My first job was Mathematician/ Numerical Control Engineer for Grumman Aerospace Corp

Richard Charnin
June 17, 2019
 
I can’t believe it’s been 50 years since Apollo 11 landed on the moon. In 1965, my first job was as a Mathematician/ Numerical Control Engineer for Grumman Aerospace Corp (GAC) which built the Lunar Module. GAC was just five minutes from my home.

In programming automated machine tools to build naval and commercial aircraft parts, I often visited the manufacturing plant to see my work in progress. It was a very exciting time working with a great group of enginners.

The NC programs were written for an IBM 7094 mainframe computer running APT(Automatic Programmed Tools) a large Fortran-based system. The 7094 took up 3000 sq feet of floor space in the engineering building. It had just 512K of RAM- less than a tablet today.

It’s amazing that primitive 1969 computer technology could achieve the moon landing. The following article by Scott Davis addresses and debunks some of the common arguments behind the Moon landing conspiracy theories.
https://spacecentre.co.uk/blog-post/know-moon-landing-really-happened/

It contains explanations of…
– Van Allen Belt Radiation
– Flag flapping on the moon
– No stars?
– Strange shadows
– Moon rock prop

Other evidence:
– Apollo 15 site past and present
– Footprints
– Moon rocks

Advertisements

 

Quinnipiac vs. Rasmussen: Trump vs. Biden approval ratings and national poll

Richard Charnin
June 14, 2019

LINKS TO  BLOG POSTS

It is way too early to consider presidential polls. But this analysis shows that the Quinnipiac Univ.  poll of Biden  leading Trump by 13% is implausible. We consider the 2016 race demographic and party-ID (Census, Gallup, Quinnipiac).

Trump’s approval ratings match his projected vote shares.
Rasmussen: Trump leads 51-47%;
Quinnipiac: Biden leads 53-40%

Rasmussen: Trump leads whites by 61-37%.
Quinnipiac: Trump leads whites by just 47-46%.
Note Trump won whites by 57-37% in 2016. Census weights are used.

Rasmussen: Trump leads Independents by 51-46%.
Quinnipiac: Biden leads by 56-28%.
Note Trump won Independents by 48-42% in 2016. The Gallup voter affiliation survey is used for weighting.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html?utm_campaign=distroscale&utm_medium=video-player&utm_source=polls

Rasmussen	Sample	Census	Biden	Trump
White	1100	73.3%	37%	61%
Black	186	12.4%	87%	12%
Hispanic,Other	215	14.3%	63%	33%
Total	1500	100.0%	46.9%	50.9%
Rasmussen		Gallup
Dem	465	31%	88%	11%
Rep	450	30%	6%	93%
Ind	565	39%	46%	51%
Total	1500	100.0%	47.0%	51.2%
Quinnipiac	Sample	Party-ID	Biden	Trump
Dem-actual	503	41.4%	95%	3%
Rep-est	470	38.7%	6%	91%
Ind-est	241	19.8%	56%	28%
Total – actual	1214	100.0%	52.8%	42.0%
Quinnipiac		Census
White	890	73.3%	46%	47%
Black	151	12.4%	85%	12%
Hispanic,Other	174	14.3%	58%	33%
Total	1214	100.0%	52.6%	40.7%

This is why you should never trust MSM pollsters.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html?utm_campaign=distroscale&utm_medium=video-player&utm_source=polls

Poll	Date	Sample	Approve	Disapprove	Spread
MSM
Reuters/Ipsos	6/10 – 6/11	983 RV	41	58	-17
Economist/YouGov	6/9 – 6/11	1107 RV	45	52	-7
Quinnipiac	6/6 – 6/10	1214 RV	42	53	-11
Politico/Morning Consult	6/7 – 6/9	1991 RV	41	56	-15
The Hill/HarrisX	6/7 – 6/8	1001 RV	45	55	-10
NPR/PBS/Marist	5/31 – 6/4	783 RV	43	49	-6
IBD/TIPP	5/30 – 6/7	906 A	42	52	-10
CNN	5/28-5/31	902 RV	40	53	-13
Average			42.57	52.86	-10.29
Non-MSM
Rasmussen Reports	6/11 – 6/13	1500 LV	51	47	4
Harvard-Harris	5/29 – 5/30	1295 RV	48	52	-4
Zogby Analytics	5/2-5/9	852 LV	51	48	3
Average			50.00	49.00	1.00

In the CNN sample, 34% described themselves as Democrats, 27% described themselves as Republicans, and 39% as Independents or members of another party. CNN  indicates that  86% of Republicans, 7% of Democrats and 44% of Independents approve of Trump. Total approval is 42.8%.

Trump approval is calculated for the independent pollsters using Gallup Party ID: Dem 31%, Ind 38%, Rep 30%. Estimated Trump  approval is 93% Repub, 12% Dem and 46% Independent. Total approval is 49.1%.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/447972-biden-leads-trump-by-landslide-proportions-in-new-national-poll

http://www.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls/national/president

http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/trump_approval_index_history

 

TRUMP WON THE TRUE POPULAR VOTE

Richard Charnin
May 10, 2019

Buy this book! Look inside. It is the only one which does a complete mathematical analysis of the 2016 election. Don’t believe the media/DNC/pundit propaganda that Hillary won by 2.8 million votes.

https://www.amazon.com/Trump-Won-True-Vote-Independents/dp/1979900973/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1512494633&sr=1-2&refinements=p_27%3ARichard+Charnin

TRUMP WON THE TRUE POPULAR VOTE.

Track record: I exactly forecast the BOGUS recorded electoral vote and estimated the True Vote in each of the last three elections.

IT’S ABOUT TIME TO EXPOSE THE HRC POPULAR VOTE MYTH WHICH IS THE BASIS FOR SPYGATE.

https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2016/11/07/2016-election-model-forecast/

LINKS TO  BLOG POSTS

 

A VERY preliminary 2020 ELECTION MODEL forecast

Richard Charnin
April 27, 2019

LINKS TO  BLOG POSTS

This is a VERY preliminary 2020 ELECTION MODEL forecast. It is based on recorded and true vote assumptions of returning 2016 voters and forecast vote shares. The TRUE VOTE is never equal to the RECORDED VOTE

The model does not currently forecast the Electoral vote. I forecast the EV exactly in each of the last 3 elections. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/09/14/summary-2004-2012-election-forecast-1968-2012-true-vote-model/?fbclid=IwAR2jXWG8Uymn3hbGjCMN5FqGa6vn3Btg8ViKTv_7Mn-TLIPnnTuwcCjGJJg

VIEW a SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS BASED ON INCREMENTAL TRUMP VOTE SHARES OF RETURNING TRUMP AND CLINTON VOTERS.   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1yh0YkXBVctdJwt0_XHrpCC6f7K30oEz0Vr13MiU5qT4/edit?fbclid=IwAR0ejmGXPoEej6nErcJ_eFK24ErumOM6Kgsanf8wA_J88kJuACkLkUp4sDA#gid=0

			RECORDED VOTE FORECAST
2016	Recorded Turnout	Mix	DEM	Trump	Other
Clinton	59.94	44.40%	86%	9%	5%
Trump	57.36	42.49%	6%	90%	4%
Other	6.93	5.13%	45%	45%	10%
DNV (new)	10.77	7.98%	40%	45%	15%
Total	135.00	Recorded	46.24%	48.13%	5.63%
		Vote (mil)	62.42	64.98	7.60
			Margin	2.56
			TRUE VOTE FORECAST
2016	True Turnout	Mix	DEM	Trump	Other
Clinton	54.66	40.49%	84%	11%	5%
Trump	60.87	45.09%	6%	92%	2%
Other	8.70	6.44%	40%	40%	20%
DNV (new)	10.77	7.98%	40%	45%	15%
Total	135.00	True Vote share	42.48%	52.10%	5.41%
		True Vote	57.35	70.34	7.31
			Margin	12.99

 

Bill Binney: NSA Has 32 Pages of Communications Between Seth Rich and Julian Assange

Richard Charnin
April 21, 2019

LINKS TO  BLOG POSTS

Mark F. McCarty in Medium.com
View at Medium.com

“About six months ago, a blogpost by “Publius Tacitus” appeared regarding attorney Ty Clevenger’s FOIA request regarding Seth Rich:
“But now there is new information that may corroborate what the human sources quoted in the Fox article claimed about Seth’s role in getting the DNC documents to Wikileaks. Borne from a FOIA request filed in November 2017 by attorney Ty Clevenger, who requested any information regarding Seth Rich and Julian Assange. The NSA informed Clevenger in a letter dated 4 October 2018 that:

Your request has been processed under the provisions of the FOIA. Fifteen documents (32 pages) responsive to your request have been reviewed by this Agency as required by the FOIA and have found to be currently and properly classified in accordance with Executive Order 13526. These documents meet the criteria for classification as set forth in Subparagraph © of Section 1.4 and remains classified TOP SECRET and SECRET.”

Here’s what Binney says:

“Ty Clevenger has FOIAed information from NSA asking for any data that involved both Seth Rich and also Julian Assange. And they responded by saying we’ve got 15 files, 32 pages, but they’re all classified in accordance with executive order 13526 covering classification, and therefore you can’t have them.

That says that NSA has records of communications between Seth Rich and Julian Assange. I mean, that’s the only business that NSA is in — copying communications between people and devices.

If Binney is interpreting this correctly — and bear in mind that, not only is he extraordinarily bright, but he is sometimes referred to as “the father of the NSA” — this provides strong support for the hypothesis that Seth was indeed Wikileaks’ source for the DNC emails it published. Assange has strongly hinted at this, Sy Hersh claims to have a trusted informant inside the FBI who states that he has seen FBI documents verifying this, and Binney himself says that he has two sources inside the intel community vouching for this.”

 

Bill Binney: The Mueller Report lied about the DNC Server. It was a leak not a Russian hack

Richard Charnin
April 19, 2019

LINKS TO  BLOG POSTS

Duncan Campbell and James Risen in the Intercept

“CIA DIRECTOR MIKE POMPEO met late last month with a former U.S. intelligence official who has become an advocate for a disputed theory that the theft of the Democratic National Committee’s emails during the 2016 presidential campaign was an inside job, rather than a hack by Russian intelligence.

Pompeo met on October 24 with William Binney, a former National Security Agency official-turned-whistleblower who co-authored an analysis published by a group of former intelligence officials that challenges the U.S. intelligence community’s official assessment that Russian intelligence was behind last year’s theft of data from DNC computers. Binney and the other former officials argue that the DNC data was “leaked,” not hacked, “by a person with physical access” to the DNC’s computer system.

Binney claims the U.S. intelligence community’s assessment that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election is false, and that the Democratic National Committee e-mails were leaked by an insider instead. He has appeared on Fox News at least ten times between September 2016 and November 2017 to promote this theory. Binney said that the “intelligence community wasn’t being honest here”. He has also been frequently cited on Breitbart News. In November 2017 it was reported that a month earlier, Binney had met with CIA Director Mike Pompeo at the behest of  President Trump.”

https://theintercept.com/2017/11/07/dnc-hack-trump-cia-director-william-binney-nsa/

 

Trump had the Big MO: He won voters who decided after Sep1 by at least 48-40%

Richard Charnin
Feb. 24, 2019

LINKS TO  BLOG POSTS

National Exit Poll- When Decided 

The NEP is ALWAYS adjusted to match the recorded vote.

The 2016 NEP indicates that of the 26% of voters who decided after Oct.1, 48% voted for Trump and 40% for Clinton. Of the 74% who decided before Oct.1, Clinton led 51-45%.

Of the 40% of voters who decided after Sept.1, Trump won by 48.0-42.0%. Clinton won voters who decided before Sept.1 by 52.5-45.0%.

Were Clinton’s  poll shares rigged to match the recorded vote? Clinton won the national recorded vote by 2.8 million. She won IL, CA and NY by a combined 7 million votes. Therefore Trump won the recorded vote by at least 4 million everywhere else.

But Trump’s True Vote margin had to be higher than 4 million. As many as 3 million of Clinton’s 7 million margin in IL, CA and NY may have been fraudulent- matching her national 2.8 million margin. Were Clinton’s votes inflated (rigged) in these and other states?

Since the NEP was forced to match Clinton’s 48.3-46.2% recorded vote, it appears that her vote shares were inflated.

The third-party Recorded vote is another clue that Clinton’s vote was rigged.
According to the National Exit Poll, 4% of voters who decided before Oct.1 voted for a third party candidate; 12% voted third party after Oct.1. Jill Stein had just 1% of the total recorded vote. Could it be that Jill really had at least 3% of which 2% or more were shifted to Clinton?

Click for state deciders href=”https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R9Y3ae2uyW8SUxVUnnOt9ZyvheAxa0fAhesAw_nhciM/edit?fbclid=IwAR2CRD4z4Z7Q_qpEYNDM9EOj8q5Jzy1_LkKM1lF5TqZngXsp48WoTcMcUE8#gid=1036252757″

Decided…. Pct Clinton Trump Other
Post Oct. 1 26% 40.0% 48.0% 12.0%
Pre Oct. 1.. 74% 51.0% 45.0% 4.0%
Total……… 100% 48.3% 46.2% 5.5%

Decided….. Pct Clinton Trump Other
Post Sept. 1 40% 42.0% 48.0% 10.0%
Pre Sept 1.. 60% 52.5% 45.0% 2.5%
Total……… 100% 48.3% 46.2% 5.5%

State exit poll………….. IL…….. CA……. NY
Total Recorded %…… 56-39-5.. 62-32-4. 60-37-3
Before Oct.1……….….66-32-2.. 67-29-4. 67-31-2 < Rigged?
After Oct.1…………… 33-55-12. 51-42-7. 38-53-9 < shift to Trump & 3rd party
Votes (mil)…………….. 5.5……. 14.2……. 7.5
Margin (mil)…………… 0.95……. 4.3…….. 1.7 Total 6.95 million

https://scontent.fmia1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/52830928_2582663225109009_9135850851154264064_n.jpg?_nc_cat=103&_nc_eui2=AeG2bdqKdBw2QbAT7jh9x2Lr4oMSzVQnHH3lptQnmmyZ6Xt68OirxZBqcDJdq7uk5Tg5IEydhOqjPRmZTKn7kN-sr2MleovhVwa0itVqhnhrFA&_nc_ht=scontent.fmia1-1.fna&oh=f96540887d5279fbe3444495fb3ae42c&oe=5D248212