RSS

Category Archives: Media

HOLISTIC DOCTORS DEATH PROBABILITIES AND MEDIA SHILLS

Richard Charnin
July 17, 2017

There were approximately 50 UNNATURAL deaths (murders, accidents, suicides) of HOLISTIC doctors in one year. Was this reported in the mainstream media? What is the probability?

Media shills like Snopes make the same mistakes as Warren Commission defenders. They don’t understand that calculating probabilities requires…
1) the number of UNNATURAL deaths – NOT total deaths.
2) UNNATURAL MORTALITY RATES: homicides (0.00005), accidents (0.00038) and suicides (0.00012). They are much lower than rates of “natural” causes.
3) the NUMBER of HOLISTIC doctors- NOT the total of ALL doctors.
4) knowing that MOTIVE for the deaths is NOT a factor in the calculation.

The Poisson probability function is based on the number of ACTUAL UNNATURAL deaths (n) and the EXPECTED number (E) in the group (N).
Probability = poisson (n, E, false)
E=N*R*T is based on the WEIGHTED unnatural mortality rate (R), population size (N) and the time period (T).

Since we do not know N, the number of holistic doctors, we calculate the probability assuming N=50,000, 75,000 and 100,000. The probability decreases as N increases.

Given: n= 50 unnatural deaths, R= 0.0002, T= 1 year, N is unknown.
Assume
N= 100,000: P = 7.63E-09 or P= 1 in 131,058,359
(E=20 deaths would be expected)

N= 75,000: P= 6.41E-13 = 1 in 1,559,298,094,732 (1 in 1.6 trillion)
(E=15 deaths would be expected)

N= 50,000: P= 1.49E-19 = 1 in 6,699,149,835,876,030,000
(1 in 6.7 million trllion)
(E=10 deaths would be expected)

https://www.healthnutnews.com/recap-on-my-unintended-series-the-holistic-doctor-deaths/
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2015/05/24/a-probability-analysis-of-the-mysterious-deaths-of-125-scientists-and-75-bankers/
http://www.snopes.com/holistic-doctor-death-conspiracy/
http://reason.com/blog/2015/09/13/the-feds-murdering-alternative-doctors

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on July 17, 2017 in Media, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , ,

Election Fraud 2016 Begins with the Debate: Pundits vs. Viewers

Election Fraud 2016 Begins with the Debate: Pundits vs. Viewers

Richard Charnin
Oct.16,2015

Look inside the books:
Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy
Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts
LINKS TO WEB/BLOG POSTS FROM 2004
Click on a graph or photo to view the source post:Election Model graphs and JFK images

It was no contest. Sanders beat Clinton by 5-1 according to at least 648,000 viewers.

But since when does the public decide who won? The media decides who will run and who will win. The fix is in. It always is. Sanders could have had 99% and it would not make a difference.

Get ready for the primaries. The Cumulative Vote Share graphs should be interesting.

Online Viewers Sanders Clinton
Average……. 72.3% 16.6%
Wtd avg……. 58.3% 11.3%

From the article:
http://fair.org/home/pundits-thought-clinton-beat-sanders-but-did-viewers/

A New York Times article (10/14/15) by Alan Rappeport about who won last night’s Democratic presidential debate reported today that “Hillary Rodham Clinton was the clear victor, according to the opinion shapers in the political world (even conservative commentators).”

The Times quoted National Journal columnist Ron Fournier (“Hillary Clinton won,” 10/13/15), Slate writer Fred Kaplan (“She crushed it,” 10/14/15), New Yorker staffer Ryan Lizza (“Hillary Clinton won because all of her opponents are terrible,” Twitter, 10/13/15), Red State blogger Leon Wolf (“Hillary was (astonishingly) much more likable and personable than everyone’s favorite crazy socialist uncle,” 10/13/15), pollster John Zogby (“Mrs. Clinton was just commanding tonight,” Forbes, 10/13/15) and conservative radio host Erick Erickson (“I’m still amazed the other four candidates made Hillary Clinton come off as the likable, reasonable, responsible Democrat,”Twitter, 10/13/15). If these so-called “opinion shapers in the political world” declare Hillary the winner, then Hillary must be the winner, according to theTimes.

What the Times and these pundits failed to mention is the fact that every online poll we could find asking web visitors who won the debate cast Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders as the winner—and not just by a small margins, but by rather enormous ones.

more at the link..

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on October 16, 2015 in 2016 election, Media

 

Tags: , , ,

The Exit Poll Smoking Gun: “How did you vote in the last election”?

Richard Charnin
Nov. 19, 2014
Updated Sept.30, 2015

My Website: Election Fraud and JFK
Look inside the books:
Reclaiming Science:The JFK Conspiracy
Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts

JFK Blog Posts
Probability/ Statistical Analysis Spreadsheets:
JFK Calc: Suspicious Deaths, Source of Shots Surveys;
Election Fraud: True Vote Models, State and National Unadjusted Exit Polls

The Exit Poll Smoking Gun: “How did you vote in the last election”?

This question has proven to be devastating for those who still believe there is no such thing as election fraud. So devastating, it was not asked in the 2012 presidential exit poll or the 2014 House exit poll.

The exit pollsters freely admit that they adjust the polls to match the recorded vote. The rationale is that since the exit polls are always off by an 8% average margin, they must be adjusted to match the pristine, fraud-free recorded vote. The pollsters never consider the possibility that the unadjusted exit polls were accurate; they claim that the discrepancies are due to consistently bad polling.

So why do the pollsters get paid the big bucks from the National Election Pool? In any other profession, if your analysis is way off, you had better get it right the next time. If it’s way off on your second try, you get one more chance. If you fail a third time, that’s it. Someone else gets your job. But here’s the catch: the pollsters were accurate; the unadjusted polls matched the True Vote. So why did they have to adjust the polls to match the bogus recorded vote?

The unadjusted exit polls were forced to match the recorded vote in every presidential election since 1988. The Democrats won the state and national exit polls by 52-42%, but won the the recorded vote by just 48-46%. The probability of the discrepancy: 1 in trillions. The exit polls were right. The vote counts were wrong. It’s as simple as that.

Does the rationale sound crazy to you? Despite all of the anecdotal evidence of election fraud, it is never considered by the corporate media (the National Election Pool) who fund the exit pollsters.

This graph shows that in the 1972, 1988, 1992, 2004 and 2008 presidential elections, the National Exit Poll was forced to claim there was over 100% turnout of living Nixon, Bush1 and Bush2 voters from the prior election. Impossible – and proof of fraud.

I have been posting on this very unscientific procedure since 2004. In this post I will review the basic method used to match the vote: changing the mix of returning voters. We will look at the 2004-2008 presidential elections and the 2010-2014 Wisconsin and Florida governor elections. The pattern of deceit will be revealed by adjustments made to the number of exit poll respondents and returning voters to match the official recorded vote counts – and cover up the fraud.

2004 Presidential
There were 13,660 National Exit Poll respondents and 51.7% said they voted for Kerry. But Bush won the recorded vote by 50.8-48.3%. So the pollsters had to switch 6.7% of Kerry respondents to Bush.

Bush had 50.5 million recorded votes in 2000. Approximately 2 million died and another million did not return in 2004. Therefore, there were at most 47.5 million returning Bush 2000 voters. The National Exit poll indicated that 52.6 million Bush 2000 voters returned in 2004. The pollsters had to create at least 5 million phantom Bush voters. Of course, this made no sense. But who questioned it? Who even knew about it? https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2012/02/21/the-final-2004-national-exit-poll-switched-7-2-of-kerry-responders-to-bush/ https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdFIzSTJtMTJZekNBWUdtbWp3bHlpWGc#gid=7

2008 Presidential
There were 17,836 National Exit Poll respondents. Obama had 61% in the unadjusted poll but just 53% in the vote count. The adjusted 2008 National Exit Poll indicated that 46% of 2008 voters (60 million) were returning Bush 2004 voters and 37% (48 million) returning Kerry voters.This was impossible; it implied a 103% turnout of living Bush 2004 voters. Bush won the recorded vote by 3 million. But Kerry won the unadjusted exit poll by 6 million and the True vote by nearly 10 million. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdFIzSTJtMTJZekNBWUdtbWp3bHlpWGc#gid=1

2010 Florida Governor
Scott defeated Sink with 50.59% of the 2-party vote. But Sink easily won the unadjusted exit poll by 50.8-45.4% (3150 respondents, 2% margin of error). In order to match the recorded vote, the adjusted exit poll indicated a 47/47% split in returning Obama and McCain voters, 3% were new and 3% returning 3rd party (other) -but vote shares were NA for new and other voters. In order to match the recorded vote, Scott needed 67% of the 6% NA. This is implausible. Based on the unadjusted exit poll, Sink had 57% of this group.

2014 Florida Governor
Scott had 50.58% of the 2-party vote, within .01% of his 2010 share. Just a coincidence? The question How Did You Vote in 2010? was not asked, so let’s look at the Florida exit poll Party-ID demographic. There were 11.9 million registered voters. Democrats outnumbered Republicans by 500,000 (38.8% Dem; 35.0% Rep; 26.2% Other). But in matching the recorded vote, the Party-ID split was 31D-35R-33I. Assuming that the True split was equal to the actual voter registration mix, Crist is the winner by 50.9-44.6%. Crist had stronger support among Democrats (91%) than Scott had among Republicans (88%). He won Independents by 46-44%. So how did he lose?

Florida Gov 2014 Exit Poll (matched recorded vote)
Party-ID.......Mix Crist Scott Wyllie
Democrat........31% 91% 6% 3%
Republican......35% 10% 88% 2%
Independent.....33% 46% 44% 8%
Total...........99% 46.9% 47.2% 4.3%
Votes..........5.88 2.78 2.80 0.25

Florida Gov 2014 Exit Poll (Registration Mix)
Party-ID.......Mix Crist Scott Wyllie
Democrat.......39% 91% 6% 3%
Republican.....35% 10% 88% 2%
Independent....26% 46% 44% 10%
Total..........100% 50.9% 44.6% 4.5%
Votes......... 5.94 3.03 2.65 0.265

2012 Wisconsin Walker Recall
In 2008, Obama won Wisconsin with a 56.2% recorded share. He had 63.3% in the unadjusted exit poll, far beyond the 2.5% margin of error. The exit poll is strong evidence that election fraud sharply reduced Obama’s True Vote.

In 2010, Walker won by 124,638 votes with a 52.3% share. in 2012, he won the recall by 171,105 votes with 53.1%. But the True Vote Model (TVM) showed that he needed 23% of Obama returning voters to match the recorded vote. That is extremely implausible – and a red flag. It’s further evidence that Barrett won the election. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2012/07/11/the-walker-recall-true-vote-model-implausible-vote-shares-required-to-match-the-vote/ https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=t4pqdOMFhfNwaIq8ELOAg_w#gid=32

2014 Wisconsin Governor
Walker won with a 52.9% share. In order to match the recorded vote, the adjusted exit poll showed that returning 2012 Barrett voters comprised 35% of 2014 voters compared to 50% for returning Walker voters. The 15% spread is implausible. Compare it to Walker’s 7% recorded 2012 margin and Barrett’s estimated 6% True Vote margin (a whopping 21% discrepancy).Assuming a feasible Barrett 45/Walker 41% returning voter mix, Burke is the winner by 52.3-47.3%.

In the “How Voted in 2012” crosstab, vote shares are missing for Other (3%) and New Voters (DNV 11%). How many of the missing 14% voted for Burke? https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/11/12/wisconsin-2014-governor-true-voteexit-poll-analysis-indicates-fraud/ https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1oAq0CJ1QSfy4JaNYpM_5esTafUdpt3ipgJU0Iz8RlD0/edit#gid=2079407084

An excellent paper from mathematician Kathy Dopp:
http://electionmathematics.org/em-audits/US/2014/USElections2014.pdf

 

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

Nate Silver and Election Fraud

Richard Charnin
Nov. 17, 2014

Look inside the books:
Reclaiming Science:The JFK Conspiracy
Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts

JFK Blog Posts
Probability/ Statistical Analysis Spreadsheets:
JFK Calc: Suspicious Deaths, Source of Shots Surveys;
Election Fraud: True Vote Models, State and National Unadjusted Exit Polls

Once again, Nate Silver misdirects his readers in reviewing the 2014 elections. He claims that the polls were biased to the Democrats. He never considers that the polls were close to the true vote but that the vote counts were rigged. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-polls-were-skewed-toward-democrats/

Nate Silver never discusses Election Fraud, even though it has been proven systemic. I pointed this a few years ago in a reply to his post on why we should not believe exit polls. His knowledge of exit polls was (and apparently still is) non-existent. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2012/11/17/a-reply-to-nate-silvers-ten-reasons-why-you-should-ignore-exit-polls/

As usual Nate cites polling “bias”. But not a word about the fact that early pre-election polls include all registered voters (RVs). As we move toward Election Day, the polls are transformed to the subset of Likely Voters (LVs) – with the effect of reducing projected Democratic turnout and vote share.

The true bias is that pollsters skew the projections in order to match the expected fraudulent recorded vote. Nate Silver never considers that the RV polls are usually close to the truth – but that the LV polls are biased against the Democrats. So it’s just the opposite from Nate’s view. He believes the official vote counts are accurate, but researchers who analyze the historical record see a consistent 4-5% “red shift” to the GOP. It is absolute proof that the recorded vote counts are fraudulent and biased for the Republicans. http://electiondefensealliance.org/?q=voter_cutoff_model

Nate never discusses the fact that exit polls are always forced to match the bogus recorded vote. The pollsters admit that it is standard operating procedure. Their rationale is that the polls must always be wrong since they deviate so greatly from the recorded vote. Of course we never get to see the unadjusted exit polls until years later, if then. The 1988-2008 unadjusted presidential state and national exit polls showed that the Democrats won by an average of 52-42%. But the recorded vote had them winning by just 48-46%
I just posted the True Vote model for the Wisconsin and Florida governor races. Both races were stolen in 2014- just like they were in 2010 and the 2012 Walker recall. .

In the 2010 Florida Governor election, the unadjusted exit poll and the True Vote Model indicated that Sink won by 5%, yet Scott won the recorded vote by 1%. In 2014, Scott won again. The 2-party vote shares were identical! Scott had 50.59% in 2010 and 50.58% in 2014! A coincidence? Hardly.The Florida 2014 Exit Poll indicates a 31-35-33 Dem-Rep-Ind split (over-weighted for Republicans) with 91% of Dems voting for Crist, 88% of Repubs voting for Scott. Crist won Independents by 46-44%. When we change the split to a more plausible 34-33-33, Crist is the winner by 49.4-45.6%. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/11/14/florida-2014-governor-true-voteexit-poll-analysis-indicates-fraud/

In the 2014 Wisconsin Governor election, a True Vote analysis indicates that Walker stole the election, just like the recall in 2012. View the True Vote analysis: https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/11/12/wisconsin-2014-governor-true-voteexit-poll-analysis-indicates-fraud/

The easiest way to understand that our elections are fraudulent is to look at the 2004 presidential election. According to the adjusted 2004 National Exit Poll (as posted on major media sites), there were 52.6 million returning Bush 2000 voters (43% of the 2004 electorate) and 37% returning Gore voters. Recall that Gore won the popular vote by 540,000. Gore won the unadjusted exit polls by 50-45% (he actually won the True Vote by 3-5 million).

But Bush had only 50.5 million recorded votes in 2000. Approximately 2 million died and one million did not return. Therefore, there were at least 5 million (52.6-47.5) phantom Bush voters. The exit pollsters had to adjust the unadjusted, pristine National Exit poll which showed Kerry a 52-47% winner to make Bush a 51-48% winner. Bush needed an impossible 110% turnout of living Bush 2000 voters to match the recorded vote. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2012/04/05/fixing-the-exit-polls-to-match-the-policy/

And finally, here is the ultimate proof of systemic election fraud. In the 274 state presidential unadjusted exit polls from 1988-2008, the Democrats won the polls by 52-42%, exactly matching my True Vote Model. But they won the recorded vote by just 48-46%. Of the 274 exit polls 135 exceeded the margin of error, 131 in favor of the Republican. The probability P of that discrepancy is E-116 or
P= 0.0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 000001.

1988-2008 Unadjusted State and National Exit Poll Database

Take anything from Nate Silver with a BIG GRAIN OF SALT. He never mentions PROVEN ELECTION FRAUD . And don’t forget that he had the gall to rank famous pollster Zogby dead last in his evaluation of pollsters a number of years back while ranking dedicated GOP pollsters at the top.

I have written several open-letter posts for Nate. He has not responded to any.

1. An Open Letter to Nate Silver http://richardcharnin.com/OpenLettertoNateSilver.htm
2. An Open Letter to Nate Silver (Part 2) http://richardcharnin.com/OpenLettertoNateSilver.htm
3.Twenty-five Questions for Nate Silver http://richardcharnin.com/TwentySilver.htm
4.A Reply to Nate Silver’s “Ten Reasons Why You Should Ignore Exit Polls” https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2012/11/17/a-reply-to-nate-silvers-ten-reasons-why-you-should-ignore-exit-polls/
5. Zogby vs. Silver: 1996-2008 True vs. Recorded Vote Pollster Rankings http://richardcharnin.com/SilverRankings.htm

The bottom line: Nate works for the major corporate media which is not interested in divulging why pre-election and exit pollsters adjust the polls to match fraudulent vote counts. They will never plead guilty.

This is a summary of my track record in forecasting the 1988-2012 presidential elections, unadjusted exit polls and True Vote Models. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/09/14/summary-2004-2012-election-forecast-1968-2012-true-vote-model/

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on November 17, 2014 in Election Myths, Media, Rebuttals

 

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

JFK: Evidence the Media Won’t Talk About

Richard Charnin
Nov.22, 2013
Updated: Dec.27

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

JFK Posts Index
JFK Calc Spreadsheet Database

Why Does the Mainstream Media Refuse to Ask the Real Questions About JFK’s Death? They simply ignore conspiracy facts and make offhanded remarks about conspiracy theories.

For fifty years, the media has refused to analyze the facts. Let’s do the media’s job and look at the evidence.

Truthseekers
-Jim Garrison: “On the Trail of the Assassins” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Garrison
-Mark Lane: “Rush to Judgment” http://marklane.com/
-Oliver Stone: National Press Club http://ffilms.org/jfk-1991/
-Judyth Vary Baker: “Me and Lee”, “David Ferrie”
-Penn Jones: “Strange Deaths” http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKjonesP.htm
-Nigel Turner: “The Men Who Killed Kennedy” http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKturnerN.htm
-Richard E. Sprague: “The Taking of America, 1-2-3 http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ToA/ToA.html
-Richard Belzer and David Wayne: “Hit List”
-Jim Marrs: “Crossfire” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Marrs
-James Douglass: “JFK and the Unspeakable” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_W._Douglass
-Phil Nelson: LBJ: “The Mastermind of the JFK Assassination”
-Roger Stone: “The Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ”
-Barr McClellan: “Blood, Money and Power: How LBJ Killed JFK”
-Jesse Ventura, David Wayne, Dick Russell: “They Killed Our President”
-James Fetzer: “Murder in Dealey Plaza” http://www.assassinationscience.com/booktwo.html http://www.assassinationresearch.com/
-John Simkin:http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKindex.htm
-Michael T. Griffith: http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/research.htm
-Doug Horne: http://assassinationofjfk.net/the-two-npic-zapruder-film-events-signposts-pointing-to-the-films-alteration/

Eyewitness and Photographic
-Secret Service Stand down: Limo protection removed
The Altered Zapruder Film:
The Zapruder Film I: Jack White
The Zapruder Film II: John Costella
The Zapruder Film III: David Mantik

-Badgeman photo: shooting from the Grassy Knoll
-S.M. Holland: eyewitness at the Grassy Knoll
-Tippit Shooting: Witnesses said killed at 1:06; Warren Commission at 1:16
-Oswald photo: standing in the TSBD doorway
-Faked: Oswald Backyard Photos

Medical and Autopsy
-Dr. Charles Crenshaw: JFK Entrance Wounds
-Parkland Doctors: JFK Head wounds
-Autopsy photos: faked to hide gaping head exit wound
-Magic Bullet: Ford moved JFK’s back wound up 5 inches
-JFK Back Wound: No exit, therefore no Magic Bullet

Physical
-7.65 Mauser: three witnesses of rifle on 6th floor of TSBD
-Mac Wallace (LBJ hitman): fingerprint on 6th floor of TSBD
-Acoustics: at least 4 Gunshots, one from the Grassy Knoll
-The Limo: Destruction of the evidence
-Front to Back: Bullet Hole in the Limo Windshield
-Magic Bullet: found on back seat of the Limo
-JFK Witness Deaths: Math Proof of a Conspiracy

Personal Reflections
-Jack Ruby: conspiracy from “top” of the White House
-E.Howard Hunt: it was an LBJ/CIA/FBI “Big Event”
-LBJ mistress: LBJ told her JFK would be killed next day
-Judyth Baker: Oswald girl friend, cancer researcher in New Orleans; “Me and Lee”
*********************************************************************************************************
Truthseeker Videos

Jim Garrison: Response to NBC
Jim Garrison: Interview (1988)
Mark Lane: Rush to Judgment
Mark Lane: Warren Commission Testimony
Oliver Stone: National Press Club 1992
Judyth Vary Baker: “Me and Lee”
Penn Jones: Original researcher “Strange Deaths”
Jim Marrs: “Crossfire”
Nigel Turner: “The Men Who Killed Kennedy”
Richard Belzer and David Wayne: “Hit List”
James Douglass: “JFK and the Unspeakable”
Phil Nelson: LBJ: “The Mastermind of the JFK Assassination”
Roger Stone: “The Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ”
Jesse Ventura: “They Killed Our President”
James Fetzer: “Murder in Dealey Plaza”
James Fetzer: “JFK at 50: The Who, the How and the Why”
******************************************************************************************

Secret Service: removing protection

Badgeman: shooting from the Grassy Knoll
http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/badgeman_2.htm File:Badgeman coloured.jpg
Two Men in Dallas-Part I
Roger Craig: 7.65 Mauser on 6th floor of TSBD
S.M. Holland: eyewitness at the Grassy Knoll
The Tippit Shooting:
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/08/19/jfk-did-oswald-shoot-tippit-eyewitnesses-no-warren-commission-yes/
http://www.spartacus-educational.com/JFKStippet.htm http://www.garvandwane.com/conspiracy/oswald_and_officer_tippit.html

Oswald in the Doorway:
Altgens photo http://www.oswald-innocent.com/oswald.html http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/JFK/ALT_ANNOT.jpg
Faked:Oswald Backyard Photos
Mac Wallace: fingerprint on 6th floor of TSBD http://www.spartacus-educational.com/JFKwallaceM.htm

Parkland Doctors: JFK Head wounds
Parkland Doctors: Charles Crenshaw http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKcrenshawC.htm
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/8804/backofheadorangesizedwo.jpg

Autopsy: How 5 Investigations Got It Wrong
http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_tabfig.htm http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-xPIBrJ17k48/TsrVBRscs5I/AAAAAAAADvo/PXJq0rocmEM/s1600/JFK-autopsy.jpg

The Magic Bullet: Rep. Gerald Ford’s Forgery
Many years after the Warren Commission report, Rep. Gerald Ford stated that he had changed a draft of the Report to indicate that the bullet entered the “base of the back of [Kennedy’s] neck” rather than “his back at a point slightly above the shoulder”. Ford moved JFK’s back wound up 5 inches to match Arlen Spector’s bogus theory but claimed it was not part of a conspiracy. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/HSCA-JFK-neck2-6-43.jpg JFK Back Wound: No Exit means No Magic Bullet
The original Bethesda autopsy report, included in the Warren Report, concluded from the data that the bullet had passed above the top of the lung outside the thoracic pleura and, therefore, through the president’s neck. The Commission was not shown the autopsy photographs.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b6/JFK_posterior_back_wound.jpg Presidential Limousine SS-100-X: Destruction of the evidence http://ss100x.com/
Magic Bullet: Jim Garrison
http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Single-Bullet_theory/Garrison_on_the_SBT.html

Acoustic Evidence: Sounds of Silence
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/10/larry-sabatos-new-book-does-not.html The conclusion of four separate shots coincides with 4 impacts visible in the Z-film. 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, published in the Journal Science and Justice, Vol. 41, p. 21. The impulses are shown below, with the four highest amplitude peaks associated with rifle muzzle blasts.


Front to Back: Bullet Hole in the Limo Windshield http://jfkthefrontshot.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-entrance-hole-in-windshield.html
JFK Witness Deaths: Math Proof of a Conspiracy https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/10/14/jfk-witness-deaths-graphical-proof-of-a-conspiracy/

Jack Ruby: Confession http://www.spartacus-educational.com/JFKruby.htm
E. Howard Hunt- Deathbed confession http://www.rense.com/general76/hunt.htm http://www.spartacus-educational.com/JFKhuntH.htm
Madeline Brown: LBJ mistress http://www.spartacus-educational.com/JFKbrownM.htm
LBJ: A Wink on Air Force One http://www.rense.com/general41/wew.htm http://www.rense.com/1.imagesE/thewink.jpg
James Corbett: a quick bio of Lee Oswald. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJFzhbNd1EI

 
2 Comments

Posted by on November 22, 2013 in JFK, Media

 

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

JFK Witness Deaths: Calculating the Probabilities

JFK Witness Deaths: A Guide to the Probability Calculations

Richard Charnin
May 27, 2013
Updated: Oct.15, 2013

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

JFK Blog Posts
JFK Calc Spreadsheet Database

An actuary engaged by London Sunday Times calculated 100,000 TRILLION to 1 odds against 18 JFK material witness deaths from Nov. 1963 to Feb. 1967. Unfortunately, the actuary could not be identified and interviewed since no one at the Sunday Times could recall his or her name.

The House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) claimed that the number of material witnesses was unknowable and dismissed the calculation as invalid. But exactly 552 Warren Commission witnesses testified, a subset of approximately 1400 material witnesses.

Here are the graphs and probability calculations which prove a conspiracy: https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/10/14/jfk-witness-deaths-graphical-proof-of-a-conspiracy/

In fact, the actuary’s odds are conservative. There were at least 42 unnatural witness deaths in the three years following the assassination. Assuming 1400 material witnesses, the probability is ZERO.

The JFK Witness Spreadsheet Database includes 118 material witnesses, of which there were at least 83 unnatural deaths. The sensitivity analysis tables display unnatural death probabilities for 552 Warren Commission and 1400 material witnesses (based on unnatural, weighted and homicide mortality rates) over 1,3 and 14 year time intervals.

According to the reference Who’s Who In the JFK Assassination approximately 1400 material witnesses were connected in any way to the assassination. At least 83 died unnaturally. The probability is ZERO.

Convenient deaths spiked in 1964 (Warren Commission) and 1977 (House Select Committee).

Warren Commission apologists have suggested that there were many more than 1400 material witnesses and therefore the probabilities are not valid – without providing a list. Even assuming there were 25,000 witnesses, then given the 0.00006 average homicide rate, the probability of 24 homicides within three years following the assassination is 1 in 12 billion. So much for the bogus 25,000 witnesses argument.

The unweighted unnatural rate results in virtually ZERO probabilities. But since the JFK-related deaths were mostly homicides, the weighted average rate is a theoretically superior rate to use for the probability calculations – and results in significantly lower probabilities than the unweighted (national) rate. But even the weighted rate is too high, since many witness “suicides” and “accidental” deaths were clearly homicides. If all of the unnatural deaths were in fact homicides, the probabilities are at their lowest.

The unweighted unnatural mortality rate produces virtually zero probabilities for both the Warren Commission (552) and material witness (1400) groups, so it may appear to be overkill to use the lower weighted average and homicide rates to calculate the probabilities. But they illustrate 1) the implausible ratio of homicides in the total witness mix, and 2) the inflating effects of “suicides” and “accidental” deaths in the probability calculations.

At least 62 of the 118 witnesses in the database testified or died suspiciously shortly before they were due to testify at the 1964 Warren Commission, 1969 Garrison/Shaw trial, the 1975 Senate Intelligence hearings and the 1977 HSCA (including 7 top FBI officials in June-November 1977). There were at least 37 unnatural and suspicious deaths of approximately 1100 witnesses who were called to testify. The probability is 4.7E-30 (1 in 200,000 MILLION TRILLION TRILLION).

The HSCA made the following errors:
1) misstated the actuary’s method of calculation
2) Did not consider that there were over 80 unnatural and at least 30 other suspicious deaths
3) did not consider suspicious deaths of HSCA witnesses (including 7 FBI) just prior to their scheduled testimony
4) did not run a sensitivity analysis of probabilities for various data assumptions
5) ignored unnatural mortality rates in calculating the probability of unnatural deaths
6) did not use the POISSON distribution function to calculate probabilities
7) did not calculate probability of 11 WC homicides in 15 years.
8) ignored the fact that the JFK homicide rate far exceeded the national rate
9) did not calculate the ZERO probability of at least unnatural deaths among 1,400 witnesses (1964-78)
10) did not calculate probability of 25 homicides in three years for the impossible 25,000 witnesses the FBI claimed to have interviewed

The HSCA succeeded in misinforming the public by falsely claiming that the actuary’s calculation was invalid and therefore did not prove a conspiracy.

The Poisson Distribution calculates the probabilities of rare events over time.

The key to calculating the probability of a given number (n) of unnatural deaths occurring in a given group (N) in a given time period (T) is to recognize that it is based on the difference between expected and actual unnatural deaths. The larger the discrepancy between the actual observed and expected number of deaths, the lower the probability.

These are the relevant probability input parameters:
n= number of observed unnatural deaths
N= total number of witnesses
T= time period in years
R= unnatural mortality rate

The expected number of unnatural deaths E = N*T*R

 
6 Comments

Posted by on May 15, 2013 in JFK, Media

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

A Reply to Nate Silver’s “Ten Reasons Why You Should Ignore Exit Polls”

A Reply to Nate Silver’s “Ten Reasons Why You Should Ignore Exit Polls”

Richard Charnin (TruthIsAll)
Oct. 29, 2010
Update: March 25, 2013

Nate, this is a reply to your November 2008 post Ten Reasons Why You Should Ignore Exit Polls. It’s four years later but it would be instructive to review your comments on exit polls to see if you feel the same way about them. I’m still waiting for your response to my open letter regarding your pathetic last-place ranking of pollster John Zogby . I would also be interested in your answers to these twenty-five questions. It would enable readers to gauge your perspectives on election fraud.

Nate, you have it all wrong in your book. The Signal is the 52-42% Democratic lead in the 1988-2008 unadjusted presidential state and national exit polls. The Noise is the media propaganda that the Democrats won by 48-46% as shown in the published adjusted polls. But we all know that it is standard operating procedure to force the exit polls to match the (bogus) recorded vote. The media (that means you) want the public to believe that Systemic Election Fraud is a myth.

Are you asking us to ignore a) the final adjusted exit polls which are ALWAYS forced to match the recorded vote or b) the unadjusted, preliminary state and national exit polls? If it’s (a), then you must believe that election fraud is systemic since the pristine, unadjusted exit polls are always forced to match the recorded vote, even if it is fraudulent. If it’s (b), then you must believe that election fraud is a myth and that the recorded vote reflects actual voter intent (i.e. the true vote). Based on your writings, it must be (b). After reading your “ten reasons”, I came up with ten reasons why you never responded to my posts.

The “experts” whom you cite all have issues. You wrote: “Oh, let me count the ways. Almost all of this, by the way, is lifted from Mark Blumenthal’s outstanding Exit Poll FAQ”

Your first mistake was to believe all those discredited GOP talking points and to cite Mark Blumenthal as your source. You may not be aware that Mark was the original Mystery Pollster and has worked full-time since 2004 to debunk any references to exit polls as indicators of election fraud.

In June 2006, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. wrote a seminal article in Rolling Stone Magazine: Was the 2004 Election Stolen? In a pitiful attempt to debunk RFK, Salon’s Farhad Manjoo wrote Was the 2004 Election Stolen? No. Manjoo’s hit piece contained factual errors and omissions and was fully debunked by a number of analysts. Mark Blumenthal then attemped a defense of Manjoo and smeared RFK in this piece: Is RFK, Jr. Right About Exit Polls?

Here is My Response to the Mystery Pollster’s critique of RFK and an Open Letter to Mark Blumenthal of Pollster.com.

Now I will count the ways. My responses follow each of your statements as to why we should ignore exit polls.

NS
1. Exit polls have a much larger intrinsic margin for error than regular polls. This is because of what are known as cluster sampling techniques. Exit polls are not conducted at all precincts, but only at some fraction thereof. Although these precincts are selected at random and are supposed to be reflective of their states as a whole, this introduces another opportunity for error to occur (say, for instance, that a particular precinct has been canvassed especially heavily by one of the campaigns). This makes the margins for error somewhere between 50-90% higher than they would be for comparable telephone surveys.

RC
Not true. I should stop right here. Exit polls have a much smaller margin of error than pre-election polls. It stands to reason that exit polls are more accurate than pre-election polls because a) those polled know exactly who they voted for and b) in pre-election polls, respondents might change their mind – or not vote.

Regarding cluster samples, perhaps you are unaware that exit pollsters Edison-Mitofsky state in the notes to the National Exit Poll as well as in the NEP Methods Statement that exit poll respondents were randomly-selected and the overall margin of error was 1%. Adding the standard 30% cluster effect raises the calculated 0.86% MoE to 1.1%.

But I understand why you would claim that exit polls are inaccurate since you apparently believe election fraud on voting machines is non-existent. After all, you never discuss the fraud factor. So of course you would conclude that the exit poll discrepancies from the recorded vote indicate that the polls are wrong. The fundamental problem with all your analysis is that you fail to consider the possibility that the polls were close to the truth and the discrepancies from the recorded vote were the result of systematic election fraud. But that is typical of mainstream media pundits. If they discussed the fraud factor, they would be out of a job.

You apparently believe that the final Likely Voter (LV) pre-election polls (which are a subset of all Registered Voters (RV) interviewed) are spot-on because they match the bogus recorded vote. But LV polls always understate Democratic turnout, since the vast majority of voters who fail to pass the Likely Voter Cutoff Model are young, newly registered Democrats. That’s one reason why Democrats average higher in the RV polls than in LVs and the media avoids the RVs in the month prior to the election. Another factor is that telephone polls miss cell-phone users who are young and Democratic. Most important, pre-election polls have been shown to overweight Republicans based on prior bogus recorded votes.

NS
2. Exit polls have consistently overstated the Democratic share of the vote. Many of you will recall this happening in 2004, when leaked exit polls suggested that John Kerry would have a much better day than he actually had. But this phenomenon was hardly unique to 2004. In 2000, for instance, exit polls had Al Gore winning states like Alabama and Georgia (!). If you go back and watch The War Room, you’ll find George Stephanopolous and James Carville gloating over exit polls showing Bill Clinton winning states like Indiana and Texas, which of course he did not win.

RC
There you go again, assuming that the recorded vote was fraud-free. Of course the Democrats always do better in the exit polls than in the recorded vote. But did you ever consider why? Perhaps you are unaware that millions of votes are uncounted in every election and the vast majority are Democratic (over 50% are in minority districts). The U.S. Census reported over 80 million net uncounted votes since 1968. You make the false assumption that the recorded vote is the True Vote. Uncounted votes alone put the lie to that argument, not to mention votes switched at the DREs and central tabulators.

You say Clinton did not win Indiana or Texas. How do you know? Can you provide proof that the voting machines were not tampered with? Perhaps you are unaware that in 1992 there were 9.4 million net uncounted votes, approximately 75% for Clinton. Clinton’s margins were very plausible. The exit polls indicated that he won Indiana by 53-30% (Perot had 16%) and Texas by 43-32% (Perot had 25%). But they were both likely stolen by Bush. Clinton lost Indiana (42.9-36.8%) by 138,000 votes (330,000 uncounted). He lost Texas (40.6-37.1%) by 215,000 (663,000 uncounted). So had all the votes been counted, Clinton would have won both states. Note that we are not even considering vote-switching from Clinton or Perot to Bush, just the uncounted votes.

In 1996, there were 8.7 million net uncounted votes – again, approximately 75% for Clinton. Clinton won the Indiana exit poll by 50-40%, but Dole won the recorded vote by 117,000, 47.1-41.6% (230,000 net uncounted). The Texas exit poll was tied at 46-46%, but Dole won by 280,000 votes, 48.8-43.8% (700,000 net uncounted). Again, had all the votes been counted, Clinton would have likely won both. And this does not include vote switching from Clinton or Perot to Dole, just the uncounted votes.

NS
3. Exit polls were particularly bad in this year’s primaries. They overstated Barack Obama’s performance by an average of about 7 points.

RC
You are apparently unaware of Rush Limbaugh’s “Operation Chaos” in which he advised Republicans to cross over in the Democratic primaries and vote for Hillary Clinton. His objective was to deny Obama the nomination. Obama easily won the all the caucuses in which voters were visually counted.

NS
4. Exit polls challenge the definition of a random sample. Although the exit polls have theoretically established procedures to collect a random sample — essentially, having the interviewer approach every nth person who leaves the polling place — in practice this is hard to execute at a busy polling place, particularly when the pollster may be standing many yards away from the polling place itself because of electioneering laws.

RC
You are apparently unaware that exit pollsters Edison-Mitofsky wrote in the notes to the 2004 National Exit Poll that respondents were randomly selected as they exited the polling booth. What is your definition of a random sample?

NS
5. Democrats may be more likely to participate in exit polls. Related to items #1 and #4 above, Scott Rasmussen has found that Democrats supporters are more likely to agree to participate in exit polls, probably because they are more enthusiastic about this election.

RC
US Count Votes did a comprehensive analysis of the 2004 exit poll discrepancies which disproved the exit pollster’s reluctant Bush responder hypothesis.

You quote a biased GOP pollster who never did an exit poll. There is no evidence that Democrats are more likely to participate. In fact, the historical data shows otherwise. You are resurrecting the reluctant Bush responder (rBr) hypothesis that was disproved by the exit pollster’s own data in each of the 2000, 2004 and 2008 elections. It is also contradicted by a linear regression analysis which showed that response rates were highest in partisan GOP precincts and Red states.

NS
6. Exit polls may have problems calibrating results from early voting. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, exit polls will attempt account for people who voted before Election Day in most (although not all) states by means of a random telephone sample of such voters. However, this requires the polling firms to guess at the ratio of early voters to regular ones, and sometimes they do not guess correctly. In Florida in 2000, for instance, there was a significant underestimation of the absentee vote, which that year was a substantially Republican vote, leading to an overestimation of Al Gore’s share of the vote, and contributing to the infamous miscall of the state.

RC
You are apparently unaware that exit pollsters Edison-Mitofsky claimed that their 2004 precinct design sample was near perfect.

Perhaps you are unaware of the fact that in the 2000 election, nearly 6 million ballots were never counted (a combination of spoiled, absentee and provisional) – and 75-80% were Gore votes – meaning that his True Vote margin was at least 3 million more than his recorded 540,000. And that is why Gore led the state exit poll aggregate by 50-45%.

You are either unaware or choose to ignore the fact that in Florida there were over 180,000 spoiled ballots (113,000 double and triple-punched and 65,000 underpunched) that were never counted – and 75% were Gore votes. You apparently believe the GOP con that the spoiled ballots were due to stupid voters. Why don’t you mention the thousands of Gore absentee ballots that were discarded? Perhaps you are unaware that it has been determined GOP election officials discarded Democratic absentee ballots and included GOP ballots that were filed after the due date. And what about the Palm Beach butterfly ballot in which thousands of Jews were fooled into voting for Buchanan?

If you really believe that Bush won both the national and Florida elections in 2000, then you must also believe that a) the tooth fairy exists, b) global warming is just a hoax and c) the economic meltdown was due to natural supply and demand forces and that the economic forecasting models were at fault. You ignore the strong evidence that the meltdown was due to corrupt global banksters gaming the financial system. And of course, you ignore the election fraudsters that have systematically gamed the computers to miscount votes and prevent millions of eligible citizens from voting. According to you, it is all just noise, never human corruption.

NS
7. Exit polls may also miss late voters. By “late” voters I mean persons who come to their polling place in the last couple of hours of the day, after the exit polls are out of the field. Although there is no clear consensus about which types of voters tend to vote later rather than earlier, this adds another way in which the sample may be nonrandom, particularly in precincts with long lines or extended voting hours.

RC
As a quant, you should ask how was it that Kerry led by 51-48% at 12:22am (13047 respondents) but Bush led at 1:00am at the final (13660) after just 613 additional respondents? It’s simple. The pollsters had to force the National to match the bogus recorded vote (Bush 50.7-48.3%). It was impossible – a total sham. It was Kerry who led the final unadjusted NEP by 51.7-47.0%.

Are you aware that final exit polls are always FORCED to match the recorded vote? The 2004 adjusted final National Exit Poll indicated that 43% (52.6 million) of 2004 voters were returning Bush voters and 37% Gore voters. But Bush only had 50.5 million voters in 2000 – and approximately 2.5 million died. So there could not have been more than 48 million returning Bush voters. If 47 million turned out, there had to be 5.6 million phantom Bush voters. How do you explain that?

In 2008, Obama won the unadjusted National Exit Poll (17836 respondents) by 61-37%. But the poll was forced to match the recorded 52.9-45.6%. Are you aware that Obama had 52.4% of 121 million votes recorded on Election Day and 59.2% of the 10 million recorded later?

NS
8. “Leaked” exit poll results may not be the genuine article. Sometimes, sources like Matt Drudge and Jim Geraghty have gotten their hands on the actual exit polls collected by the network pools. At other times, they may be reporting data from “first-wave” exit polls, which contain extremely small sample sizes and are not calibrated for their demographics. And at other places on the Internet (though likely not from Geraghty and Drudge, who actually have reasonably good track records), you may see numbers that are completely fabricated.

RC
Really? Are these fabricated? You are apparently unaware of the National Exit Poll timeline. Kerry led by 51-48% at 4:00pm (8349 respondents), 9:00pm (11027) and 12:22am (13047). Kerry led at the final 13660 respondents by 51.7-47.0%. But at approximately 1:00am, Kerry responders were flipped to Bush in order to force the poll to match the recorded vote.

NS
9. A high-turnout election may make demographic weighting difficult. Just as regular, telephone polls are having difficulty this cycle estimating turnout demographics — will younger voters and minorities show up in greater numbers? — the same challenges await exit pollsters. Remember, an exit poll is not a definitive record of what happened at the polling place; it is at best a random sampling.

RC
Perhaps you are unaware that high turnout is always good for the Democrats. That’s why the GOP is always trying to suppress the vote. The National Exit Poll indicates that Kerry won 57-62% of new voters and that Obama had 72% of new voters in 2008. But at least you now agree that exit polls are indeed random samples. Glad you corrected point #4.

NS
10. You’ll know the actual results soon enough anyway. Have patience, my friends, and consider yourselves lucky: in France, it is illegal to conduct a poll of any kind within 48 hours of the election. But exit polls are really more trouble than they’re worth, at least as a predictive tool. An independent panel created by CNN in the wake of the Florida disaster in 2000 recommended that the network completely ignore exit polls when calling particular states. I suggest that you do the same.

RC
I suggest that you do your homework. You will surely fail this Election Fraud Quiz. Exit polls are more trouble than they are worth? Yes, it’s true – for those who rig the elections. Perhaps you are unaware that the exit polls were the first indicators that the 2004 election was stolen. Nate, your problem is that you refuse to admit that Election Fraud is systemic – or that it even exists. You want your readers to believe that the recorded vote accurately depicts true voter intent and that the exit polls are always wrong. Tell that to Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow when you guest on their show.

In 2008, Obama had a recorded 52.9% share and won by 9.5 million votes. But he had to overcome the 5% fraud factor. You are probably unaware that the unadjusted National Exit poll indicates that he won 61% of 17,836 respondents. Obama had 58.0% in the unadjusted state exit poll weighted aggregate (82,388 respondents) winning by 23 million votes – exactly matching the True Vote Model which used the same adjusted final NEP vote shares.

The Bush/Kerry 46/37% returning voter weights in the adjusted final 2008 NEP implied that there were 12 million more returning Bush than Kerry voters – an impossible 103% turnout of living Bush voters. The True Vote Model calculated a feasible 47/40% Kerry/Bush split. Bush won the bogus recorded vote by just 3 million but Kerry won the True Vote by 10 million.

And you would also surely agree that there could not have been 5 million returning third-party voters indicated by the final 2008 NEP since just 1.2 million were recorded in 2004.

We have the 1988-2008 unadjusted state and national exit polls from the Roper website (nearly 500,000 exit poll respondents). The Democrats led the polls by 52-42%; but just 48-46% in the recorded vote. That’s an awful lot of Reluctant Republican Responders, yes?

Presidential election fraud is consistent and predictable. The unadjusted state and national exit polls have matched the True Vote Model in every election since 1988.

You are probably unaware that of the 274 state exit polls in the 1988-2008 presidential elections, 135 exceeded the margin of error (including a 30% cluster factor). Only 14 would be expected to exceed the MoE at the 95% confidence level. Of the 135, 131 “red-shifted” to the Republican and  just 4 to the Democrat. The probability is E-116. Can you explain it?
P= 0.0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 000000000 00000000000 0000000000 000000000 0000001.

Finally, Nate, you need to gain a new perspective on exit polls.

—————————————————-
Track Record: Election Model Forecast; Post-election True Vote Model

2004 Election Model (2-party shares)
Kerry 51.8%, 337 EV (snapshot)
State exit poll aggregate: 51.7%, 337 EV
Recorded Vote: 48.3%, 255 EV
True Vote Model: 53.6%, 364 EV

2008 Election Model
Obama 53.1%, 365.3 EV (simulation mean);
Recorded: 52.9%, 365 EV
State exit poll aggregate: 58.0%, 420 EV
True Vote Model: 58.0%, 420 EV

2012 Election Model
Obama Projected: 51.6% (2-party), 332 EV snapshot; 320.7 expected; 321.6 mean
Adjusted National Exit Poll (recorded): 51.0-47.2%, 332 EV
True Vote Model 56.1%, 391 EV (snapshot); 385 EV (expected)
Unadjusted State Exit Polls: not released
Unadjusted National Exit Poll: not released

 
2 Comments

Posted by on November 17, 2012 in Media, Rebuttals

 

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

 
Richard Charnin's Blog

JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud Analysis