RSS

Category Archives: Uncategorized

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
 
Leave a comment

Posted by on June 17, 2019 in Uncategorized

 

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

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on June 12, 2019 in Uncategorized

 

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

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on May 10, 2019 in Uncategorized

 

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
 
Leave a comment

Posted by on April 27, 2019 in Uncategorized

 

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.”
Read the rest of this entry »

 
1 Comment

Posted by on April 21, 2019 in Uncategorized

 

2016 Census Race Demographic & National Exit Poll indicates Fraud

Richard Charnin
Jan.27, 2019

LINKS TO  BLOG POSTS

This analysis of the 2016 National Exit Poll Race cross tab and corresponding Vote Census indicates that Clinton did not win the true popular vote.

She won the recorded vote, which is never the same as the true vote. The recorded vote is often fraudulent. The National Exit Poll (NEP) is always forced to match the recorded vote, even if it requires adjusting the category percentage mix and corresponding vote shares. 

Recorded vote:  Clinton  48.25%- Trump 46.17%;  Margin 2.83 mil; Trump has 57% of whites. The NEP indicates Whites were 71% of the electorate.

The Census indicates Whites were 73.3% of the electorate (0.4% MoE). Making just this change to the NEP and keeping vote shares constant, Trump wins by 703,000.

Sensitivity Analysis (assume Whites 73.3% of the electorate)
1. Trump 57% of whites+21% other (black, hispanic, asian, other)
Trump 47.39%- Clinton 46.88%;   Margin 703,000

2. Trump 58% of whites+21% other 
Trump 48.12%-Clinton 46.14%; Margin 2.700 million

3. Trump 59% of whites+22% other 
Trump 49.12%-Clinton 45.14%; Margin 5.425 million

National Exit
Pct Clinton Trump Other
White 71.0% 37.0% 57.0% 6.0%
Non-white 29.0% 74.0% 21.0% 5.0% Clinton Margin
Calc 100.0% 47.73% 46.56% 5.71% 1.17%
136,216 65,016 63,422 7,778 1,594
Recorded 48.25% 46.17% 5.70% 2.08%
136,216 65,724 62,891 7,764 2,833

……

Census
National Exit Poll
Pct Clinton Trump Other
White 73.31% 37.0% 57.0% 6.0%
Non-white 26.69% 74.0% 21.0% 5.0% Trump Margin
Calc 100.00% 46.88% 47.39% 5.73% 0.52%
136,216 63,852 64,555 7,809 703
Recorded 48.25% 46.17% 5.70% 2.08%
136,216 65,724 62,891 7,764 2,833

Sensitivity Analysis

Trump % White
Trump % 57.0% 58.0% 59.0% 60.0% 61.0%
Non-white Trump
24.0% 48.19% 48.93% 49.66% 50.39% 51.12%
23.0% 47.93% 48.66% 49.39% 50.12% 50.86%
22.0% 47.66% 48.39% 49.12% 49.86% 50.59%
21.0% 47.39% 48.12% 48.86% 49.59% 50.32%
20.0% 47.12% 47.86% 48.59% 49.32% 50.06%
Clinton
24.0% 46.07% 45.34% 44.61% 43.88% 43.14%
23.0% 46.34% 45.61% 44.88% 44.14% 43.41%
22.0% 46.61% 45.88% 45.14% 44.41% 43.68%
21.0% 46.88% 46.14% 45.41% 44.68% 43.94%
20.0% 47.14% 46.41% 45.68% 44.94% 44.21%
Trump margin
24.0% 2,885 4,882 6,879 8,876 10,873
23.0% 2,158 4,155 6,152 8,149 10,146
22.0% 1,430 3,428 5,425 7,422 9,419
21.0% 703 2,700 4,698 6,695 8,692
20.0% -24 1,973 3,971 5,968 7,965
Census NEP
Census 2016 Pct Clinton Trump Other
White 100,849 73.31% 37% 57% 6%
Black 17,119 12.44% 89% 8% 3%
Latino 12,682 9.22% 66% 28% 6%
Asian 5,049 3.67% 65% 27% 8%
Other 1,843 1.34% 56% 36% 8%
Calc 137,567 100.0% 47.42% 46.84% 5.73%
65,234 64,431 7,877
Margin 803
National Exit Poll
NEP Pct Clinton Trump Other
White 71.0% 37% 57% 6%
Black 12.0% 89% 8% 3%
Latino 11.0% 66% 28% 6%
Asian 4.0% 65% 27% 8%
Other 2.0% 56% 36% 8% Clinton Margin
Calc 100.00% 47.93% 46.31% 5.76% 1.62%
136,216 65,288 63,082 7,846 2,207
Recorded 48.25% 46.17% 5.70% 2.08%
136,216 65,724 62,891 7,764 2,833

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R9Y3ae2uyW8SUxVUnnOt9ZyvheAxa0fAhesAw_nhciM/edit#gid=1447777586
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R9Y3ae2uyW8SUxVUnnOt9ZyvheAxa0fAhesAw_nhciM/edit#gid=1088655249
https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls/national/president

Other adjustments: True Vote Sensitivity
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R9Y3ae2uyW8SUxVUnnOt9ZyvheAxa0fAhesAw_nhciM/edit?fbclid=IwAR3x0INVIU5VkxsAhSG4IU3JonEc0DOThwK2iwBIoQVx92ld6feg4DM1SfA#gid=1672204415

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on January 27, 2019 in 2016 election, Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , ,

Arizona Senate Poll Analysis (Cont.)

Richard Charnin
Nov.3, 2018

The latest CNN, NBC, CBS AZ senate polls show Sinema up by 4,6 and 3%. FOX has the race tied at 46%. The FOX internal numbers say otherwise.

McSally leads by 48.7-45.8%. But this is conservative as FOX gives her just 3% of Dems and 85% of Repubs. The assumption is that they split Independents 50-50%.

When will the MSM learn? You can’t fool ALL of the people ALL of the time.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2018/senate/az/arizona_senate_mcsally_vs_sinema-6328.html

https://www.scribd.com/document/392088280/Fox-Arizona-Late-October-Complete-Topline-October-31-Release#from_embed

AZ Party ID McSally Sinema
Rep 50% 85% << low 8%
Dem 40% 3% << low 92%
Ind/Other 10% 50% 50%
Total 100.0% 48.7% 45.8%
11/2 Early voting (000) 1461 ballots 611 Rep (41.8%) 495 Dem (33.9%)
Let’s make these plausible adjustments (in bold) to McSally’s shares. McSally has 51.4%.
AZ Party ID McSally Sinema
Rep 50% 88% 8%
Dem 40% 6% 92%
Ind/Other 10% 50% 50%
Total 100.0% 51.4% 45.8%
Sensitivity Analysis- McSally’s total share from worst case lower left cell (48.7%) to best case upper right (52.2%)
McSally % Rep
McSally 85% 86% 87% 88%
%Dem
8% 50.7% 51.2% 51.7% 52.2%
7% 50.3% 50.8% 51.3% 51.8%
6% 49.9% 50.4% 50.9% 51.4%
5% 49.5% 50.0% 50.5% 51.0%
4% 49.1% 49.6% 50.1% 50.6%
3% 48.7% 49.2% 49.7% 50.2%
Note: The AZ 2016 final exit poll Party ID differs from the FOX poll. But the HRC and DJT total vote shares nearly match.
AZ 2016 Party ID Clinton Trump Johnson Stein
Dem 28.0% 89.0% 7.0% 3.0% 0.0%
Rep 32.0% 7.0% 88.0% 3.0% 0.0%
Ind 40.0% 44.0% 47.0% 5.0% 2.0%
Total 100.0% 44.8% 48.9% 3.8% 0.80%
Votes 2,573 1,152 1,259 98 21
Margin 107 4.2%
 
Leave a comment

Posted by on November 3, 2018 in 2018 Elections, Uncategorized

 

Tags:

 
Richard Charnin's Blog

JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud Analysis