My Books

My Books
Trump Won the True Vote
77 Billion to One: 2016 Election Fraud
Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts
Proving Election Fraud: Phantom Voters, Uncounted Votes and the National Poll
Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy

Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy

When I saw the film Executive Action in 1973, I was astounded when the narrator disclosed that an actuary engaged by the London Sunday Times calculated a one in 100,000 trillion probability of eighteen material JFK-related witness deaths in the three years following the assassination. As a quantitative analyst with three degrees in applied mathematics, I recognized that the calculation was mathematical proof of a conspiracy. After all, a professional actuary who has passed difficult mathematical exams would be expected to come up with a good estimate of the odds; that is what he does for a living.

But in 1978 the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) dismissed the actuary’s odds, stating they were invalid and that the universe of witnesses was “unknowable”. The HSCA never showed the actuary’s methodology. In 1989 Jim Marrs published Crossfire in which he listed 103 convenient JFK-related deaths. Along with Jim Garrison’s On the Trail of the Assassins, Crossfire was the basis for Oliver Stone’s JFK.

In 2003, using Marrs’ list, I calculated the probability of at least 15 unnatural witness deaths in the first year, essentially confirming the actuary’s calculation. The HSCA did not consider unnatural deaths which comprised the majority of suspicious deaths; it noted just 21 deaths when there were at least 122 by 1978.

Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy is based on a statistical analysis of unnatural JFK-related deaths, Dealey Plaza eyewitness observations, medical, acoustic and photographic evidence.

Warren Commission defenders and the Corporate Media avoid the evidence and continue to promote the bogus Single Bullet Theory and look like fools doing it. They claim that Oswald was the lone shooter, despite overwhelming evidence that he was not on the 6th floor of the Texas Book Depository but rather in front on the first floor watching the motorcade. As a result, the mainstream media has lost all credibility and must be considered complicit in the ongoing 50 year cover-up. Reclaiming Science is a challenge to the media to let real scientific experts present the facts. Let the experts debate the Warren Commission apologists in full public view.

Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-Election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts

In 2004, John Kerry appeared to be a clear winner based on the exit polls. But the recorded vote counts deviated sharply from the polls and were too one-sided to attribute to mere chance. The political pundits claimed the polls “behaved badly”, calling the three million Bush margin a “mandate”. They failed to report the impossible late adjustments made to the National, Florida and Ohio exit polls that were necessary to force them to match the recorded vote.

Spreadsheet-wielding internet bloggers analyzed the statistical anomalies on election forums. Heated debates took center stage on the mainstream media’s lockdown of election fraud, pre-election and exit poll manipulation, inflated approval ratings, vote-switching incidents, undecided voter allocation, uncounted votes, reluctant Bush responders (“rBr”), Gore voter “false recall”, “swing vs. exit poll red-shift”, etc.

And of course, the famous “Urban Legend”: the inexplicable large increase in Bush’s vote share over 2000 in heavily Democratic urban locations and slight decline in Republican rural areas. Very counter-intuitive. A tremendous red-flag.

But the “Smoking Gun” was the Final National Exit Poll, which indicated that there were 5-6 million more returning Bush 2000 voters than were alive in 2004. This “phantom voter” anomaly has never been discussed by pundits in the media or political scientists in academia even though similar anomalies occurred in 1988, 1992 and 2008. The media pundits still claim that the recorded vote is correct (and the exit polls are wrong) despite millions of uncounted votes in every election.

Proving Election Fraud: Phantom Voters, Uncounted Votes and the National Exit Poll

Proving Election Fraud is a comprehensive resource for analyzing presidential elections from 1968 to 2008. It is written for readers of virtually all backgrounds. The only requirement is an inquisitive, open mind. The True Vote is estimated using basic statistical modeling that is avoided in the media and academia. Spreadsheet-based pre-election and post-election True Vote models are available on the Internet.


20 responses to “My Books

  1. SophiaB

    November 17, 2013 at 10:02 pm

    Hi there. Have you ever corresponded with Brad Friedman? I have spent way too many hours on his blog, and actually understand what you are saying, though I am severely math-impaired. You have been at this awhile, and so has he. I stopped voting in 2010, recognizing that there is no WAY the Dumbs aren’t in on this shell game. I am just amazed the Obama Admin has been permitted to do ANYTHING, but then again, I think he is born and bred CIA. So, there’s that… 🙂

    • Richard Charnin

      November 18, 2013 at 8:45 am

      Yes, I have communicated and posted on Brad’s site – but not recently. I agree with you about the Dems.

      • Darlene Clubb

        April 28, 2016 at 9:45 am

        I am totally new to this level of understanding, but am fascinated by it. can you tell me where I would find Brad Friedman’s blog?

      • Richard Charnin

        April 28, 2016 at 10:44 am

  2. SophiaB

    November 18, 2013 at 3:00 pm

    yeah, I have taken a long break from politics. a year ago I emigrated to Canada with my dual citizen husband. it has been an educational exercise. to say the least…

  3. Tom Rossley

    August 7, 2014 at 11:50 pm


  4. Ramon F Herrera

    January 2, 2015 at 9:26 am

    [Richard wrote:]

    “The HSCA did not consider unnatural deaths which comprised the majority of suspicious deaths; it noted just 21 deaths when there were at least 122 by 1978. ”

    Let us guess, Richard: Every single one of those 21 deaths was mob-related? Any Agency-related death (from the 122 universe) is conspicuously absent?

    For the best explanation of how the HSCA was controlled (I am being diplomatic here), see “The Last Investigation”:

    Prof. Blakey has been attempting to do some penance since then:

    I for one, have a very hard time pardoning him for what he did.

  5. Will Morgan

    June 8, 2016 at 5:36 pm


    I just want to take a moment to extend my thanks for the care and precision of the information you post. Thank you for what you are doing and do keep up your important work. I will continue to link as many of my friends and contacts as I can to your site. I am trying to find an e-copy of your books but there may not be any…


    Will Morgan

  6. Jeanne

    June 12, 2016 at 2:15 pm

    So discouraging the Clinton voter fraud – what, do people think transpired when Senator Sanders met with President Obama?

  7. egg007

    October 6, 2016 at 10:32 pm

    I find your statistical analysis of the JFK numbers interesting. What if the analysis was applied to other major events then these non conspiracy events would not have a similar result.

  8. john p.

    March 12, 2018 at 9:01 pm

    Hi Richard:

    Do we know the true white vote ? I ask because, if we use their choice(s), it seems to be the same result. Whites chose Bush and Bush won, etc.

    Another take is: are they dumping black-area votes ? Are blacks even enfranchised ? It seems silly that they have to keep renewing the voting rights act.

  9. Mark Gobell

    November 6, 2018 at 3:59 am


    I came by your name after listening to one of Jim Fetzer’s JFK podcasts and I was thrilled to discover that someone had addressed the probability of the deaths of the JFK witnesses.

    I searched for ages across this blog and your main web site for a contact email for you, to no avail, so I thought to post my question to you on here since it is the only way I have of contacting you, in the hope that you would be able to assist. I did not want to post these questions in public, I would rather have a private exchange if that’s possible, so thank you for not allowing them through. You have my email so, could you at least let me know if you are not interested in the probability problem I would like to resolve please.

    Thank you.


    This example is about the JFK murder and Levi Eshkol vis the context of Dimona, so I really do hope this might pique your interest.

    Israeli PM Levi Eshkol

    The 666 th Prime Number is 4973 = P666


    From Israel PM Levi Eshkol born on 25 October 1895

    to the murder of JFK on 22 November 1963 is :

    INClusive =

    = 24865 days

    = P666 + P666 + P666 + P666 + P666 days


    When I present examples of my study, the first question I am faced with and rightly so, is :

    What is the probability of that relationship ?

    I understand that for the event relationships I present to have any meaning beyond the spurious, then they must be statistically anomalous, If they are not then my entire study is worthless, so it is this issue that I am trying to find an answer to.

    I would like to be able to know how to work out the probability of that relationship occurring naturally between those two dates and how the context of the relationship can be factored in to those calculations if that is even possible to do.

    I am not a maths ignoramus, but, have no clue about how to approach the issue of these probabilities, or even if it is possible to do in any meaningful way.

    I do hope you can assist.

    A short explanation of the method vis the 111 to 999 triplets and my interpretation of their abundant use is here:

    The 3119 ( P444 ) day sequence from GHW Bush DCI CIA to WTC-1993 and 9/11

    An explanation of the use of Prime Ordinals is here :

    For an explanation of the date arithmetic types : ILUAF and ISUAF, INClusive, INTerval and NORMAL, see here :

    Thank you.


    Mark Gobell

    • Richard Charnin

      November 9, 2018 at 7:08 am

      My take on the p666 theory is that it is not a mathematical proof of anything. You took 5*P666 =24865 days, but why 5?

  10. Mark Gobell

    November 6, 2018 at 4:32 am

    Correction :

    For an explanation of the date arithmetic types : ILUAF and ISUAF, INClusive, INTerval and NORMAL, see here :

    Mark Gobell


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: