Category Archives: Uncategorized

Lone Nutters Review “Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy”

Richard Charnin
Sept.18, 2015

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

These Lone Nutters “reviewed” my book on Amazon. They all gave it one star. No surprise there; I must be doing something right. The LNs achieved their goal of getting the average Amazon rating down. But their “reviews” gave me an opportunity to expose them in my replies.

Compare their comments below to the five star reviews.

Caution – Selection Bias At Work
Henry Sienzant
“We’re really in nut country now, Toto”on March 12, 2015
Anyone who thinks Richard Charnin has established anything needs to consider that his list has a selection bias at work. It’s akin to looking at an obituary page of the NY Times and asking “what are the odds that these people on this page would all die within a day or two of each other?” The odds, calculated beforehand, are miniscule. The odds, calculated after the fact, are 100%, because we already know all of them are dead.

Wait for the bargain bin if you really want to read this book
Steve Roe
on March 31, 2015
Refuse to read this book, knowing the author’s serious lack of research and knowledge of the JFK assassination. Here is his fan base that inflate his reviews. […]

One Star
Bernadette Hackett
on March 4, 2015
Too much in the statistical bend.

Junk Science (sans the Science)
Mark Ulrik
on November 27, 2014
I would advise against buying this book unless you have a perverse fascination with poorly applied logic and math. Let the following nugget from the author’s blog suffice.
=== Quote Begin ===
Researcher Harold Feldman wrote that of 121 eyewitnesses: 51 (42%) said shots came from the Grassy Knoll area, 32 from the TSBD, and 38 had no opinion.
Given P = 0.42 is probability of a witness being correct in stating that shots came from the Knoll, then the probability PM = 0.58 = 1-.42 that the witness was mistaken. The joint probability PA that ALL 51 witnesses were mistaken and there was NOT a Grassy Knoll shooter is 0.58 to the 51st power.
PA = 0.58^51 = 8.6E-13 = 0.000000000000861 or of 1 in 1,161,909,568,739 or 1 in 1.16 trillion.
=== Quote End ===

It’s certainly not a “given” that P is probability of a particular answer being “correct.” The 0.42 figure is nothing more than the probability of a random witness giving the author the answer he’s looking for. The 0.58^51 figure is the probability of repeating the experiment (asking random witnesses) 51 times and not getting the preferred answer even once. How is this supposed to “prove” anything meaningful? We already knew that – if you ask a lot of people – odds are you’ll eventually get the answer you’re looking for.

Don’t waste your money
Norman Logsdon
“movie lover”on December 3, 2014
This book is bogus from the on-set. Lee Oswald was not on the street watching the motorcade. The man misidentified as Oswald is Billy Lovejoy and various people have identified him. I don’t need to read anymore to know this book is worthless. Don’t waste your money.

Reclaiming $5.95 – Mathematical/Logical Theorem
John G. Jazwiec
on January 5, 2015
I can sum up the entire book in a paragraph. This is not to say the author is wrong. It’s only to say that it is redundant, defensive and didn’t have enough new material to warrant a book costing $5.95.

Garbage In, Garbage Out
Wisconsin Badger
on November 30, 2014
The author seems to to understand the concept of “garbage in, garbage out”. This is a Psuedo-scientific account. Not worth the time or money.

New Lipstick… Same Old Pig
Mike Davinroy
on November 4, 2014
Over many years I have read, and enjoyed well over a hundred books on the JFK assassination. I’ve found the vast majority of them to have something new or interesting. Perhaps this book would have been interesting in 1973, but much of what the author states in this “book” are long ago worn out theories that have been largely discounted by most serious researchers of the assassination. In my opinion this author abandons common sense and puts far too much faith in mathematics. It’s been said, “if your only tool is a hammer, you look at every problem as a nail.” This author needs more tools.

This author’s statistics “prove” absolutely nothing about the existence of some assassination conspiracy, and if he were as smart as he thinks he is, he would have surely submitted his material for scientific peer review long ago if he had any hope of gaining credibility. Instead, he blames the media and people equipped with common sense for not believing his preposterous conclusions. As much as I admire serious assassination researchers and personally believe it’s theoretically conceivable that there was some type of limited assassination conspiracy (although I know of no defensible evidence pointing to such) – this type of nonsense only hurts the cause of honest conspiracy research.

Leave a comment

Posted by on September 18, 2015 in Uncategorized


Tags: ,

JFK: Warren Commission apologists claim that…

Richard Charnin
September 11, 2015

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

Warren Commission apologists claim that…

1. Oswald shot Tippit.
But Tippit was shot no later than 1:06 pm. Oswald was seen outside his rooming house a mile away at 1:04 (some claim he was at the Texas Theater). The WC had to add 10 minutes to the time of death (1:16) to fabricate the myth that Oswald had enough time to get to the scene.

2.The Magic Bullet theory is correct.
But the bullet entered 5.5” below JFK’s collar and never exited. Gerald R. Ford, a member of the Warren Commission, suggested that the panel raise its initial description of the bullet wound in Kennedy’s back in a transparent, illegal scam to bolster the ridiculous SBT.

3. The three tramps were not Harrelson, Holt and Rogers.
But they were identified by Lois Gibson , who works for the Houston Police Department and is probably the most respected forensic artist and facial expert in the world. She has just been awarded with a notation in the Guinness Book of World Records for the highest crime solving rate based on composite sketches.

4.Cancer and heart attacks cannot be induced.
But Judyth Vary Baker and Mary S. Sherman, under the direction of cancer expert Alton Ochsner, developed a cancer-producing agent to kill Castro. . The 1975 Church Senate Intelligence Committee heard testimony of methods to induce heart attacks and cancer.

5.The witness unnatural death probability calculation does not take margin of error into account.
But this was not a poll of witnesses. It is a statistical analysis based on historical data.

6. The Weigman photo proves that Lovelady was standing at the Doorway.
But it does not show Lovelady at 12:30. The Altgens 6 photo was taken at the precise second that JFK was shot. It shows Lovelady standing on the steps.

7. Oswald was the Lone Gunman on the 6th floor.
But according to Det. Will Fritz, no one could place him there. And he was seen on the second floor at 12:25 by Carolyn Arnold – who was not called to testify at the WC.

8. No one testified that they saw Oswald in front on the steps of the Texas School Book Depository.
But the Warren Commission and the FBI had their patsy and would never allow such testimony. To claim they would is laughable disinformation.

9. Lovelady was Doorman. Oswald was not in front of the TSBD.
But Lovelady and Frazier both testified that Lovelady was standing on the steps in front of Frazier. Doorman was on the first floor. So Lovelady could not have been Doorman.

10. The HSCA determined that the London Times actuary’s 1 in 100,000 trillion probability that 18 material witnesses would die (13 unnaturally) within three years of the assassination was invalid. The HSCA claimed the witness universe was “unknowable”.
But the HSCA did not consider a) unnatural deaths, b) 552 Warren Commission witnesses, of whom at least 30 died suspiciously, c) 7 FBI officials were due to testify at HSCA and died suspiciously within a 6 month period, d) and at least 100 others.

11. The HSCA noted just 21 suspicious deaths.
But not one of them was Mafia (8), CIA (16), FBI (9), Dallas police (12) or anti-Castro Cuban (5). There were at least 122 suspicious deaths between 1964 and 1979.

12. There is no proof that the suspicious witnesses were JFK-related.
But approximately 67 of the 122 in the JFK Calc spreadsheet were called to testify at the WC (1964), Garrison/Shaw trial (1967-69), Church Senate Intelligence Committee (1975-76) and HSCA (1976-79).

13. There was no connection between the witnesses.
But at least 50 were from the Dallas area. It cannot just be a coincidence. If there was no connection, the deaths would have been distributed randomly throughout the United States.

14. Warren Commission apologist John McAdams said that John Simkin’s JFK Index includes a number of individuals who were inserted in the index because they died.
That is laughable but not unexpected considering the source. Seventy (70) of the 656 died suspiciously, 44 unnaturally (including 22 homicides). The probability: 1 in trillions.

15. Fingerprint expert Nathan Darby was proven wrong after claiming that fingerprints taken from the 6th floor of the TSBD were those of hitman Mac Wallace.
But “Wallace’s police ‘ten-print’ from his 1951 arrest, used in Mr. Darby’s comparison, was taken 12 years before the murder of JFK and even Mr Darby himself observed differences in the two prints that had arisen during the intervening time (e.g., he recorded what appeared to be an injury to the skin that was not present in the 1951 print but disrupted the 1963 print). He still felt confident enough to swear an affidavit stating that he had found 14 matching points, the threshold for admissibility in Texan courts. By all accounts, he later revisited the prints out of personal interest and found a 32-point match”.

16. Oswald’s palm prints were found on the Carcano
But Dallas police officials said during public interviews that Oswald’s prints had NOT been found on the weapon. When the FBI’s Latona examined the Carcano on November 23, he did not find Oswald’s prints on the weapon. Moreover, Latona said the rifle’s barrel did NOT look as though it had even been processed for prints. There is evidence that suggests the palm print was obtained from Oswald’s dead body at the morgue, or later at the funeral home So suspicious was the palm print that even the WC privately had doubts about the manner in which it was obtained (Garrison 113; Marrs 445; cf. Lane 153-158)

17. Oswald purchased the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle by mail-order under the alias “Alek Hidell”.
But this video proves that Oswald never ordered the rifle.

Why would he order a sub-par rifle from Klein’s Sporting Goods in Chicago using an alias when he could have purchased a superior rifle anonymously anywhere in Texas?
– Oswald was at work when he is said to have purchased the money order. So who bought the money order? If Oswald didn’t buy it, why does the handwriting seem to be his? There are forgers who can copy a person’s handwriting so well that it is difficult if not impossible to detect the fakery. The original order form and envelope were destroyed, so the FBI had to rely on microfilm copies of this evidence.

– Nobody at Oswald’s post office reported giving him a hefty package such as the kind in which a rifle would be shipped. None of the postal workers reported ever giving Oswald ANY kind of a package. Oddly, the FBI apparently made no effort to establish that Oswald picked up the rifle from the post office, or that he had ever received a package of any kind there.

– Postal regulations required that only those persons named on the post office box registration form could receive items of mail from the box, yet there is no evidence that Oswald listed the name of Hidell on the form (Smith 290-291). In a report dated 3 June 1964, the FBI stated, “Our investigation has revealed that Oswald did NOT indicate on his application that others, including an ‘A. Hidell,’ would receive mail through the box in question”.

– There is a discrepancy in size between the weapon ordered by “A. Hidell” and the rifle that Oswald allegedly left behind on the sixth floor of the TSBD. “A. Hidell” ordered item C20-T750 from an advertisement placed by Klein’s Sporting Goods in the February 1963 issue of AMERICAN RIFLEMAN. The rifle that was listed as item C20-T750 is 36 inches long. The Mannlicher-Carcano that Oswald supposedly abandoned on the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building is 40.2 inches long.

Leave a comment

Posted by on September 11, 2015 in Uncategorized


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

The 2004 Election “Game” debate

Richard Charnin
Aug. 24, 2015

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

2004 Election Fraud: Confirmation of a Kerry Landslide
1988-2012 Presidential Elections: The Master Spreadsheet
Cumulative Vote Shares: Indicators of Rigged Elections
A Simple 2004-2008-2012 Exit Poll Simulation Model
Cumulative Vote Share Spreadsheet Reference

The 2004 Election “Game” debate

Today is the 10th anniversary of my banning during the “Game” debate on the Democratic Underground (“DU”). The purpose of the debate was to determine if Bush really did steal the election. In those days I posted as TruthIsAll (TIA).

In 2004-2005, DU was the most popular debating site for analyzing the 2004 exit polls. There were scores of heated debates. Viewing the “Game” thread is instructive in understanding the nature of the debates which fueled the election integrity movement.

I expressed frustration with the exit poll naysayers who had a myriad of bogus excuses as to why the exit polls were wrong and claimed that Bush did not steal the 2004 election:
Not ONE mathematical scenario, but many theories and hypotheses based on reluctant Bush voters, the Bush Bandwagon effect, lying Gore voters, forgetful Gore voters, bad weather at the exit polls, exuberant Kerry-biased exit pollsters, inexperienced exit pollsters, exit polls not designed to catch fraud, young exit pollsters, early Democratic voters, late Republican voters, inaccurate exit polls, cluster effect, faulty assumptions, High MoEs, massive Fundamental Christian turnout, Bush the War President, conspiracy fraudsters, sore Kerry losers, rabid spreadsheet-wielding liberal bloggers, Democrats weak on defense, Kerry a lousy campaigner, Repubs united, Democrats divided, Bush strong on moral issues, Bush a religious born-again Christian..

This comment by the brilliant poster anaxarchos sums it all up nicely:

In 2005, unadjusted state and national exit polls were not available. The 12:22am preliminary 2004 National Exit Poll timeline (at 13,047 respondents) showed Kerry leading by 51-48%. But the final adjusted poll (13660 respondents) magically matched Bush’s 51-48% margin. Analysts questioned how vote shares could flip an impossible 3% with just 613 additional respondents. The anomaly was strong evidence that the election was stolen.

Another major red flag was that the adjusted poll indicated that 43% (52.6 million) of the 122.3 million who voted in 2004 were returning Bush 2000 voters. Bush only had 50.5 million votes in 2000. Approximately 2 million Bush voters died and another 1 million did not return in 2004. Therefore, there could not have been more than 47.5 million returning Bush voters.
There had to be at least 5 million phantom Bush voters.

In order to explain away these anomalies, the naysayers offered a number of arguments:
1) Reluctant Bush exit poll responders
2) Gore voter false recall
3) near zero correlation of 2000 to 2004 vote-swing and the 2004 exit poll red-shift.
All of these arguments were subsequently refuted.

In 2006, Mark Lindeman wrote “A TruthIsAll FAQ” in which he responded to questions on my analysis. This was my response:

These posts were written in 2012 after the 1988-2008 state and national unadjusted exit polls became available. The data was utilized in the True Vote Model.

2004 unadjusted state and national exit polls vs. the recorded vote

Exit Polls- adjusted to force a match to the recorded vote

True Vote Models- a powerful sensitivity analysis tool
2004 Pre-election and Exit Poll Simulation Model

Election Myths
The Unadjusted 2004 National Exit Poll: Closing the Book on the False Recall Myth
Vote Swing vs. Exit Poll Red-Shift: Killing the “Zero slope means No Election Fraud” Canard
Exposing Election Myths: Facts and Graphs

Media Complicity- covering up the Fraud

Leave a comment

Posted by on August 24, 2015 in Uncategorized


Tags: ,

The Media and Scott Walker’s 2014 Election Fraud

Richard Charnin
July 25, 2015

This is an informative article and video from We the People Dane County Blog It contains links to Election Fraud articles (including many of my blog posts) and related videos.

Analysis of Scott Walker’s 2012 recall and the November 2014 election results can be shown to be mathematically implausible and cannot represent voter intent. The chance that Scott Walker has, in 2 consecutive election cycles, “won” with vote totals that each violate the Law of Large Numbers is zero.

While Scott Walker bases his 2016 Presidential Campaign on the statement he has won 3 elections in 4 years, in fact, at least 2 of these elections can be demonstrated to have been stolen. The embedded video below explains and highlights the media’s role in election fraud.

Leave a comment

Posted by on July 25, 2015 in Uncategorized


Tags: , ,

Wisconsin 2010 Senate: True Vote Model and Cumulative Vote shares indicate Feingold won

Wisconsin 2010 Senate True Vote Analysis

Richard Charnin
June 16, 2011
Updated May 6,2012 to include unadjusted exit polls
Updated July 21, 2015 to include Cumulative Vote share analysis

Charnin Website
Wisconsin blog posts

2010 Wisconsin Senate True Vote Model

Wisconsin exit polls
This is an updated analysis of the 2010 Wisconsin Senate race. The WI Exit Poll was forced to match the recorded vote (Johnson defeated Feingold by 52-47%). Forcing a match to the recorded vote is standard operating procedure. In order to force a match in the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections, the exit pollsters had to assume an impossible number of returning Bush voters from the previous election.

The returning voter mix should reflect the previous election True Vote, not the recorded vote. In the adjusted 2010 exit poll, 49% of the recorded votes were cast by returning Obama 2008 voters and 43% by returning McCain voters. The ratio is consistent with Obama’s 7.5% national recorded vote margin.

In Wisconsin, Obama had a 56.2% recorded share; Feingold just 47%. But Obama led the unadjusted Wisconsin exit poll by 63-36% (2,545 respondents; 2.4% margin of error). In Oregon, Obama had a 57% recorded share. Ron Wyden, a progressive Democratic senator running for re-election,had an identical 57%.

The probability is 97.5% that Obama’s true Wisconsin vote share exceeded 61%. Assuming Obama had 61%, how could Feingold have had just 47% two years later?

In the 2010 WI exit poll, Vote shares were not provided for returning third party (Other) voters and new (DNV) voters which represented 3% and 5% of the total recorded vote, respectively. In order to match the vote, Johnson must have won these voters by approximately 60-35%, which is highly unlikely. In 2008, Obama won returning third party voters by 66-20%.

A comparison of the demographic changes from 2004 to 2010 yields interesting results – but the 2010 numbers are suspect asthey are based on the the 2010 recorded vote:
– Johnson needed 70% of voters who decided in the final week to win.
From 2004 > 2010:
Females: 53% > 50% (is not plausible).
Voters over 45: 50% > 62% (seems high)
Party ID: 38R/35D > 37D/36R (more Democrats, so how did Feingold lose)
Independents for Feingold: 62% > 43% (implausible)
Labor for Feingold; 66% > 59% (why would he lose his base support?)
Milwaukee County for Feingold: 68% > 61% (10% of his base defected?
Suburban/Rural for Feingold: 51% > 43%

The True Vote Model
Using the unadjusted 2008 Wisconsin presidential exit poll as a basis, Feingold won by 52.6-45.5%, a 154,000 vote margin. The model assumes McCain returning voter turnout of 70% in 2010, compared to just 63% of Obama voters. It also assumes the adjusted exit poll shares that were required to match the recorded vote. The adjusted poll indicates that Feingold had an implausibly low 84% share of returning Obama voters. If Feingold had 89% (all else being equal), he would have won by 289,000 votes with a 56% total share.

Sensitivity Analysis
Vote shares are displayed for various scenarios of a) returning Obama and McCain voter turnout and b) Feingold’s share of returning and new voters. Although the exit poll was forced to match the recorded vote, the True Vote Model uses the adjusted vote shares as the base case. It is likely that the vote shares were also adjusted to force a match to the recorded vote.

The True Vote Base Case analysis assumes a 1.0% annual voter mortality rate, a 63% turnout of living Obama voters and a 70% turnout of McCain voters. The percentage mix of returning 2008 third-party (other) voters could not have been the 3% indicated in the WI exit poll. That would mean there were 65,000 third-party voters but there were just 44,000. Therefore, the model assigned the 1.5% excess of Other voters to New/DNV (first-time voters and others who did not vote in 2008).

Feingold was the winner in all scenarios of returning Obama and McCain voters. But it is important to keep in mind that the adjusted WI exit poll gave Feingold just 84% of returning Obama voters. It is difficult to accept the premise that nearly one of six Obama voters defected to Johnson.

Cumulative Vote Shares
The sharply increasing Johnson cumulative vote share in Milwaukee and other counties defies explanation. Democratic vote shares rise in large urban voting precincts.

1 Comment

Posted by on July 23, 2015 in Uncategorized


Tags: , , , ,

Exit Pollsters at Edison Research: Never Discuss the Election Fraud Factor

Richard Charnin
July 20 2015

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

Frustrated voters who have seen their elections stolen need to know the facts. The corporate media never discusses Election Fraud – the third-rail of American politics. But it is no longer the dirty little secret it was before the 2000 election.

This is an analytic overview of Historical Election Fraud:

Edison Research conducts exit polls. In this report, ER once again fails to mention the Election Fraud factor, which has skewed the True Vote in national, state and local elections for decades.

In all exit polls, the pollsters adjust returning voters and/or vote shares to match the recorded vote. EDISON RESEARCH MAKES THE INVALID ASSUMPTION THAT THE RECORDED VOTE IS THE TRUE VOTE. IT IS AN UNSCIENTIFIC MYTH WHICH ONLY SERVES TO PERPETUATE FRAUD.

The following is a summary of the major points in the Edison Research article. My comments are in bold italics.

Edison: Of the surveys there were 19 states where the sample size was too small for individual state demographic or other breakouts.
That is absolute nonsense. In 2012, the National Election Pool (NEP) of six media giants which funds the exit polls said it did not want to incur the cost, so they would not run exit polls in 19 states. That was a canard. Could it be that the NEP and the pollsters did not want the full set of 50 state exit polls to be used in a True Vote analysis? The continued pattern of discrepancies would just further reveal built-in systematic fraud. That is also why the question “How Did You Vote in 2008” was not published along with the usual cross tabs. The “How Voted” crosstab is the Smoking Gun of Election Fraud. In every election since 1988, the crosstab illustrates how pollsters adjust the number of returning Republican and Democratic voters (as well as the current vote shares) to match the recorded vote.

Edison: The majority of interviews are conducted in-person on Election Day in a probability sample that is stratified based on geography and past vote.
The past vote is the bogus recorded vote which favors the Republicans. Any stratification strategy is therefore biased and weighted to the Republicans.

Edison: The goal in this paper is not to provide a comprehensive and exhaustive discussion of the intricacies of the operational and statistical aspects of an exit poll but to provide additional discussion on various ways to incorporate probability distributions into an exit poll framework. The core of this discussion is based on discrete data in the exit poll. The examples used in this paper will be based on the data obtained from the 2012 presidential election and will specifically address the use of the Dirichlet and Normal distributions.
There is nothing intricate about forcing unadjusted exit polls to match the recorded vote. It is quite simple. And it happens in every election.

How does Edison explain the massive exit poll discrepancies?

– In 2008, Obama had 61% in the National Exit Poll (17836 respondents) and 58% in the weighted aggregate of the state exit polls. But he had a 52.9% recorded share. The probability of the discrepancy is ZERO.

– In 2004, John Kerry had 51.7% in the unadjusted National Exit Poll (13660 respondents)s. He led the state aggregate by 51.1-47.6%. But Kerry lost  the recorded vote by 50.7-48.3%.

– In 2000, Al Gore led the unadjusted National Exit Poll by 48.5- 46.3%. He led the state aggregate polls by 50.8-44.4%. But Gore was held to a 48% tie with Bush in the recorded vote.

Edison: A useful characteristic relating to probability distributions is the ability to use known data and then simulate from the posterior distribution. Using the exit poll framework, the statewide candidate estimates can be used and applied using the Dirichlet distribution approach. This means that the estimates from each state can be used to determine the probability that a given candidate will win each state. With the probability of success established for each state we can incorporate these probabilities into a winner-take-all Binomial distribution for all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
A simulation is not required to calculate the expected electoral vote if we have calculated the state win probabilities, The expected EV is the product sum of the probabilities and corresponding EVs.
EV = SUMPRODUCT[prob(i) * EV(i)], where i =1,51.

In the 2012 True Vote Election Model, pre-election state win probabilities were calculated based on final Likely Voter (LV) polls. The model exactly projected Obama’s 332 EV. But Obama’s True Vote was much better than his recorded share. Note: LVs are a subset of Registered Voter (RV) polls which eliminate new, mostly Democratic, “unlikely” voters.

Edison: Clearly, ‘calling’ a national election based purely on sample data is not the most favorable strategy due to sampling variability. However, updating the probability that a candidate will win with additional known data in each of the given states will decrease the variability in the posterior distribution. This can be accomplished by using additional known prior data or, as is often the case in elections, by adding the final precinct election results provided shortly after the polling places close.

This is all good theoretically, but it assumes that the final precinct data has not been manipulated. In any case, a 10 million trial simulation is overkill. Only 500 Monte Carlo trials are necessary to calculate the probability of winning the electoral vote.

Edison: This can be accomplished by using additional known prior data or, as is often the case in elections, by adding the final precinct election results provided shortly after the polling places close. Due to the nature of elections, informed priors are often available and can be incorporated into the estimates to improve the probability distribution. In this way, specific models can be developed to handle states with more or less available prior data and improve the overall model.
Again, no mention of the votes being flipped in the precincts.

Edison: We can take the currently collected data and model the results using other quantities that are available. In some ways, due to the nature of linear regression, prior information is already implicitly included in exit poll regression models.
But the prior election returning voter mix in five presidential elections was mathematically and physically impossible. The exit polls indicate that there were more returning Nixon and Bush voters from the prior election than were actually still alive. This is absolute proof that the published exit polls were adjusted to match vote-miscounts. Garbage in, garbage out.

Edison: There are two primary goals that are addressed by regression models in this paper:
1) general understanding of the data within a given state. In other words identifying variables that aid in a linear prediction of the candidate’s vote; and
2) predicting y, given x, for future observations.
Which data? The adjusted demographic data or the actual pristine data?
If Y = f(X), then X should not be forced to fit the recorded result.

Edison: For the purposes of this paper the sample of polling locations using the final end of night results are used as the response variable. Generally for all states past data tends to be a very good predictor of current results. In some states there are other predictors (e.g. precinct boundary changes, current voter registration, weather, etc.) that work well while in other states those same predictors provide no additional information and make the model unnecessarily complex.
But past data does not reflect the prior True Vote, so any regression analysis cannot predict the True Vote. It will however predict the bogus, recorded vote.

Edison: Again, the regression model presented here is an example model used for demonstration purposes (i.e. no formal model selection procedure was used). Furthermore, for this same purpose the non-informative prior is used. It’s clear from the output of the regression summary that there is a strong effect for 2008 candidate vote percentage, precincts with high Democrat vote in 2008 tend to have a very predictable Democrat vote in 2012. As one would expect the 2012 exit poll results have a strong effect when predicting the final polling location results. This example regression model for Florida is provided in Equation 2.
E (CANDj |x,θ) = β0 +β1 ·CANDEP2012j + β2 ·CAND2008j

All this is saying that a candidate’s vote share is predictable using regression analysis based on the 2008 recorded vote and 2012 adjusted precinct exit poll data. But if the precinct data is biased; the projection will reflect the bias. And the cycle continues in all elections that follow.

Edison: We can check to see if the observed data from the polling places are consistent with the fitted model. Based on the model and the predictive distribution, the model fits quite well without outliers in any of the precincts.
Of course the model will fit the bogus recorded vote quite well because it was forced to match the recorded vote.But what if the observed recorded precinct vote data is manipulated?

Edison: Several important conclusions about the analysis of exit poll data can be drawn from this review of approaches using probability distributions. First, it is clear that there are many probability distribution components to an exit poll.
But the prior information (recorded vote and adjusted exit polls) used in the probability analysis is bogus as long as there is no consideration of the Election Fraud Factor.
Recorded Vote = True Vote + Fraud

Edison: This research on exit polling serves as an exploration of ways to investigate and analyze data and to provide alternate, complementary approaches that may be more fully integrated into standard election (and non-election) exit polling. These procedures are only a few of the many ways that can be used to analyze exit poll data. These approaches provide an alternate way to summarize and report on these data. It also provides additional visualization and ways to view the data and how the data are distributed.
But the core problem is not addressed here. All alternative models are useless if they are based on prior and current recorded vote data which has been corrupted.

Edison: Further topics include small sample sizes, missing data, censored data, and a deeper investigation into absentee/early voting. Additionally, these approaches can be used to investigate various complex sample design techniques (e.g. stratified, cluster, multi-phase, etc.) and evaluate how the designs interact with probabilistic approaches in an exit polling context. Further hierarchical modeling may provide additional insight into the complexities of the exit poll data.
These sample design techniques are all based on recorded vote data. Why are pristine exit polls always adjusted (forced) to match the Election Day recorded vote to within 0.1%?
Proof: Unadjusted Exit Polls are forced to match the Recorded vote:

Leave a comment

Posted by on July 20, 2015 in Uncategorized


Tags: ,

2016 Presidential Election: Will voter turnout overwhelm the built-in fraud factor?

Richard Charnin
July 16, 2015

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

2016 Presidential Election: Will voter turnout overwhelm the built-in fraud factor?

Obama won the 2012 True Vote by 55-43%
In 2016, the Democrat wins
91% of returning Obama voters,
6% of Romney voters and
50% of New voters.

To win the popular vote, the GOP would need 97% of Romney voters to return compared to 77% of Obama voters. But that is implausible since Obama won the 2012 True Vote by approximately 15 million. A 20% split in 2012 voter turnout is not feasible; the GOP cannot win a fair election.

View the spreadsheet:

The Democrat would win easily if 90% of Obama 2012 voters turned out and the votes were counted fairly. But since the True Vote is never equal to the recorded vote, Democratic voters must come out in droves to overcome vote-switching and vote-dropping on proprietary voting machines which have been in place since 2002. The GOP realized that it could never win an honest election. HAVA look:

The published, official adjusted National Exit Poll is always forced to match the Election Day recorded vote. The NEP exactly matched Obama’s Election Day recorded share in 2008 and 2012. Was this just a coincidence?

In 2008, Obama had 52.71% and McCain 45.35% on Election Day.
The ADJUSTED National Exit Poll Gender cross tab matched the recorded vote exactly:
Obama 52.71%; McCain 45.35%.

Obama had 59.2% of 10.2 million Late Votes recorded after Election Day.

Obama won the UNADJUSTED 2008 National Exit Poll by 61-37%.
The UNADJUSTED 2008 state exit poll aggregate matched the True Vote Model:
Obama led both by 58.0-40.5%.

In 2012, Obama had 50.34% and Romney 48.07% on Election Day.
In the Gender crosstab, it was a near perfect match:
Obama led by 50.30-47.76%.
Obama had 60.23% of 11.7 million Late Votes.

In 2012, the National Election Pool decided not to run exit polls in 19 states.
The NEP claimed the polls were too expensive.
Or was it because the UNADJUSTED exit polls would be too revealing?

2008-2012 Adjusted National Exit Poll
..........2012 ......... 2008......... 2016 Tie Vote scenario
Gender Pct Obama Romney Obama McCain Dem Repub

Male....47.0 45.0 52.0 49.0 48.0 ... 43.4 53.7
Female..53.0 55.0 44.0 56.0 43.0 ... 54.0 45.0
Total..100.0 50.3 47.8 52.7 45.3 ... 49.0 49.1

2016 Tie Vote Scenario
2012.........Pct Dem Repub Ind Turnout
Obama.... 39.4% 91% 6% 3% 77%
Romney... 38.8% 6% 94% 0% 97%
Other..... 1.8% 47% 48% 5% 95%
DNV.......20.0% 50% 47% 3%
Votes......100% 66.2 66.4 2.5
Share......100% 49.0% 49.1% 1.9%

2012 True Vote
2008.....Pct Obama Romney Other

Obama.. 53.8% 90% 07% 3%
McCain. 37.2% 07% 93% 0%
Other....1.5% 51% 45% 4%
DNV......7.5% 55% 42% 3%
Vote.....100% 72.2 54.5 2.5
Share........ 55.9% 42.2% 1.9%
Recorded..... 65.9 60.9 2.3
Share........ 51.0% 47.2% 1.8%

Unadjusted 2008 National Exit Pool (17836 respondents)
Total....... Sample Obama McCain Other
Respondents 17,836 10,873 6,641 322
Vote Share. 100.0% 60.96% 37.23% 1.81%

Unadjusted 2008 National Exit Poll
2004 Votes %Mix Obama McCain Other

DNV.....17.7 13.4 71 27 2
Kerry...57.1 43.4 89 09 2
Bush....50.8 38.6 17 82 1
Other....5.9 4.50 72 26 2
Share..131.5 100.% 58.0% 40.4% 1.6%
Vote...........131.5 76.3 53.0 2.2

Final Adjusted 2008 National Exit Poll
(forced to match recorded vote with impossible returning Bush voters)
2004....Votes %Mix Obama McCain Other

DNV.....17.1 13 71 27 2
Kerry.. 48.6 37 89 9 2
Bush... 60.5 46 17 82 1
Other... 5.3 04 72 26 2
Total.. 131.4 100% 52.9% 45.6% 1.5%
Votes............... 69.50 59.95 2.02

Leave a comment

Posted by on July 16, 2015 in Uncategorized

Richard Charnin's Blog

JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud Analysis


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 811 other followers