want to discuss evidence let everyone do so, or admit perhaps there are some problems.

Richard Charnin
Carmine, let me help you since beneath your calm veneer, you appear to be on the verge of a state of panic. Here is the list of names in JFK Calc with the official cause of 122 unnatural and suspicious deaths. You have asked me to verify the information which I have gotten from lists drawn by Penn Jones, Sylvia Meagher, Jim Marrs, Richard Belzer, David Wayne, Jesse Ventura.John Simkin and Craig Roberts. I also have provided a link to the 21 deaths noted by the HSCA: https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/…/jfk-witnesses-a…/ .

Now you have the list of 122 names. If you want to REFUTE THE OFFICIAL CAUSES OF DEATH then I suggest that YOU go through each coroner’s report. After all, YOU WERE THE ONE WHO MADE THE CLAIM THAT THE LIST WAS NOT VERIFIABLE. RIGHT? SO GO RIGHT AHEAD AND PROVE YOUR CASE:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#gid=1

Carmine Savastano
Hah, Though you are a panic, I need not fear losing composure over unproven claims. So have you read the coroner’s reports? If not how do you claim the deaths were not natural as the attending coroner stated they were? I like primary evidence not secondary hypothesis.

Richard Charnin
Again, Carmine, please read my comments. I asked you to provide a list of what you believe to be unverifiable and verifiable evidence. TWO COLUMNS, with a link to support your case. CAN YOU PROVIDE THIS MENU?

Carmine Savastano
If you did not bother to review the medical evidence in each case how can you be so sure of your figures? Would that not infer errors are likely form making prior assumptions that could inflate the list unnecessarily?

Carmine Savastano
Richard, you have ignored my questions for days, answer a few and maybe I shall indulge your latest demand, or just try to change the subject because you cannot answer the question. Did you read the coroner’s report?

Richard Charnin
Must I spell it out for you? Create a spreadsheet of claims with these column headings: Claim (Evidence)- Verifiable- Unverifiable- Link

Carmine Savastano
Must I explain it requires verifiable evidence not your best guess to prove a death was mysterious? That all the lists in the world not based on verifiable evidence prove nothing. If the body of evidence does not support something it remains unproven.

Richard Charnin
The official, ruled cause of deaths are not verifiable? Prove it. The onus is on you to get the coroner’s reports for the 122 and try and refute ALL the researchers I have listed above. Now go to it and stop diverting. This is not a joke. But your avoidance is HILARIOUS.

Carmine Savastano
Yes it is verifiable. Its your list , your burden of proof. You are hilarious. You should have read them, if you chose not to, not my problem. So do you admit that 50 natural deaths were listed as not without full verification using the medical files?

Richard Charnin
I got the list from articles and books written by Penn Jones, Sylvia Meagher, Richard E. Sprague, Jim Marrs, Richard Belzer, David Wayne, Jesse Ventura. John Simkin and Craig Roberts. NOW ARE YOU GOING TO CLAIM THAT THEY ALL USED UNVERIFIABLE DATA? ARE YOU GOING TO CLAIM THEY ARE AMATEUR RESEARCHERS? ARE YOU GOING TO CLAIM THAT JOHN MCADAMS IS CORRECT IN HIS DISMISSING THIS EVIDENCE SINCE YOU APPARENTLY AGREE WITH HIM? ARE YOU A MCADAMS WANNABEE?

Carmine Savastano
That is wonderful. Books are secondary sources. For the most accurate I would suggest medical files and primary sources. I claim anything beyond primary verifiable evidence is not verifiable. Lists do not prove things, evidence does. Better evidence gives more accurate results. Authors can use interpretation which can change the facts from as they were originally stated. It does not matter who wrote the book. Remember its not about them, you , or me, but evidence.

Richard Charnin
Carmine Savastano, get ready for Part II. I am seriously thinking of posting the contents of this thread on other JFK groups and on my blog. You will experience deja vu as you are about to be humiliated once again.

Carmine Savastano
Richard I am aware you have been talking about me for some time. I’m more than ready for your next article. Post away. I have nothing that I regret saying. So perhaps check the coroner’s reports, while your busy attempting label me whatever the latest claim is.

Judyth Baker
For those who would like a simple explanation of what Richard has done, let’s show all of you why “coroner';s reports” are not necessary in Charnin;s work. I’ll take the example of a tsunami. In that one event, an unusual number of people llost their lives. It was a head count and no coroner’s report was needed for each victim. The unusual number of deaths spiked the statistics: you could see a correlation and everybody knew this was a ‘tsunami’ related phenomenon: all those deaths. Now, apply this to the Kennedy assassination statistics for those who had any link to the Kennedy assassination and the EXPECTED number of deaths. The spike is there. It’s a relative ‘tsunami” event. It doesn;t matter about quibbling about whether a death was declared natural or not. It doesn’t matter if a coroner lied or not or was pressured to cover up a fact or two. It has to do with the raw death count. The raw death count is outrageously out of proportion to the normal expected death count. Charnin shows you just how high that spike goes–and here we have non-statisticians quibbling about coroners’ reports. They’re out of their league and embarrassing themselves.

Judyth Baker
Maybe I’ll use “this is Judyth” a lot more, just to get their panties in a bunch, LOL!

Carmine Savastano
Judtyh here is why you are wrong. The attending medical expert knows more than you and Richard claim to and have actually seen the conditions of the body and tested them. So without contending primary evidence its your best guess. No matter who likes it or endorses it.

Richard Charnin
So Carmine, are you saying that the officially ruled homicides, accidents, suicides, sudden cancers and heart attacks are different from the coroner’s reports? Then go get the official causes of death. What is the purpose of the coroner’s report if it is not to indicate the official cause of death? You have totally embarrassed yourself and can no longer be considered credible in anything you say. If I may be frank, your statement is not just wrong, it is STUPID – even more so than anything McAdams has ever written on this subject. So here is the deal. YOU go through ALL 122 coroner reports for the OFFICIAL causes of death. Then compare each of the 122 to the OFFICIAL cause of death that a dozen JFK researchers have noted and which are included in the JFK Calc database. For the official causes of death, you need to look at column H in this JFK Calc tab. Now go to work. PROVE YOUR POINT. PROVE THAT I AM WRONG. PROVE THAT THE CAUSES OF 122 DEATHS LISTED IN JFK CALC ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE CORONER’S REPORTS. YOU SAID IT.NOW PROVE IT.

Carmine Savastano
No Richard you are. Hence your feasibly incorrect list.

Richard Charnin
Carmine, let’s put an end to this madness. Let’s get down to the basics. You appear to be confused by your repetitive demands to see the coroner reports. You apparently do not comprehend that suspicious deaths include two categories: unnatural and natural.

There were 122 suspicious deaths, of which 78 were OFFICIALLY RULED UNNATURAL: 34 homicides, 24 accidents, 16 suicides, 4 unknown. Of the other 44 OFFICIALLY RULED NATURAL deaths, 25 were due to heart attacks and 19 due to other causes (cancer, etc.) Only 17 UNNATURAL deaths were statistically EXPECTED among the 1400 JFK-related witnesses based on the weighted average unnatural death rate (0.000247).

Only 2 homicides were expected based on the 0.000084 average homicide rate. The probability of 34 homicides is 1.57 E-31 (1 in 6 million trillion trillion). Those were the OFFICIAL CAUSES OF DEATH. The probability of 78 unnatural deaths is even lower: 2.76E-62 (1 in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion).

Based on the STATISTICAL EXPECTATION of each cause of death, I calculated an ESTIMATE of the TRUE CAUSES OF DEATH: 86 HOMICIDES, 8 ACCIDENTS, 3 SUICIDES,4 UNKNOWN, 10 HEART ATTACKS, 6 CANCERS AND 5 OTHER NATURAL. I distinguish between the OFFICIAL CAUSES OF DEATH and the estimated TRUE cause of death. BUT AS I HAVE SHOWN ABOVE, EVEN ASSUMING THE OFFICIAL CAUSE OF DEATH, THE PROBABILITIES ARE ZERO. Therefore, the estimated true cause of death is essentially a moot point even though it illustrates that the OFFICIAL CORONER REPORTS do not reflect the ACTUAL CAUSE OF DEATH.

Do you get it now, Carmine Savastano? Or will you remain in your current state of ignorance and naivete? Will you continue to persist in your insane demand that I provide coroner’s reports for each of the 122 deaths when the OFFICIAL CAUSE OF THESE DEATHS HAS BEEN PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE SINCE 1978?

Carmine Savastano
Richard, all you need is to prove with the primary evidence that you are correct. According to it not your claims you are not. Unless you assess all the relevant evidence to prove your claims. I did not mistake your claims. Suicides are unnatural not suspicious because you claim they are, 24 accidents not suspicious, 4 unknown, not suspicious, add the 44 natural deaths you never bothered to look into and that makes 72 deaths by natural or unnatural means, not suspicious without substantial proof. Unnatural means do not definitively mean suspicious, See the difference yet? I read your article just fine. Try mine. Yours is a hypothesis, not based on all the primary evidence.http://tpaak.com/…/are-many-suspicious-deaths-supported…
Are many Suspicious deaths supported by Evidence?
(A rebuttal of “A closer look at the HSCA list of 21 deaths” by Richard Charnin) Some claim a large and expansive list of deaths related to the Kennedy assassination. This is in addition to the expansive plot that often accompanies such claims. Yet would a successful plot include the need to el…
TPAAK.COM

Richard Charnin
Suicides and accidents and heart attacks are not suspicious? Carmine Savastano, you have lost your last chance to redeem yourself. YOU ARE TOTALLY WITHOUT A CLUE. AND I LOOK FORWARD TO POSTING YOUR COMMENTS ON MY BLOG FOR THE WHOLE WORLD TO SEE THAT FACT.

Carmine Savastano
No unless there is evidence or someone bothers to regard the medical report to prove it. Not because you claim it. Even in capital letters. Please do, then something might seem reasonable on your blog.

Richard Charnin
Judyth is right. Coroner reports are a RED HERRING. It is the spiking of deaths during periods when the individuals died before they were called to testify that is apparently beyond the capacity of Carmine’s intellect to process – like the deaths of 7 TOP FBI officials:

Improbable Timing of Witness Deaths https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/10/01/jfk-witness-deaths-7-fbi-officials-due-to-testify-at-hsca/

Suspicious deaths spiked in 1964 (Warren Commission) and in 1977-78 (HSCA). In 1977, seven top FBI officials due to testify at HSCA died in a 6 month period, five from heart attacks, one from an accidental gunshot and one from an accidental fall.

7706 LOUIS NICHOLS Former #3, responsible for JFK investigation; heart attack
7706 REGIS KENNEDY Confiscated films of assassination; heart attack
7708 JAMES CADIGAN Document expert; died from a fall in his home
7708 ALAN BELMONT Liaison to Warren Commission; natural causes
7710 J.M. ENGLISH Head of Forensic Sciences Laboratory; heart attack
7710 DONALD KAYLOR Fingerprint chemist;bogus Oswald “print” on rifle; heart attack 7711 WILLIAM SULLIVAN Headed Division 5 (Counter-espionage); Gunshot accident

The timing of the 7 deaths is powerful proof of a conspiracy beyond any doubt, since it is focused on a specific group within a very short time interval. The HSCA did not mention any of these deaths in its claim that the London Sunday Times actuary’s 100,000 trillion to one odds of 18 material witness deaths in three years was invalid.

For each of the four scenarios, we calculate probabilities assuming a) 7 heart attacks, b) the official cause of deaths (5 heart attacks, 2 accidents); c) 4 homicides and 3 heart attacks; d) 7 homicides. The official cause of death may not be the actual cause; heart attacks and cancer can be induced. In order to calculate the probability of witness deaths we need the mortality rates for each cause of death.

 

JFK: Impossible timings

JFK: Impossible timings

Richard Charnin
Jan.21, 2015

JFK Blog Posts
Look inside the book:
Reclaiming Science:The JFK Conspiracy

I. Oswald Superman: from the 6th floor to the 2nd in 75 seconds https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/08/07/10851/

Oswald told Will Fritz of the Dallas PD that he was “out with Bill Shelley in front” of the TSBD. The Fritz notes were not mentioned by the Warren Commission and were hidden from the public until 1997.

If Oswald was lying to Fritz, what was his motive? After all, he already had an alibi: he was seen on the second floor 90 seconds after the shooting by TSBD manager Roy Truly and policeman Marion Baker. He was holding a coke and not out of breath. If Oswald was not on the 6th floor, why would he not be out front watching the motorcade? And how would he know Bill Shelley was out in front unless he saw him there? https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/04/05/10137/

Carolyn Arnold, a secretary working for the Texas School Book Depository, provided support for Lee Harvey Oswald’s alibi. She said that he was on the first floor of the TSBD at 12:25pm, five minutes before the assassination. http://22november1963.org.uk/carolyn-arnold-witness-oswald

II. Oswald Superman: Walks 0.8 mile in two minutes to shoot Tippit https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/08/19/jfk-did-oswald-shoot-tippit-eyewitnesses-no-warren-commission-yes/

According to at least 10 eyewitnesses, J.D. Tippit was shot dead no later than 1:06pm. But the Warren Commission ignored the witnesses and claimed that Tippit was killed at 1:16. Since Oswald was seen standing outside his apartment at 1:04 (0.8 miles from the scene of the murder) he had to run 24 mph to get to the scene. The track record for a mile is 3.7 minutes (16 mph). The Warren Commission had no choice but to add ten minutes to the time of the murder to get Oswald to the scene in 12 minutes. But that was standard operating procedure for the Commission; witness testimony and evidence which proved Oswald’s innocence was ignored or altered.

This is the SMOKING GUN: https://22novembernetwork.wordpress.com/2014/11/15/the-murder-of-j-d-tippit-by-s-r-dusty-rohde/comment-page-1/
The insert shown above is taken from the actual Certificate of Death, Tippit’s name was misspelled, but the document clearly shows the time and date of death. There is no way Lee Harvey Oswald shot a “living” J.D. Tippit at either 1:15 or 1:16pm. That statement by the Warren Commission was an outright lie. A lie expressed for the sole purpose of deceiving the American public. The Warren Commission had the Tippit documents in their hands, they knew the “legal” time of death, they knew Oswald couldn’t have shot Tippit at 1:15 or 1:16pm, and yet they still chose to tell the lie.

III. Oswald Quickfinger: The Double-bang https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/02/08/jfk-math-analysis-witness-testimony-of-time-interval-between-shots/

In the article The Guns of Dealey Plaza John S. Craig lists 22 individuals who testified they heard a “double bang”: the final two of three shots occurred nearly simultaneously. http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/11th_Issue/guns_dp.html.

If Oswald was the only shooter there would have been at least 2.3 seconds between shots, assuming he used the telescopic sight found on the Mannlicher Carcano.

The Warren Commission’s official conclusion concerning the “Number of Shots” states that all the shots were fired from the sixth-floor window at the southeast corner of the Texas School Book Depository Building. The Commission stated that a consensus among witnesses at the scene was that three shots were fired, though some heard two shots and others heard four and as many as eight shots.

Numerous descriptions of the last two shots by so many witnesses leaves doubt as to whether Oswald was physically capable of firing both of the shots that so many characterized as being shot almost simultaneously, if not “automatically.”

It was the Commission’s belief that (a) one shot passed through the President’s neck and caused all of Governor Connally’s wounds, (b) a subsequent shot hit the President’s head, (c) no other shot struck any part of the automobile, and (d) three shots were fired with one missing, though which one missed is unknown. “Two bullets probably caused all the wounds suffered by President Kennedy and Governor Connally. Since the preponderance of the evidence indicated that three shots were fired, the Commission concluded that one shot probably missed the Presidential limousine and its occupants, and that the three shots were fired in a time period ranging from approximately 4.8 to in excess of seven seconds.”

FBI tests for the Warren Commission found that a 6.5 Mannlicher Carcano, bolt-action rifle, Model 91/38 required a minimum of 2.3 seconds to fire two shots. The HSCA made tests in which the telescopic sight was removed to see how fast the rifle could be fired without aiming. Its tests resulted in firings of 1.65, 1.75, and just over two seconds. The only way that the rifle could be fired this quickly was to simply maneuver the bolt action as fast as possible and shoot. The tests were not done with Oswald’s Mannlicher Carcano. Whether Oswald’s rifle was in a condition where it could be tested is questionable since “the pressure to open the bolt was so great that we tended to move the rifle off the target,” according to one of the Warren Commission testers”.

IV. 100,000 to 1 odds that acoustic shot timings matched Z-film http://brane-space.blogspot.cz/2013/10/larry-sabatos-new-book-does-not.html

The conclusion of four separate shots then coincides with 4 impacts visible in the Z-film, and the reactions therein. The acoustic impulses were retested in a 2001 investigation (‘Echo Correlation Analysis and the Acoustic Evidence in the Kennedy Assassination Revisited’ ) by D.B. Thomas and published in the Journal Science and Justice., Vol. 41, p. 21, 2001. The impulses are shown below, with the four highest amplitude peaks associated with rifle muzzle blasts (an association I will justify subsequently):

Thomas treated both the test evidence and actual data from the original date- aware of the same misgivings that Sabato now claims. Thomas’ re- test evidence was obtained in August, 1978 when a test shot was fired in Dallas’ Dealey Plaza to provide a fiducial mark for the putative Grassy Knoll shot – such that it could be compared with the impulse record obtained on Nov. 22, 1963 and also how this mark lined up to events recorded on the Zapruder film. Thus, the test evidence (mainly in terms of echoes and echo delay times received via an echogram from a test shot (See Fig. 1) is essentially used to confirm the microphone recording & positions for the shots made on the actual date, by resort to microphones placed at the same (or approximately so) locations.

The hypergeometric p-function was used for differing weighting factor distribution sets, H{M..N, n, i} to assess significance or likelihood of occurrence. It’s based on the no. of echo ‘windows’ M, with each spanning 190msec (total time) at 2msec width per window and n for assigned impulses in the evidence pattern, with ‘i’ the “coincident impulses” or those matching the original (11/22/63)evidence and the test result. The question was whether a succession of first impulses of given amplitude could be manifesting a signal or was merely random noise. Thomas found that for a given configuration for 2 motorcycles at designated locations, 1 for (GK) shooter location and one for alignment of muzzle blasts with one pair of echoes, the p -value is 0.000012 or about 1 in 100,000 against the null hypothesis, i.e. that the impulses were from random noise. An alternative way to put this is that the odds are 100.000 to 1 in favor of the impulses comprising actual rifle shots.

V: Improbable Timing of Witness Deaths https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/10/01/jfk-witness-deaths-7-fbi-officials-due-to-testify-at-hsca/

Suspicious deaths spiked in 1964 (Warren Commission) and in 1977-78 (HSCA). In 1977, seven top FBI officials due to testify at HSCA died in a 6 month period, five from heart attacks, one from an accidental gunshot and one from an accidental fall.

7706 LOUIS NICHOLS Former #3, responsible for JFK investigation; heart attack
7706 REGIS KENNEDY Confiscated films of assassination; heart attack
7708 JAMES CADIGAN Document expert; died from a fall in his home
7708 ALAN BELMONT Liaison to Warren Commission; natural causes
7710 J.M. ENGLISH Head of Forensic Sciences Laboratory; heart attack
7710 DONALD KAYLOR Fingerprint chemist;bogus Oswald “print” on rifle; heart attack
7711 WILLIAM SULLIVAN Headed Division 5 (Counter-espionage); Gunshot accident

The timing of the 7 deaths is powerful proof of a conspiracy beyond any doubt, since it is focused on a specific group within a very short time interval. The HSCA did not mention any of these deaths in its claim that the London Sunday Times actuary’s 100,000 trillion to one odds of 18 material witness deaths in three years was invalid.

For each of the four scenarios, we calculate probabilities assuming a) 7 heart attacks, b) the official cause of deaths (5 heart attacks, 2 accidents); c) 4 homicides and 3 heart attacks; d) 7 homicides. The official cause of death may not be the actual cause; heart attacks and cancer can be induced. In order to calculate the probability of witness deaths we need the mortality rates for each cause of death.

Some WC defenders have suggested that FBI officials are more prone to heart attacks. Let’s eviscerate that canard right here by executing a sensitivity analysis to determine the overall probabilities assuming 20 FBI were sought to testify and 7 died (5 from heart attacks, 2 from accidents). We run three scenarios of FBI heart attack mortality 1) equal, 2) double and 3) triple the overall population mortality rate. The results are clear. In the worst case scenario (FBI heart attack mortality is triple the population) the probability of the 7 deaths is 1 in 100 billion.

1977 mortality rates

0.004137 Heart Attack
0.000488 Accident
0.000092 Homicide
0.003094 Official weighted rate: 5 heart attacks, 2 accidents
0.001826 Speculative weighted rate: 4 homicides, 3 heart attacks


The probability of n deaths among N witnesses over T years, given mortality rate R, is P = POISSON(n, T*N*R, false)

FOUR SCENARIOS
Assume N=20 FBI were called to testify at HSCA.

Scenario I: 7 heart attacks (reference illustration)
P= 3.95E-14= POISSON(7,.5*20*.004137, false)
Probability: 1 in 25 trillion
Assume an impossible 100 FBI were called to testify.
P= 3.6E-10 or 1 in 2.7 billion.

Official Cause of Death
Scenario II: 5 heart attacks, 2 accidents
P= 5.23E-15= POISSON(7,.5*20*.003094, false)
Probability: 1 in 190 trillion

Speculative Scenario III: 3 heart attacks, 4 homicides
P= 1.32E-16= POISSON(7,.5*20*.001826, false)
Probability: 1 in 7000 trillion

Speculative Scenario IV: 7 homicides
P= 1.11E-25= POISSON(7,.5*20*.000092, false)
Probability: 1 in 9 trillion trillion


All 7 heart 5 heart/ 3 heart/
FBI attacks 2 accid. 4 murders 7 murders
08. 6.63E-17 8.72E-18 2.18E-19 1.81E-28
20. 3.95E-14 5.23E-15 1.32E-16 1.11E-25
30. 6.61E-13 8.79E-14 2.23E-15 1.89E-24
100 2.61E-09 3.61E-10 9.56E-12 8.61E-21


THREE SCENARIOS: FBI heart attack mortality vs. national rate
Assume 20 FBI officials were called to testify at HSCA. Even if FBI heart attack mortality is triple the national rate, the probability of 7 deaths in 6 months is still infinitesimal: 1 in 100 billion.

Probability Sensitivity Analysis

...Rate.........Probability (assumption)
1- 0.003094 5.23E-15 1 in 190 trillion (FBI heart attack rate equal to national)
2- 0.006049 5.54E-13 1 in 1.8 trillion (FBI 2X national)
3- 0.009004 8.70E-12 1 in 100 billion (FBI 3X national)


These graphs are mathematical proof of a conspiracy.