RSS

Tag Archives: conspiracy facts

JFK: Proving the Warren Commission was a Hoax and Oswald was framed

Richard Charnin
Aug. 15, 2016

LINKS TO POSTS 
Reclaiming-Science: The JFK Conspiracy

Online trolls who try to discredit my election fraud analysis say that I am a JFK Conspiracy nut. I must be doing something right. For those who are interested, this is a quick JFK conspiracy course.

It takes just ONE of the following to prove that the Warren Commission was a Hoax and Oswald was framed….

  1. One witness killed to prevent him or her from talking.
  2. One witness killed to keep others from talking.
  3. One bullet more than the three the WC claimed were fired.
  4. One brain of JFK to be missing.
  5. One eyewitness who definitely heard shots from the Grassy Knoll.
  6. One eyewitness who definitely saw a shooter at the Grassy Knoll.
  7. One person to order that Dallas police stand-down.
  8. One person with fake Secret Service credentials at the Grassy Knoll.
  9. One journalist to lie about JFK’s head movement.
  10. One government agency to withhold evidence from investigators.
  11. One person with the power to control the investigation.
  12. One photo of Oswald in front of the TSBD at 12:30 to be tampered with.
  13. One Zapruder frame to be switched or deleted to hide the limo full stop.
  14. One conspirator on his death bed (EH Hunt) to claim Johnson was responsible for the “Big Event”.
  15. One Parkland doctor describing entrance wounds in the neck and 5.5 inches below the collar in the back.
  16. One of 44 Parkland and autopsy witnesses describing a massive exit wound in the back of the skull.
  17. One fingerprint of LBJ hit man Mac Wallace on the TSBD 6th fl.
  18. One cop (Roger Craig) to identify a 7.65 Mauser on the 6th fl.
  19. One cop (Baker) seeing Oswald on the 2nd floor with a coke just 90 seconds after the shots were fired.
  20. One Oswald note to the Dallas FBI (Hosty) destroyed because it may have revealed a plot to kill JFK.
  21. One set of Dr. Humes original autopsy notes description of JFK’s wounds.
  22. One autopsy photo tampered with to hide JFK’s exit wound.
  23. One meeting on Nov. 21 in Dallas attended by Hoover, Johnson, Hunt, Murchison, Nixon, etc.
  24. One photo of Poppy Bush standing in front of the TSBD.
  25. One photo of Gen. Landsdale walking near the three tramps.
  26. One witness (Carolyn Arnold) claiming Oswald was on the first floor of the TSBD at 12:25pm.
  27. One WC member (Ford) to admit he raised the location of JFK’s back wound 5.5 inches.
  28. One HSCA chairman (Sprague) fired for wanting to subpoena the CIA.
  29. One HSCA chairman (Blakey) to admit a CIA cover up years later.
  30. One WC lawyer (Specter) forced to create the physically impossible Single Bullet Theory.
  31. One paraffin test to show that Oswald did not fire a rifle on Nov. 22.
  32. One mob-connected friend (Ruby) of the Dallas police to silence Oswald.
  33. One Dallas police chief (Fritz) to fail to record Oswald’s interrogation.
  34. One Sheriff (Craig) to hear that Tippit was shot at 1:06pm on the radio.
  35. One tampered photo of Oswald’s face superimposed on another body.
  36. One Johnson mistress to claim LBJ said JFK would be taken care of.
  37. One retired Police chief to say: “We don’t have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody’s yet been able to put him in that building with a gun in his hand”.
  38. One eyewitness (Sylvia Odio) to testify that she and her sister identified  Oswald as one of three men who came to her Dallas home on Sept. 25 .
  39. One JFK limo with a bullet entry hole in the windshield.
  40. One Oswald girl friend (Judyth Baker) hired by leading cancer expert Dr. Alton Ochsner to document working with Oswald (“Me and Lee”) and David Ferrie (“David Ferrie”) in  New Orleans  on a secret project to kill Castro.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1FmXudDf6pqisxq_mepIC6iuG47RkDskPDWzQ9L7Lykw/pubchart?oid=1227986428&format=image

Advertisements
 
2 Comments

Posted by on August 15, 2016 in JFK

 

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

Response to Nate Cohn of the NY Times

Response to Nate Cohn of the NY Times

Richard Charnin
Updated: July 1,2016

Richard Charnin

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
LINKS TO  POSTS
Democratic Primaries spread sheet
From TDMS Research: Democratic 2016 primaries

Ever since the 2000 election, exit poll naysayers have stated a) Edison Research claims that their exit polls aren’t designed to detect fraud; b) the sample size is too small and c) the questions are too lengthy and complex. 

Sample size? Big enough so that the MoE was exceeded in 12 of 25 Democratic primary exit polls – a 1 in 4 trillion probability. Questions too lengthy? You mean asking males and females who they voted for? Not designed to detect fraud?  That is true;  unadjusted exit polls are adjusted to match the corrupt recorded vote – and cover up the fraud

In his recent NY Times article,  Nate Cohn reverts to classic exit poll naysayer talking points that have been debunked long ago. I thought I was done debunking their posts.

Nate must be unaware of this fact: According to a recent Harvard study, the US ranks last (#47)  in election integrity. http://thefreethoughtproject.com/land-free-ranks-dead-west-fair-elections/

According to Nate, the exit polls are always wrong. He maintains that they were wrong in the 2000 and 2004 elections and that Bush won both elections fairly; there was no fraud. It is common knowledge that Bush stole both elections. This has been proven by  the mathematically impossible exit poll discrepancies, the True Vote Model and Cumulative Vote Share analysis. Unadjusted exit polls were close to the True Vote. The discrepancies were due to corrupted vote counts, not bad polling. 

It is important to keep in mind that historical  evidence of fraud is based on a recurring pattern: The vast majority of exit polls that exceed the margin of error  favor the progressive candidate. Virtually all exit polls shift to the establishment candidate in the recorded vote. 

Nate ignores or is ignorant of the overwhelming evidence proving that the Democratic primary was stolen. He cannot refute these facts:  

 Sanders’ exit poll share exceeded his recorded share in 24 of the 26 primaries exit polled. The probability is 1 in 190,000.  

– Sanders exit poll share exceed his recorded share by more than the margin of error in 11 of the 26 primaries. The probability is 1 in 77 billion. 

Is the exit poll shift to Clinton just pure luck? Or is something else going on? Let’s review and debunk Nate’s comments.

  • I didn’t write about this during the primary season, since I didn’t want to dignify the views of conspiracy theorists. But they’re still going. The exit polls are a sufficient basis to make this determination, in the eyes of the conspiracists, because exit polls are used internationally to detect fraud. They’re supposedly very accurate.

Note the immediate use of the term conspiracy theorist; a sure sign of an Internet troll. But Nate is not a troll; he’s writing for the NY Times.

  • All of this starts with a basic misconception: that the exit polls are usually pretty good. I have no idea where this idea comes from, because everyone who knows anything about early exit polls knows that they’re not great. The 2000,2004, 2008- exit polls were biased. Kerry and Gore both lost.
  • In 2004,  the exit polls showed John Kerry easily winning an election he clearly lost — with both a huge error and systematic bias outside of the “margin of error.” The national exits showed Kerry ahead by three points (and keep in mind the sample size on the national exit is vastly larger than for a state primary exit poll) and leading in states like Virginia, Ohio and Florida — which all went to George W. Bush.
  • The story was similar in 2000. The early exit polls showed Al Gore winning Alabama, Arizona, Colorado and North Carolina. Mr. Bush won these states by between six and 15 points.  
  • In 2008 the exit polls showed a pretty similar bias toward Barack Obama.
  • The same thing happened in 1996. It was actually even worse in 1992. The exit polls had Bill Clinton winning Texas, which went to George H.W. Bush, and basically everywhere. 

Clinton won in 1992 and 1996 by far greater margins than  recorded.  https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1EWaKPDUolqbN7_od8sSTNMRObfUidlVPRBxeyyirbLM/edit#gid=15

The allegations are remarkably consistent. They go like this: Mr. Sanders did better in the early exit polls than he did in the final result. Therefore, Mrs. Clinton probably stole the election. The exit polls are a sufficient basis to make this determination, in the eyes of the conspiracists, because exit polls are used internationally to detect fraud. They’re supposedly very accurate and “well controlled” (where this phrase comes from, I don’t know).  Sources for exit poll error — even more than in an ordinary poll: Differential non-response, Cluster effects, Absentee voters aren’t included  Exit polls can be very inaccurate and systematically biased. 

The  differential response canard was disproved in 2004 by the exit pollsters own data:
Reluctant Bush ResponderEvaluation of Edison Mitofsky Election System 2004

Nate claims he has no idea where the  “misconception” that exit polls are accurate comes from.  They come from the experts cited below –  not from the controlled MSM. Nate calls these experts “conspiracy theorists”; his basic misconception is assuming  there is no such thing as Election Fraud. 

Nate states that the sources of exit poll errors are greater than in “ordinary” polls. His claim that exit poll non-response, cluster effect and absentee voters are not considered is false;  these factors are used in weighting the sample.  An exit poll cluster effect (typically 30%) is added to the theoretical margin of error. And of course, in an exit poll,  unlike pre-election polls, voters are asked who they just voted for.

What about sources and methods of election fraud? What is the motivation of  the MSM in forcing the unadjusted exit polls to match corrupted vote counts?

  • Exit polls can be very inaccurate and systematically biased. With this kind of history, you can see why no one who studies the exit polls believes that they can be used as an indicator of fraud in the way the conspiracy theorists do.

Nate expects rational viewers to believe that experts who study exit polls are conspiracy theorists because they have concluded that the polls are indicators of fraud. Does he truly believe these experts are delusional and/or incompetent in assuming that exit poll discrepancies (which exceed the margin of error) raise legitimate questions as to the likelihood of fraud? 

Pollsters ask males and females in foreign countries the question “Who Did You Vote For” to check for possible election fraud.  They ask the same question in the U.S. The difference is that here they essentially cover-up the fraud by adjusting the responses to match the recorded vote – and always assume ZERO fraud.

  • Why are exit polls tilted toward Sanders? Young voters are far more likely to complete the polls. Voter registration files are just starting to be updated. Sanders is a candidate with historic strength among young voters.

That is pure conjecture  and not based on factual evidence. But this is not conjecture: more Sanders than Clinton voters (young and old)  were disenfranchised. But Nate doesn’t mention that fact?  What about all of those independents and Democrats who never got to the polls because of  voided registrations, long lines and closing of polling places?

  • There are other challenges with exit polls in the primaries. Usually, the exit polls select precincts by partisanship — ensuring a good balance of Democratic and Republican precincts. This helps in a general election. It doesn’t do as much good in a primary.

Nate does not know how the precincts were selected. It’s proprietary information.   Why won’t the exit pollsters tell us which precincts were polled ? Since they don’t, we must assume they have something to hide. The pollsters (actually the MSM) do not want analysts to compare precinct votes to the exit poll response. It’s clear that they might find discrepancies which indicate a high probability of vote miscounts.

Exit poll naysayers won’t dare mention the THIRD-RAIL of American politics:  Election Fraud.  They do not even concede that election fraud is a likely cause of the exit poll discrepancies. They just assume the exit polls are always wrong and that there is no such thing as Election Fraud. How ridiculous is that?

 Election Fraud is as American as apple pie. Read what the true experts have to say who you arrogantly dismiss as Conspiracy Theorists. The true conspiracy is not a theory but a fact: the mainstream media is complicit in covering up Election Fraud.

Election experts:

Debunking exit poll naysayers:

An Open Letter to Salon’s Farhad Manjoo
An Open Letter to John Fund (WSJ): Election Fraud, not Voter Fraud
An Open Letter to Mark Blumenthal at Pollster.com
Debunking Mark Blumenthal’s Critique of the RFK Rolling Stone Article
Response to the Mark Lindeman’s TruthIsAll FAQ
A Reply to Nate Silver’s “Ten Reasons Why You Should Ignore Exit Polls
2016 Election fraud: Response to Joshua Holland 
Bob Fitrakis: flunking Joshua Holland in Stat 101

Election fraud posts since 2004:

Mathematical Modeling of Voting Systems and Elections: Theory and Applications
Why Won’t the National Election Pool Release Unadjusted Exit Polls?
Fixing the Exit Polls to Match the Policy
Avoiding Election Fraud: Forecasters. Political Scientists, Academics and the Media
Election Fraud: What the Media wants us to believe

Election Fraud: The 2016 Democratic Primaries
Democratic Primaries: Election Fraud Probability Analysis
April 4 Exit poll anomalies (continued)

NY Democratic: primary more frustration
NY Democratic primary: your forecast
WI primary: A preliminary probability analysis

Democratic primary quiz
NY Democratic primary quiz
NY Democratic: primary more frustration
NY democratic primary: your forecast
WI primary: A preliminary probability analysis

AZ primary: Voter suppression in Maricopa County
Super Tuesday: 5 Democratic primaries, exit poll discrepancies/win-probabilities
MI primary: Bernie did better than the recorded share indicates
MA Democratic primary; a stolen election

1988-2008 unadjusted Presidential Exit Polls: 52-42% Democratic margin

1988-2012 Presidential Election Fraud Exit Poll Database
2004: Overwhelming Statistical Proof of a Stolen Election
Election Fraud Analysis: A Historical Overview
Election Fraud: An Introduction to Exit Poll Probability Analysis
Perspectives on an Exit Poll Reference Text

2014 Governor Election Models: TVM, CVS, VTM, Census votes cast
A Compendium of Election Fraud Links
Avoiding Election Fraud: Forecasters. Political Scientists, Academics and the Media

Footprints of Election Fraud: 1988-2008 State Exit Poll Discrepancies
Monte Carlo Simulation: 2004 Presidential Pre-election and Exit Polls
An Electoral Vote Forecast Formula: Simulation or Meta-analysis not required
The unadjusted 2004 National Exit Poll: closing the book on “False Recall”
True Vote Graphics

Unadjusted Exit Poll Probability Analysis Links
Election Fraud: Uncertainty, Logic and Probability
A Model for Estimating Presidential Election Day Fraud
2000-2012: Monte Carlo Electoral Vote Simulation
2004: Simple Arithmetic Proof that Bush Stole the election

2004: The “Game” Debate
Why did the Networks Cancel Exit Polls in 19 States?
2000: Unadjusted Exit Polls indicate Gore won by 51-45% (5-7 million votes)
2004: True Vote Model Sensitivity Analysis: Kerry Landslide
A Conversation about the 2004 Election

Simple Numerical Proof of 2004 Election Fraud
Returning 2000 and New Voters: Proof that Kerry Won
Online Book: Confirmation Of a Kerry Landslide
2008: To believe Obama by just 9.5 million-votes,,,

Proof that Obama won by much more than 9.5 million votes
2008 Unadjusted Exit Polls Confirm the True Vote Model
1988-2008 State Uncounted Votes and Exit Poll Analysis
The True Vote Model:  A Mathematical Formulation

True Vote Model: Probability Sensitivity Analysis
An Introduction to the True Vote Model
Election Fraud Quiz
Election Fraud Quiz II

 

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

Election Fraud: Response to Joshua Holland

Election Fraud:  Response to Joshua Holland

Richard Charnin
April 29,2016

Last week,  actor and activist Tim Robbins tweeted on the exit poll discrepancies. And the media presstitutes went after him with a vengeance. Joshua Holland wrote a response in The Nation. He followed  with another hit piece attacking Robbins, Prof. Bob Fitrakis, Lee Camp, Prof. Steven Freeman and myself: On Tim Robbins, election fraud and how nonsense spreads around the Internet.

Robbins responded to Holland in the Huffington Post.  Professor Bob Fitrakis flunked Holland in Social Science 101 (exit polls).  Comedian Lee Camp also responded on his website.   Professor Beth Clarkson defended my math proof. 

 Holland wrote: Monday, actor Tim Robbins caused a stir when he tweeted out a Facebook meme, charging that CNN and The New York Times are blind to a massive conspiracy going on right beneath their noses. It had close to 1,000 retweets when Robbins apparently deleted it.

A quick glance is enough to know that there are problems with the meme. The exit poll numbers are wrong. In Massachusetts, for example, CNN reported that exit polls showed Clinton winning by 2 points, which is very close to her 1.4 percent margin in the final results. In Alabama, CNN reports the exit polls showing Clinton with a 57-point margin, the Facebook meme claims it was 44.7 points, and the final result was 60.4 percent.

But where did Tim Robbins come up with these numbers? I decided to do a bit of reporting, and I ended up chasing this Facebook meme down a rabbit-hole of misinformation and conspiracism. It offers a pretty good case-study of how bullshit can come to dominate our online discourse.

The meme was created by Lee Camp, a political comedian who hosts a weekly show on RT, the Russian foreign news network. It has over 2,000 shares on Facebook as of this writing. Via email, I asked Camp for his source, and he pointed me to a post on Reddit by a user who goes by the handle “turn-trout.” Turn-trout, who didn’t respond to a message seeking comment, claims that these are unadjusted exit polls, and links to a spreadsheet purportedly showing wide discrepancies between the raw data and the final results.

Note: Lee Camp  responded to Holland.

The spreadsheet was created by Richard Charnin, who writes a blog devoted to “JFK conspiracy and systemic election fraud analysis.” Charnin’s spreadsheet appears to be the basis of a broad swath of viral Internet content alleging widespread election theft during the 2016 primaries, including the work of Free Press editors Harvey Wasserman and Bob Fitrakis Charnin seems to think that exit polls can reveal that virtually all our elections have been rigged, writing, “in the 1988-2008 presidential elections, the Democrats won the exit polls by 52-42%; they won the recorded vote by just 48-46%, an 8% discrepancy.”

I exchanged some… interesting correspondence with Charnin. After calling me “very biased and misleading” for a recent piece, he claimed that “ALL exit polls are forced to match the recorded vote.” I asked him whether the exit poll data in his spreadsheet were unadjusted, and he said that they were the data released by major media organizations. He then told me that “the mainstream media won’t dare touch the Third Rail – ELECTION FRAUD,” but it’s cool because “Tim Robbins just talked about it.” Finally, the truth emerges.

Virtually all of these claims are based on the idea that exit polls are a telltale sign of fraud. In a follow-up tweet, Tim Robbins explained that, “exit polls are historically pretty accurate,” and “are a heads-up on vote tampering.” Turn-trout agrees, writing, “Exit polls have historically and throughout the world been used as a check against, and rough indicator of, the degree of election fraud.”

This is also the basis of claims by Wasserman and Fitrakis – who point to the precision of German exit polling to emphasize the point – and Steven Freeman, a Penn State psychologist who authored the book, Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen?: Exit Polls, Election Fraud, and the Official Count.

(Note:  Steve Freeman is not a psychologist. He holds a PhD from MIT’s Sloan School of Management where he teaches research methods and survey design).

So there you have it. They say a lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on, and that’s especially true of the internet. Here we have an example of an actor citing a comedian who picked up a claim from an an anonymous Reddit user citing preliminary exit poll data put together by a JFK conspiracy theorist. Bringing it all full circle is The Hill, which ran a story titled, “Actor Tim Robbins blames Sanders losses on ‘voter fraud,’” which will no doubt be shared thousands of times on Facebook and Twitter.

Last week, I attempted to debunk allegations of widespread election fraud by the Clinton campaign that have been swirling around on social media. My argument was an appeal to common sense: If Hillary Clinton entered the race with a very large lead in the national polls and an enormous amount of support from Democratic Party activists and elected officials, as she did, and then quickly built up a significant lead in pledged delegates, as she did, then at no time since the start of the race, regardless of how unscrupulous her campaign might be, would there be any rational motive for risking infamy by rigging the vote. You don’t need to cheat when you’re winning.

(Note:Holland criticized  Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserstein, both well-respected and prominent activists who have written books on Election Fraud). 

He wroteThat didn’t sit well with Harvey Wasserman and Bob Fitrakis, whose earlier piece for The Free Press, “Is the 2016 election already being stripped & flipped?,” I had mentioned briefly in the column. They’ve now published a lengthy broadside accusing me, and The Nation, of not being able to handle the truth when it comes to “election theft.” (It’s an odd charge, given that my Nation colleague Ari Berman has done some of the best reporting in the country on vote suppression.)

It’s unfortunate that Wasserman and Fitrakis didn’t engage my argument (or link to my piece so that readers might judge it for themselves). Instead, they waved away the idea that looking at motive is a legitimate way of evaluating the likelihood that a crime has been committed, writing that the argument was “a bit hard to follow.”

Fitrakis and Wasserman join these very serious problems with innuendo and thin evidence to claim that virtually all elections, including the 2016 primaries, are rigged. They dismiss those of us who don’t buy their claims as being incapable of handling the truth. But skepticism goes both ways, and true skeptics require more concrete evidence than Fitrakis and Wasserman are able to offer.

My response: Holland called it a “rabbit hole of misinformation and conspiracism”.   I have concluded based on 15 years of posting that when a naysayer uses the conspiracy meme, he will invariably proceed with misinformation and factual omission. And that is exactly what Holland did.

Joshua does not mention my two masters degrees in applied mathematics and that I have followed presidential elections since 1952.  He  referred to me as a  JFK Conspiracy Theorist, as if that disqualifies me from analyzing election fraud. That was a big mistake; he  apparently believes the thoroughly debunked Single Bullet Theory. That says it all. Joshua failed to do his homework on the mathematical analysis of election fraud and JFK witness deaths. He totally exposed himself as an incompetent researcher.

Holland said that the exit poll results are “wrong”.  Really? What was the basis for that statement?  He has obviously not viewed the data downloaded from CNN. Holland called the numbers “bullshit”.  His article is biased and misleading – a permanent stain on whatever credibility he has. He cannot  fool serious researchers who are aware of the facts  and  the math that prove election fraud.

Holland interviewed  Joe Lenski of Edison Research, the polling firm . But he failed to get Lenski to explain why exit pollsters force a match to the recorded vote – even if the recorded vote is bogus.  Lenski  does not logically explain why ALL exit polls are matched to the recorded vote counts.  He has never provided a rationale for the match. Of course Lenski works for the Corporate Media (the National Election Pool). Holland fails to see the significance of that. He never considers that the recorded vote may be fraudulent. In fact, he never mentions the F-word – nor does anyone else in the corporate media. Holland fails to see the significance of that. 

Holland wrote that  Lenski stressed that “pre-election polls are also adjusted to conform their samples to what pollsters know about the populations they’re trying to measure. The irony of all of this is that the adjusted data are far more accurate than the raw data”.

 Are we supposed to take that comment seriously? Apparently Holland does.  If that is the case why won’t the pollsters show us the raw exit poll data in all the precincts polled? And how did they end up with an exact 0.01% match to the recorded vote in the CT primary? Holland fails to see the significance of that. 

Holland needs to study the historical evidence of systemic election fraud

1988-2008 Presidential Exit Polls

In spreadsheets linked from my blog, I provide 1988-2008 historical presidential vote and unadjusted exit poll data.  The Democrats led the exit polls by 52-42% but led the recorded vote by just 48-46%. The probability of the 8% discrepancy is one in trillions. Holland does not have a clue about Probability and Statistics 101. He does not  appreciate or comprehend the magnitude of the discrepancy.  The data is available if he would care to truly investigate. Holland fails to see the significance of that. 

The data shows that 135 of 274 state presidential exit polls from 1988-2008 exceeded the margin of error – and 131 moved in a “redshift” to the GOP. The probability is ZERO: E-116. That’s 116 zeros after the decimal. Holland does not  appreciate or comprehend the magnitude of the discrepancy. He fails to see the significance of that fact.

The primaries

Sanders has won 12 of 13 caucuses, but only 6 of 27 primaries. Election fraud anomalies were apparent in NY MA IL AZ IA NV OH DE WY WI MO DE MI AL TN GA AR TX. Holland fails to see the significance of that.

Sanders led hand-counted precincts in Massachusetts   by 17%, while machine counted precincts went to Clinton by 2%. Holland fails to see the significance of that.

The CNN NY Primary exit poll indicated that  Sanders had 48% (officially he had 42.1%). But he may have done better than 48% since ALL exit polls are adjusted throughout the day  to the recorded vote. And hundreds of thousands of voters were disenfranchised  when their registrations were flipped or dropped altogether. Holland fails to see the significance of that.

There was an 11.8% discrepancy between the NY exit poll  (52-48%) and the recorded vote (57.9-42.1%). The probability of the discrepancy is 1 in 120,000. Holland fails to see the significance of that.

Sanders exit poll share declined from the poll to the vote in 21 of 23 exit polls.
The probability P = 1 in 30,000 = binomdist(2,23,0.5,true).  Holland fails to see the significance of that.

Sanders exit poll share exceeded his recorded share by more than the margin of error in 9 of the 23 primaries. The probability of this result being due to chance:
P= 1 in 441 million = 1-BINOMDIST( 8,23,0.025,false). Holland fails to see the significance of that.

As usual, in the recent CT, MD and PA primaries, the exit poll was forced to match the recorded vote. The differences between Clinton’s 2-party adjusted exit poll share and the recorded share were: CT .01%;  MD 0.10%;  PA -.17%. Holland fails to see the significance of that.

This is how the Pollsters forced a match to the Indiana recorded vote.

Indiana exit poll
Unadjusted 1323 resp Clinton Sanders
Men 42% 40% 60%
Women 58% 48% 52%
 Total 100% 44.64% 55.36%
Final Adjusted 1323 resp Clinton Sanders
Men 41% 43% 57%
Women 59% 50% 50%
 Total 100% 47.13% 52.87%

The mainstream media (including The Nation) won’t dare touch the Third Rail – ELECTION FRAUD. They never discuss malicious, proprietary voting machines and central tabulators that were built to flip the votes. Holland fails to see the significance of that.

Will Holland look at the evidence which proves that the primaries are being stolen from Sanders and write about it?

Fitrakis and Wasserman responded: In 2016, the first thing to face is the massive disenfranchisement of millions of voters, mostly citizens of color and youth. We are heartened to see Bernie and Hillary joined together in an Arizona lawsuit.But the long lines and urban registration stripping that we saw in Phoenix, Madison, and elsewhere this spring will spell doom for the Democrats if they cannot guarantee their constituencies’ the right to vote in November.  http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/36568-is-hillary-stealing-the-nomination-will-bernie-birth-a-long-term-movement

At this point, we’re not optimistic. The efforts at re-enfranchisement are little and late. Among those doing superb work on this stripping of our voter rolls are the great Greg Palast (www.gregpalast.com), Ari Berman of The Nation, and others.But the electronic flipping of the alleged vote count remains a demon black box. The 2000 election was turned from Gore to Bush by electronic manipulations in Volusia County, Florida. The 2004 election was turned from Kerry to Bush in a Chattanooga basement which transformed a 4.2% Democratic lead into a 2.5% GOP victory in 90 dark minutes. All that could happen again in 2016.

Over the years we’ve respected the work of The Nation’s Josh Holland, who’s expressed concern about our reporting on indications of irregularities that seem to favor Hillary over Bernie. But our stated conclusions on them remain far from conclusive. If we thought we had definitive evidence that the Clinton campaign was stealing the nomination from the Sanders campaign, we’d say so in direct, explicit and unmistakable phrases.Simply put: we do NOT at this point believe they rise to the level of provable theft, as we are certain was the case in 2000 and 2004. We understand concerns and welcome the dialogue. But we’d like to avoid the usual circular firing squad. Writing in The Nation, Josh has deemed it important to mention disagreements with our former collaborator Steve Rosenfeld, and our good friend Mark Hertsgaard. Mark’s writing on global warming has been legend. In 2004 he criticized some of our reporting on the Ohio vote count. We disagreed with him then and still do. Nothing in the past 12 years of our research and writing while based in central Ohio has surfaced that would make us change our reporting on how the 2004 election was stolen. Quite the opposite.

But other comments on the nature of electronic election theft throw up a HUGE red flag. And here we worry about a dangerous gap in the work from The Nation and the left as a whole. If international election standards were applied to the 2016 primaries, eight states – Georgia, Massachusetts, Alabama, Texas, Mississippi, Ohio, New York, Tennessee – would be investigated for suspected fraudulent election results, because the actual vote deviates so greatly from the exit polls. Also, the exit polls indicated that Sanders won in Illinois, Massachusetts and Missouri. The e bottom line is this: there is no viable method for monitoring or verifying the electronic vote count in 2016. In a close race, which we expect this fall, the outcome could be flipped in key swing states where GOP governors and secretaries of state are running the elections. This includes most notably Ohio, Michigan, Iowa and Arizona, plus North Carolina and Florida (where the situations are slightly different). Steve has called this “a stretch.” He and Josh seem to dismiss the assertion that an election can be electronically stolen as “conspiracy theory,” apparently based on the idea that such thefts would become obvious fodder for an infuriated media and public outrage.This we find this overly trusting and dangerous. Under our current system there is no way to counter-indicate a stolen electronic vote count except by exit polling, for which Josh has expressed contempt. Exit polls in other countries (especially Germany) are highly reliable; here the raw data is too, but can be hard to get. And it’s now standard procedure to have the public numbers “adjusted” to fit official vote counts, fraudulent or otherwise.And even raw data exit polls have no legal standing. —–

Cyber-security expert Stephen Spoonamore told the Free Press that the computer configuration was set up to allow a “man in the middle attack” to alter Ohio’s votes.The late night shift in the 2004 electronic vote count in 10 decisive swing states was by all accounts a “virtual statistical impossibility,” with the odds against that happening in the millions. But now we are being told the idea that this could indicate a stolen election is “conspiracy theory.” PLEASE!!! If someone – anyone! – can demonstrate EXACTLY how the electronic vote count will be monitored, verified and made clear to the media in 2016, and then guarantee that the public and the courts will react with enforceable fury, we will be eternally grateful.We hope in the meantime The Nation will add to Ari Berman’s fine reporting on the stripping of voter eligibilities an in-depth investigation into the “other shoe” of election theft – the flipping of the electronic vote count. Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) raised the “Diebold question” at a Congressional Black Caucus hearing on April 21, 2016. Johnson noted how easy it would be to hack the old voting machines, many that are over 20 years old, and vowed to introduce legislation that would make voting secure.

Finally, we are often asked how, if the 2000 and 2004 elections were stolen, Obama won in 2008 and 2012. We did, after all, write in 2004 that the 2008 election was being rigged. The answer is simple: it was. But Obama won by far too many votes to have that election credibly stolen. And his campaign was not in denial.  We are happy to hear from Steve that our reporting on Ohio 2004 might have enhanced Obama’s scrutiny on the 2008 vote count. But it should be made clear that Obama’s victory could easily have been flipped had the vote count been closer and had fewer states been so definitively won. We believe he actually won by more than 10 million votes in both 2008 and 2012, but was officially credited with far less.

Where, exactly, is the line beyond which an election can’t be stolen? Do the Democrats need to win by 5%… 10%… to get an official victory? And what then happens to the down-ballot races? We prefer not to see those limits tested again.  And we need to have people prepared to take tangible action. In 2012 Bob Fitrakis filed a successful Election Day lawsuit preventing illegal computer patches being rigged into Ohio’s electronic machines. In a closer race, those patches might have made the difference. We believe the expectation that they would work did cause Karl Rove to do his legendary flipped-out double-take on Fox News as he was told Mitt Romney had lost Ohio. We also reported (as did The Nation) that voting machines in key Cincinnati precincts were financially linked to the Romney family. We each wrote separate articles about that and were each blacklisted by Daily Kos for doing so, even though the vast bulk of Harvey’s 150+ previous blogs on that site were about nuclear power and renewable energy. Some publications that aren’t progressive understand the problem.

Twenty-three minutes into the 2012 Election Day, Forbes took the Free Press reporting seriously, and warned voters of the dangers of private, for-profit companies owning and maintaining voting machines. Over the years we’ve been repeatedly told that we should stop reporting on electronic election theft because it might discourage voter turnout. And that the key to a Democratic victory in 2016 will be another massive vote count victory that will be “too big to steal.” Frankly, we don’t see that happening this year. And we find such talk deeply disturbing.

We have no doubt that innumerable US House and Senate races have been stolen over the years, along with governorships, control of state legislatures, referenda and more, all of it producing a deep reinforcement of the corporate control of our government. We’re also reasonably certain that neither Hillary nor Bernie is likely to amass in November a margin of victory over either Ryan or Trump that would be big enough to negate the possibility of massive disenfranchisement and electronic vote flipping in key states like Ohio, Michigan, Iowa or Arizona. And anyway … why the hell are we even thinking about leaving such a problem unsolved?

This disease needs a definitive cure. We look forward to further reasoned and reasonable dialogue. We invite Josh and Ari to join us on our panel at the upcoming Left Forum in New York in May. We welcome a public discussion with Steve and Mark in California.Above all, we hope to see those millions of Bernie supporters joining us at the reactor sites, the banks, the women’s health centers, the shelters, the schools and so many other critical hot spots in our corporate-plagued society, no matter who wins (or how) in November.

Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman are co-authors of six books on election integrity, including the new Strip & Flip Selection of 2016: Five Jim Crows and Electronic Election Theft(www.freepress.org and www.solartopia.org). Bob’s Fitrakis Files are at www.freepress.org. Harvey’s Organic Spiral of US History is coming soon at www.solartopia.org.

DATA SOURCES
The table below was created by Theodore de Macedo Soares (tedsoares@yahoo.com)
CNN is the source of the state exit polls which were downloaded shortly after closing.
The NY Times is the source of the reported vote counts.

Inline image

I challenge Holland to try to refute  the data and analysis in these books:
Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-Election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts
Proving Election Fraud: Phantom Voters, Uncounted Votes and the National Exit Poll
Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy

 Perhaps Holland will learn something and see the significance of these posts:  
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/…/1988-2008-unadjuste…/  https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2012/11/17/a-reply-to-nate-silvers-ten-reasons-why-you-should-ignore-exit-polls/

 

 

 
41 Comments

Posted by on April 29, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized

 

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

Mark Lindeman: Still Blowing Exit Poll Smoke After All These Years

Richard Charnin
Feb. 21, 2016
Updated: Feb.24, 2016

Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy
Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts
Proving Election Fraud: Phantom Voters, Uncounted Votes and the National Exit Poll
LINKS TO WEB/BLOG POSTS FROM 2004

Election Fraud Overview

Mark Lindeman: Still Blowing Exit Poll Smoke After All These Years

Mark Lindeman posts as Hudson Valley Mark on Daily Kos.  He previously posted as OnTheOtherHand on Democratic Underground  where I debated frequently with him.  The key debates are in my 456 page E-book Proving Election Fraud: Phantom Voters, Uncounted Votes and the National Exit Poll.

Mark is a prolific exit poll skeptic who has made a career trying to dismiss my analysis starting in 2005 and right up to the present. He is obsessed with discrediting my analysis whenever my work is cited. But has only succeeded in being exposed as a world-class election fraud naysayer in the process.  Mark is intelligent and writes well. But if one makes the effort to analyze the facts, his sophisticated deception and obvious agenda to misinform becomes clear. In 2006, I thoroughly debunked Mark in the Response to the TruthIsAll FAQ  (I posted as TruthIsAll).

Mark is one of the cadre of professional disinformationists in the media, academia and government. These shameless naysayers are unceasing in their attempts to discredit honest researchers who have proven that many conspiracies are factual based on solid evidence, simple mathematics and the scientific method. 

Mark commented in the Kos thread below:  “The question you answered is not the question I asked. The distinction is very substantial. I have always believed it is “possible” that massive election fraud “may” have occurred in 2004; that is true from first principles. The challenge is to assess the evidence that it did happen”.

That is not what Mark said in 2005 when he totally dismissed the evidence that the election was stolen.  It’s 2016 and Mark is still promoting the corporate media fiction that there is no proof that Bush stole the 2000/2004 elections.  That is patently false.

 Mark dismisses the  mathematically impossible  “red shift” in  274 state and 6 national presidential exit polls in the 1988-2008 elections.  Of the 274 polls, 135 exceeded the margin of error and 131 red-shifted to the GOP. The Democrats led the unadjusted state and national exit polls by 52-42% but won the recorded vote by just 48-46%.  The probability of the red-shift is one in trillions. How much proof does one need? It’s all in the numbers.  And the statistical evidence is overwhelming .

 I was banned from Daily Kos in 2005 for having the gall to post that Bush stole the 2004 election. Believe it or not, election fraud was a taboo topic at that time on Kos. And yet Markos Moulitsas, who claims to be a Democrat, would not allow postings claiming the election was stolen. But he had company: The NYT, CBS, CNN, FOX, AP and the Washington Post belittled  those “tin-foil hat” conspiracy theorists. 

The comments in this Daily Kos thread illustrate Lindeman’s mastery of deflection and obfuscation. The poster out of left field does a good job in defending my work. 

A few quick comments:

Mark states that the exit polls in MN, NY, PA, NH showed impossible discrepancies compared to the pre-election polls. To be precise, the exit polls were MN 56.3-42.4% vs. 51.1-47.6% recorded, NY 62.1-36.2% vs. 58.4-40.1%,  PA 56.6-42.9% vs. 50.9-48.4%, NH 56.7-42.0% vs. 50.2-48.9%. What Mark does not say is that the pre-election polls are Likely Voter (LV)  polls, a subset of Registered Voter (RV) polls. The LVs always understate the Democratic vote. Mark is saying that the exit pollsters never get it right, but the pre-election pollsters do. How ridiculous is that?  Bush stole votes in strong Democratic states to generate his bogus 3 million recorded vote margin.  

View the 2004 unadjusted exit poll stats.  Note that Kerry won the National Exit poll (13660 respondents) by 51.7-47.0%. He won the unadjusted state exit poll aggregate by a nearly identical 51.8-46.8% assuming the 2004 electorate was comprised of an implausible mix: 39.5% Bush/ 38.4% Gore  returning voters. Kerry won the True Vote by 53.6-45.1% assuming a plausible returning voter mix: 41.4% Gore/ 37.7% Bush.

 Mark states” the American National Election Studies include a panel survey in which respondents were interviewed after the 2000 election, and then again in 2004. In the data from that panel survey, we can actually see that over 7% of respondents who said in 2000 that they voted for Gore, said in 2004 that they had voted against him (for Bush). (Some respondents switched in the opposite direction.) So, the assumption that exit poll respondents accurately reported their past votes flies in the face of strong evidence from other polls. (In fact, that includes other exit polls, but I’m trying to keep things simple.) Without that assumption, Charnin’s arithmetic melts”.

Mark is the one who is melting.  The ANES study was based on RECORDED VOTE data, not the True Vote (i.e. exit poll). To claim that 2004 exit poll respondents  forgot or misstated who they voted for in 2000 is ludicrous on its face. This sleight-of-hand is analogous to Mark’ s Swing vs. Redshift argument in which he parrots exit pollster Warren Mitofsky’s argument that  zero correlation between 2000 to 2004 vote swing and 2004 red-shift “kills the fraud argument”. But this faulty logic is based on a bogus  premise that Recorded Vote Swing represents fraud-free elections. When red-shift is plotted against True Vote Swing, there is an obvious correlation in the downward-sloping graph. View this  Swing vs. red shift analysis and corresponding True Vote graph.

Catskill Julie  Oct 15 · 07:40:01 AM

I sure hope we have our own “mobs” ready

to protect those ballots and assure they are all counted this time. Mark, I didn’t look it up, but I thought in fact the exit polls were right(er) in 2000. ? Isn’t that where a lot of the distrust arose?

HudsonValleyMark  Oct 15 · 08:09:55 AM

it’s true that the exit polls were righter in 2000

I think the distrust arose because some smart-sounding people insisted, immediately after the 2004 elections, that exit polls had always (or almost always) been phenomenally accurate in the past, so accurate that they were used around the world to detect election fraud.

It was a compelling story — especially because it seemed to validate what a lot of people believed in their guts about the election in general and Ohio in particular — but it wasn’t true. While they were more accurate in 2000 than in 2004, they were pretty far off in 1992. And while the U.S. has sometimes bankrolled exit polls in countries with contested elections, neutral observers generally don’t embrace the practice.

That aside, if I had a do-over, instead of responding to all the claims point by point, I would probably point to a few of the most ridiculous exit poll results and say, “Really?!” Not that that always works.

Of course, saying that the exit polls were wrong doesn’t say much about what happened, or what could happen.

I doubt we need “mobs” to protect ballots, but in some cases observers can help. (Some states have much better ballot security than others, for sure.) Beyond that, one lesson of 2000 is that it can be damn hard actually to get the ballots recounted. The rules for that vary a lot from state to state.

out of left field  Oct 15 · 09:40:17 PM

Righter in 2000?

HudsonValleyMark wrote:

It was a compelling story — especially because it seemed to validate what a lot of people believed in their guts about the election in general and Ohio in particular — but it wasn’t true. While they were more accurate in 2000 than in 2004, they were pretty far off in 1992. And while the U.S. has sometimes bankrolled exit polls in countries with contested elections, neutral observers generally don’t embrace the practice.

What is your source for this?  How do you know that the results of exit polls in U.S. elections were more accurate in one year than another?  As far as I can tell, most observers assert such a thing because the official vote count compared to the exit polls comes up that way.  But if the official vote count has been corrupted, the argument is completely invalid.

Unfortunately, many commenters on U.S. elections implicitly assume that the official tallies are always accurate, and therefore exit polls that diverge from the official count must be incorrect.  After all, if the official tallies are not correct, in some cases by a lot, that opens up a whole can of worms that many people would rather not get into.  

Given how U.S. elections have been run the past couple of decades, with the increasing use of easily hackable electronic voting machines and tabulators, the potential for corrupting the vote has certainly been there.  One way of detecting such corruption is to look at exit polls versus the official count and see if there are any revealing patterns.  

Well, there are patterns and they are very disturbing, tending to point at wholesale manipulation of voting totals by Republican-connected voting machine makers.  If you want to deflect attention from this, one way would be to point to the exit polls and say that they are the source of the errors.  The problem with this is, if exit polls were just unreliable, over time and many elections, no one party would consistently benefit from official vote counts varying from the exit polls.  But, the phenomenon of “red shift” has been noted in election after election.  This cannot be accidental, or a matter of unreliable polling.  

By the way, it may not be impossible that Kerry really did win New York State by 30 points in 2004, etc.  I remember the confidence many activists had in how well Kerry was doing, and their utter shock when the official results came in.  Even by 2004, the course Bush had been following in invading Iraq and the like was already very controversial–it was not a given that he had anywhere near majority support for what his administration was doing.

HudsonValleyMark Oct 16 · 06:56:53 AM

I was trying to follow Julie’s lead

Frankly, I’ll be shocked if you can make a plausible case that the exit polls weren’t more accurate in 2000 than in 2004. But I’m happy to restate that: the discrepancies between the exit polls and the official counts were generally smaller in 2000 than in 2004.

But if the official vote count has been corrupted, the argument is completely invalid.

Actually, it isn’t, because we can compare both the exit polls and the official vote counts with other information sources. By way of modest example, Iagain invite you to consider Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania in 2004.

There’s no reason to assume a priori that either the exit polls or the official counts are correct. It’s likely that, in some sense, both are routinely wrong, although we don’t know a priori how wrong. That should be the starting point of analysis.

Well, there are patterns and they are very disturbing, tending to point at wholesale manipulation of voting totals by Republican-connected voting machine makers.

I should believe this because you say so? Or you actually have some evidence?

If you want to deflect attention from this, one way would be to point to the exit polls and say that they are the source of the errors.

You haven’t presented any facts for me to “deflect attention from.”

The problem with this is, if exit polls were just unreliable, over time and many elections, no one party would consistently benefit from official vote counts varying from the exit polls.

Malarkey.

(1) Circular reasoning. You haven’t demonstrated that any party ever has “benefit[ed]” from the discrepancies between the exit polls and the official counts.

(2) Semantic equivocation. If by “just unreliable” you mean “unbiased but inconsistent,” then your assertion is tautologically true — but irrelevant. If the exit polls are subject to bias, it is eminently plausible that the bias tends to be in one direction.

(3) Handwaving. You have barely addressed the facts about exit polls in one election; it’s wildly premature to generalize.

By the way, it may not be impossible that Kerry really did win New York State by 30 points in 2004, etc.

It may not be impossible? That’s nice, but if that is your standard of proof, then obviously a rational discussion cannot proceed very far.

out of left field  Oct 16 · 07:50:20 PM

Re: Marlarkey, etc.

Hudson Valley Mark wrote:

(1) Circular reasoning. You haven’t demonstrated that any party ever has “benefit[ed]” from the discrepancies between the exit polls and the official counts.

I have not demonstrated such a thing, but Richard Charnin has.  

Oh, I forgot, you don’t like Mr. Charnin, in your opinion he produces “crap”.  Well, please show us where Mr. Charnin has gone wrong.  The link above references a fairly lengthy article, “1988-2008 Unadjusted Presidential Exit Polls: A 51.8-41.6% Average Democratic Margin”, in which Richard Charnin documents the existence of “red shift” when comparing state exit polls to the official counts in presidential elections during the years cited.  Charnin is clear about his data sources and about the methodology he uses to come to his conclusions.  

Therefore, if he has messed up, you should be able to tell us why.  I am really interested in your conclusions, as this is an important issue and you have some very definite opinions about it.

HudsonValleyMark  Oct 16 · 09:14:39 PM

you’re still demanding that I do all the work

If you can walk me through at least one argument in Charnin’s screed that you actually understand, take seriously, and are prepared to defend, then we might have some basis for discussion. Your unsupported assertion that Charnin demonstrated something has no more force than if you had linked to an article that “demonstrates” that the Twin Towers were sabotaged with thermite, or that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, or that climate change is a hoax.

I’m willing to discuss any of those propositions, but if you can’t even provide evidence that you actually believe them, there is no point in my trying to change your mind. Charnin was banned here years ago, but if you think he is some misunderstood prophet, why don’t you tell us all what we’re missing?

a fairly lengthy article… in which Richard Charnin documents the existence of “red shift” when comparing state exit polls to the official counts in presidential elections during the years cited.

Facepalm. Why would we need a “fairly lengthy article” for that? We already knew that the exit polls don’t match the official counts. The claim to be supported is that any political party “benefit[ed]” from the discrepancies.

So, can you cite any evidence of error in the official counts? Bear in mind that your current position on exit poll accuracy is that the 2004 New York estimate “may not be impossible.” If that is the strongest statement that you can muster, apparently you concede that the exit polls can’t be assumed to be accurate. Now what?

Seriously, if there is something Charnin has written that you thought was strong evidence of vote miscount, and you want to know why it wasn’t, I’m willing to engage. But it’s flat-out nuts for me to try to guess what, if anything, you actually thought made sense. Or maybe you didn’t think any of it made sense, exactly, but it just sounded so darn smart. How can I know if you don’t tell me?

out of left field  Oct 16 · 09:51:52 PM

Here’s a walk-through

HudsonValleyMark wrote:

Seriously, if there is something Charnin has written that you thought was strong evidence of vote miscount, and you want to know why it wasn’t, I’m willing to engage.

Here you go–from Charnin’s blog as of April, 2012, Fixing the Exit Polls to Match the Policy.  In the quote, he is discussing how the 2004 National Exit Poll was “adjusted” to match the official vote results by changing various weightings of voter shares in novel ways:

Consider the 12:22am National Exit Poll timeline – before the vote shares were inflated for Bush. It shows a) a net Kerry gain of approximately 4.0 million from 22 million new voters, b) a 1.0 million net gain from returning Bush and Gore voter defections, c) a 1.5 million net gain in returning Nader voters, and d) a 540,000 gain based on Gore’s recorded margin. That’s a total net Kerry gain of 7.0 million votes. But it was surely higher than that. If we assume conservatively that Gore won by 4 million (based on the 2000 unadjusted state exit poll aggregate), then Kerry had 53.6% and a 10.5 million vote landslide – matching the True Vote Model.

So how did Kerry lose?

How come the published Final National Exit poll indicates that Bush was a 50.7-48.3% winner? The pollsters forced the NEP to match the recorded vote by implying there were 6 million more returning Bush 2000 voters than were still alive in 2004 – an impossible 110% turnout. And even that sleight-of-hand was not enough; they had to inflate Bush’s 12:22am shares of returning and new voters to complete the match in the Final NEP.

Note that Charnin is basing his argument on state and national exit poll data, as reported by the pollers themselves (Edison-Mitofsky).  The 12:22am exit poll was a preliminary result that was downloaded from a web site (the WAPO site, I believe) and contained data that had not been forced to match the official vote count.  Charnin is here showing how the matching to the official vote count was forced by using entirely unrealistic assumptions about the number of returning Bush voters that voted in the 2004 election.

As you can see, this parsing of statistics can get a little lengthy, which is why in previous comments I provided links instead of quoting everything I was referring to.  But apparently, you don’t want to bother with links.  I also thought you were conversant with Charnin’s basic analysis of presidential elections and exit polls, given your categorical put-down of same, but you just keep saying “you’re making me do all the work.”  

This will not do.  Richard Charnin has made a strong statistically based argument that analysis of unadjusted exit poll data indicates electoral fraud is going on in our elections. Is there something wrong with his methodology?  Is he making assumptions that are unwarranted? What is it that you object to about his work? Anything?  

HudsonValleyMark  

thanks for showing up

You haven’t done much to discuss my substance (Minnesota, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, New York), but I’m willing to discuss yours.

So, let’s see where Charnin goes wrong.

Charnin is here showing how the matching to the official vote count was forced by using entirely unrealistic assumptions about the number of returning Bush voters that voted in the 2004 election.

No, he isn’t.

We’re not discussing “the number of returning Bush voters that voted in the 2004 election.” We can’t be, because we have no way of knowing that. What we know is how many people, on their exit poll questionnaires, said they had voted for Bush.

(Many of Charnin’s errors have this character of confusing exit polls with reality. Consider: “If we assume conservatively that Gore won by 4 million (based on the 2000 unadjusted state exit poll aggregate)….” Guess what: unless we assume that the 2000 exit polls are accurate, there’s nothing “conservative” about assuming that Gore won by 4 million votes. I’m skipping over a bunch of technical issues.)

As a matter of logic, then, Charnin’s argument already has a gaping hole: He is assuming the accuracy of the “unweighted” exit poll results in order to argue for their accuracy. The argument isn’t exactly circular, because at least two kinds of “accuracy” are at issue: whether the realized sample is unbiased within random sampling error, and whether the responses are factual. Charnin is in trouble if the sample is “inaccurate” in either sense. The exit poll results in Minnesota, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and New York — which, among other problems, defy all pre-election expectations I’ve ever seen — stand as unrebutted evidence that the sample isn’t unbiased.

But the assumption that people accurately report past votes fails, too. In the 1989 General Social Survey, 53% of respondents reported having voted for George H. W. Bush and 45% for Mike Dukakis — not too far from the official count, by the way. In the next three GSS administrations, Bush’s reported vote share was much higher. In the 1993 GSS, Bush “won” by 70% to 29%. The most parsimonious explanation is that a lot of people misreported whom they voted for.

Moreover — as Charnin has known for years — the American National Election Studies include a panel survey in which respondents were interviewed after the 2000 election, and then again in 2004. In the data from that panel survey, we can actually see that over 7% of respondents who said in 2000 that they voted for Gore, said in 2004 that they had voted against him (for Bush). (Some respondents switched in the opposite direction.)

So, the assumption that exit poll respondents accurately reported their past votes flies in the face of strong evidence from other polls. (In fact, that includes other exit polls, but I’m trying to keep things simple.) Without that assumption, Charnin’s arithmetic melts.

I’ve presented two specific examples, but if you look at GSS and ANES data, you can see for yourself that present or past incumbents’reported vote shares generally do increase over time (although usually not as much as in the 1993 GSS).

As you can see, this parsing of statistics can get a little lengthy

Yes, but the statistics are basically irrelevant, because Charnin’s assumptions are bogus. It’s logically possible that part of his argument somehow can be salvaged — but the apparent excess of Bush 2000 voters in the weighted 2004 exit poll results is what we would expect, given the general propensity I described above. The GSS and NES data are freely available for download, and in many cases can be analyzed via UC-Berkeley’sSurvey Documentation and Analysis archive.

out of left field  Oct 17 · 08:32:16 PM

Thanks, at last, for a serious answer.

I will be looking at the sources that you cite to see what I can learn.

HudsonValleyMark  Oct 17 · 09:49:20 PM

y’know, all my answers have been serious

The fact that you find Charnin credible, and I don’t, doesn’t make your comments more serious than mine. But it’s one of those fundamental disconnects. If you find Charnin credible and I don’t, I suppose you will consider that you’re making an important point just by citing him, while I consider that you’re making no point at all. It’s more interesting to be talking about actual arguments, I think.

Lovepolitics2008 Oct 14 · 10:27:43 PM

Time to alert the international community?

I mean… this is ridiculous. The USA are like a banana republic. The national media won’t cover this abomination. Maybe it’s time we alert the international media to what’s happening in the USA. The shenanigans in Florida, Ohio, and God knows where else. It’s getting ridiculous and scary. The republicans are totally out of control.

If you live outside the USA, try to send a message to the journalists of your country who are covering american politics and ask them to do some digging.

HudsonValleyMark  Oct 15 · 02:57:28 AM

so, Rove has the magic wand and wouldn’t share?

Sorry, that makes no sense.

rubyr  Oct 15 · 10:13:21 AM

if you choose to view it as a magic wand that’s

on you. The reality is quite a bit more chilling and dangerous. Why don’t you read a few books and articles about it. For instance the book I mentioned above, written by a very respected author or any of the many books on Karl Rove that you can get from your public library, Amazon or on your Nook. Anyone who does not view Karl Rove as a clear and present danger is just not paying attention.

HudsonValleyMark  Oct 15 · 05:59:24 PM

stop hiding behind borrowed authority

I’ve read dozens of books and articles about it. Now what?

The question isn’t whether Karl Rove is “a clear and present danger.” The question seems to be whether Karl Rove can steal any presidential election he pleases, more or less by snapping his fingers, but decided to let 2008 go because he hates John McCain.

But if you don’t like that paraphrase of the question, I’m happy to hear the question in your own words. Only, make your own argument; don’t tell me to go read stuff and figure out what your argument is. You can cite sources to support your argument, but you have to make it first.

out of left field Oct 14 · 11:19:14 PM

Good diary, but…

I would recommend including a little of the story you linked to so your readers can get a better idea of what’s involved.  

Regarding your question:

Why , when there are computer errors do they always favor the republicans….Patiently awaiting answers…….

It’s called “red shift” and is definitely an indication that everything is not on the up and up in our elections.  I did a diary on the subject back in June, reporting on an important article on the subject by Bob Fitrakis in The Free Press web site.  You can do worse than to check it out.

tvdude  Oct 14 · 11:33:50 PM

Thanks for the tips…

Bob Fitrakis has been at the heart of this matter for some time…read your diary…excellent stuff!!

HudsonValleyMark  Oct 15 · 03:39:48 AM

the problem with exit polls…

is that in 2004, the exit polls projected that Kerry would win Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania by 14-15 points each, and New York by over 30. And so on. Most of the largest discrepancies weren’t even in swing states.

Conceivably you believe that those projections were correct within sampling error. You’re not likely to convince neutral political observers. That’s a major reason why the argument hasn’t caught on: it’s a bad argument, and Bob Fitrakis should have known that for years.

out of left field  Oct 15 · 04:40:38 PM

Your thesis

if I understand it correctly, is that exit polls in general are unreliable indicators of the actual vote.  But the examples you give were all taken from an election that was almost certainly corrupt, in a big way.  

To repeat a segment of the article that inspired my diary:

Charnin looked at 300 presidential state exit polls from 1988 to 2008, 15 elections would be expected to fall outside the margin of error. Shockingly, 137 of the 300 presidential exit polls fell outside the margin of error.

What is the probability of this happening? “One in one million trillion trillion trlllion trillion trillion trillion,” said Charnin….132 of the elections fell outside the margin in favor of the GOP. We would expect eight.

Here we have a guy who has done real statistical analysis of exit polls versus the official count.  He not only finds the exit polls trending well outside the margin of error in a shocking number of cases, he finds a bias towards one side that is really something.  

This cannot be explained by anything other than direct manipulation of vote totals.  If exit polls were just no good, we would expect the discrepancies to be all over the map–essentially random in a large study.  But Charnin finds anything but randomness.  Face it.  The fix is in.

HudsonValleyMark  Oct 15 · 06:10:33 PM

you talked right past my point

The problem with exit polls is that in 2004, the exit polls projected that Kerry would win Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania by 14-15 points each, and New York by over 30.

If the best you have to say about that is that the 2004 election was almost certainly corrupt, you are missing the point.

Here we have a guy who has done real statistical analysis of exit polls versus the official count.  

No, there we have a guy who has done crap, at length, for years. If you care to argue otherwise, step right up. Maybe you can start by discussing the four states I’ve mentioned. Do you think those exit poll results are plausible?

out of left field  Oct 15 · 08:18:45 PM

Re: you talked right past my point

Are you saying that the exit poll results in Minnesota, NH and PA in 2004 were wrong, and therefore, exit polls cannot be relied upon?

Do you know for a fact that the official counts in those states were correct, and therefore the exit polls were wrong?

You say Charnin has “done crap for years”.  Show me some evidence please.  Where has he been incorrect?

HudsonValleyMark  Oct 16 · 05:23:11 AM

LOL

Yes, I understand, you’ll ask the questions around here. That is the hallmark of crap CT: the burden of proof is always on the skeptic.

I’ll give you another chance to answer the simple question that you ducked: Do you think those exit poll results are plausible?

Welcome to Daily Kos, where extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. If you really believe, in any worthy sense of the word, that Charnin’s work supports your weirdly smug conclusion that “the fix is in,” then why not marshal an argument, instead of appealing to dubious authority?

I’ve encountered many fans of Charnin, but no one who can explain and defend his analyses in detail. Not that I care whether you defend Charnin’s analyses, per se: feel free to offer your own.

But if that is too ambitious, you might start by answering my question about the exit poll results.

out of left field  Oct 16 · 07:33:01 PM

Re: LOL

I do not know if the exit poll results you cite have problems or not.  But YOU make an awful lot of claims that you do not back up, while accusing other people of producing “crap”.  If you are going to make that sort of charge, you need to provide some sort of evidence for it.  So far all you have done is throw charges at Mr. Charnin’s work.  If you have some evidence for those charges, produce it in a comment or give us a link.

HudsonValleyMark Oct 16 · 07:57:52 PM

umm, why?

Dude, you’re apparently alleging massive election fraud in which leading Democrats are more or less complicit. I’m alleging that Richard Charnin’s work is bad. Which one of those is an extraordinary claim? Which of those even matters? Why do you expect me to do all the work? Are you even interested in this topic, or are you just yanking my chain?

Do you actually believe that massive fraud occurred in 2004? If so, for heaven’s sake, aren’t you going to say why?  Do you have something better than that it isn’t impossiblethat Kerry won New York by over 30 points? Talk about weak tea….

out of left field  Oct 16 · 08:34:17 PM

Re: umm, why?

You are going around in circles.  You allege that Richard Charnin’s work is bad.  Fine.  Tell us why.

Yes, I believe it is possible massive election fraud may have occurred in 2004.  The work of Richard Charnin and others informs my belief.  If you cannot explain why you think his work is no good, you cannot address the issue.  (Hint: Follow the link.)

HudsonValleyMark  Oct 17 · 08:08:48 AM

see above, but, goalpost shift noted

Yes, I believe it is possible massive election fraud may have occurred in 2004.

The question you answered is not the question I asked. The distinction is very substantial. I have always believed it is “possible” that massive election fraud “may” have occurred in 2004; that is true from first principles. The challenge is to assess the evidence that it did happen. You don’t have to profess certainty — in fact, you probably shouldn’t — but you could at least state a non-trivial opinion.

Pardon my impatience, but I’ve watched people move the goalposts in this direction many, many times.

kainah Oct 15 · 02:45:04 AM

Want more reason to worry?

Read the new book called “Boss Rove” by Craig Ubgar which talks about the sleazy vote manipulation that has likely occurred under Rove’s tutelage in the past. I think there is real cause for concern which is also why I think it’s imperative that we ensure that PBO has too big a win margin the tamper with. But if, god forbid, that fails, we all have to be ready to fight like hell in the aftermath. No lying down and getting run over like in FL 2000.

HudsonValleyMark  Oct 15 · 03:52:30 AM

what in that book are you discussing?

Some people seem to think that Unger made a strong case for SmarTech tampering in that book, but I couldn’t find the case.

reflectionsv37 Oct 15 · 03:28:14 AM

I developed software for 35 years…

and I wrote this diary back in 2006 that details a hypothetical way of programming a touch screen monitor voting program to push the vote to one party while simultaneously minimizing the possibility of being detected. It’s far more simple than most people imagine.

I think it will probably answer your question!

out of left field Oct 17 · 01:56:59 AM

Your 2006 diary is superb

A quote from it:

Allowing private corporations, who have a vested interest in the outcome of an election, who have openly stated their preferences for one political party over another, to develop and implement a voting system using such an easily manipulated tool as a computer is a grave threat to our Democracy.

And reflectionsv37 explains exactly why.  I urge everyone on this thread to go read it.

reflectionsv37  Oct 17 · 03:09:18 AM

Thanks for the compliment!

It didn’t get much attention at the time. I haven’t heard many complaints this election season about votes being switched, but if I start hearing it again, I’ll rework it and try to shorten it a little and repost it so others might get a chance to see it.

HudsonValleyMark Oct 15 · 03:33:33 AM

I don’t agree with the premise of your question

I get called paranoid, and a CT, but please answer one question for me and then I’ll calm down :  Why , when there are computer errors do they always favor the republicans….Patiently awaiting answers…….

I don’t agree that computer errors always favor the Republicans. Sometimes Democrats pick up votes when errors are corrected (as, apparently, in Palm Beach, although that election was nonpartisan on the ballot). Sometimes Republicans do (as in the Wisconsin Supreme Court election last year). Sometimes the errors occur in primaries (Pottawattamie County, Iowa). These were various kinds of errors; there is no evidence of fraud in any of them.

Susan Bucher is right to be concerned that her systems are unreliable and her vendor is, too. That isn’t a CT. Making claims of fact without raising a finger to support them — and telling people to Be Very Afraid, but nothing else — is exactly what a lot of us consider CT.

Fisticuffs Oct 15 · 04:54:18 AM

The fact that Bain OWNS the machines in Ohio

right now – Bain Capital owns the company that owns and has distributed voting machines for Ohio – the company’s president is a FORMER FUCKING CAMPAIGN MANAGER for ROMNEY – is HORRIFYING to me. The fact that the MSM has TOTALLY ignored this and won’t report on it before the election is fucking STAGGERING.

 

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on February 21, 2016 in Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

JFK: Mathematician/Physicist Philip Stahl exposes the media charlatans

JFK: Mathematician/Physicist Philip Stahl Exposes the Media Charlatans

Richard Charnin
Dec.26, 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

Philip Stahl is not only a world-class scientist, he is also a prolific writer on many topics. In this post, I have selected just a few of his numerous writings on the JFK assassination. They focus on and expose the liberal and conservative Warren Commission apologists in the media who claim that conspiracies do not exist – and ridicule rationalists who cite overwhelming historical evidence proving that conspiracies are the norm, not the exception. I am honored that Stahl has cited my book Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy and my blog. There is no one more qualified to peer-review my work.
—————————————————————————————————–
The Skeptics Society Conspiracy Phobes – And Why They Discredit Themselves

Having just started reading Richard Charnin’s new book, Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy, I can say I am already delighted on seeing the depth of the analyses to come, and the focus on science, making the book a nice complement to Prof. James Fetzer’s Assassination Science. Because science is what we need here to counter the flood of disinformation that first arrived with the Warren Commission Report – not to mention the efforts of all its apologists to defend it.

“Reclaiming Science” is an apt title because it entails reclaiming the content that has hitherto been obfuscated and distorted under the specious science (or what I call pseudo-science) of the Warren Report as well as the apologists like Gerald Posner (‘Case Closed’) and Vince Bugliosi (‘Reclaiming History’) who have sought to reinforce that pseudo-science. I showed much of that in my FAQ (Part 5) addressing the bullets and wounds back in November of last year, e.g.
—————————————————————————————————–

Top Ten Ways To Test Conspiracy Claims? (Howler Alert!)

A major section of the Skeptics Society pamphlet I referenced yesterday is headed ‘Top 10 Ways to Test Conspiracy Theories’ – which like the dime store psychology content (on p.4), ends up as just useless The authors could as well ask readers to use tea leaves.

4) The conspiracy involves large numbers of people who would all need to keep quiet about their secrets.
Dispensed easily, along the lines of dispensing (3). Again, who is to say what constitutes “large numbers of people” ? If 75 was enough to make Iran –Contra work to the extent it did was that too much? Hardly! Was 94-95 too much to make the Kennedy assassination work – as it has for over 50 years now – thanks to the many useful idiots in the media and beyond who make up rationalizations to try to explain it away?

As for keeping secrets, killing witnesses is an excellent way to achieve that end which is why Richard Charnin’s book (analyzing JFK witness deaths) and website material is so important to disabuse those who opt to don the pseudo-skeptic robe. In other words, learn before bloviating about what limits you believe attend to the claim!
—————————————————————————————————–
I asked Stahl if he would comment on a post I had written in response to a blog post by quantum physicist Scott Aaronson. He posted the following four articles:

Scott Aaronson:In Over His Head On The JFK Assassination (Part One)

“How do we know that our own rational rejections of conspiracy theories are not themselves infected with beliefs so strong that they are, in effect, conspiracy theories too?” – Matt Ridley in ‘Maybe We’re All Conspiracy Theorists’, The Wall Street Journal, Sept. 10-11, 2011

Scott Aaronson seems to believe that because he’s a quantum physicist that he’s also knowledgeable enough to make intelligent comments – in his blog – on the JFK assassination. He isn’t. He comes across as yet another overconfident, under-informed proxy “expert” (using his quantum physics bona fides) but who probably couldn’t tell Oswald’s OS-351- 164 file from his 201- 289 248 CI/SIG file or his 74-500 file. All as reported in the Appendices of Military Science professor John Newman’s book, ‘Oswald and the CIA’ – from freedom of information act documents.

But this is the typical BS that serious assassination researchers have to put up with – because these semi-educated (on the assassination) critics only serve to clutter the blogosphere with yet more disinformation and ignorance when some of us are attempting to educate our countrymen as to what really went down – based on actual documents released on the basis of the JFK Records Act – not half-assed speculations or conjectures.

Look, I will try to go easy on this guy – given he’s a quantum physicist – but I will not back away from calling out balderdash when I see it, the same as I would with SPLC writer Marilyn Elias, Miami Herald columnist, Glen Garvin, and Dr. Steve Mason.
—————————————————————————————————–
Scott Aaronson: In Over His Head on JFK Assassination (Part Two – Rebutting His 20 Reasons for ‘Oswald Dunnit’)”

I now examine Scott Aaronson’s “20 Reasons” to assert Lee Oswald was the lone gunman in the JFK assassination, based on what he calls “general principles” but which I call out as slacker principles: do as little as possible- avoid any details, attend to the worst possible “investigators” (Gerald Posner), and in general let ignorance trump facts at every turn. Basically, Aaronson brings to bear a smug laziness that he’d never use if he wanted to publish a paper, say in the Physical Review (one of its fine journals). He does this because he treats JFK assassination research akin to a kiddie hobby or pastime.

1. Conspiracy theorizing represents a known bug in the human nervous system. Given that, I think our prior should be overwhelmingly against anything that even looks like a conspiracy theory”.

This is not a reason but an assertion, that needs to be proven, demonstrated. Aaronson really ought to know better than to trot such bollocks out for public consumption, as if he’s even an expert in the human nervous system. Where has this been published? (He puts out a link to a cartoon -as if any intelligent person would accept that) In what peer-reviewed journal of neurobiology? Further, the fact this is psycho-babble is patently clear by the fact he puts all possible conspiracy examples under the same umbrella – from faked lunar landings to Joe Klein’s example (in the recent TIME – see Part I) of the feds buying up ammo to raise the prices so gun owners can’t afford it – to the JFK assassination. In this way, he demeans the event and insults the people who’ve done serious research including Peter Dale Scott, James Douglass (‘JFK and the Unspeakable’), Mark Lane and many others. In this way he actually insults the memory of the 35th President.
—————————————————————————————————–

Rebuttal of Scott Aaronson’s “20 Reasons” for Oswald Dunnit (Part 3)

We now continue as I rebut more of quantum physicist Scott Aaronson’s 20 specious reasons that Oswald was the lone gunman in the JFK assassination:
5. A half-century of investigation has failed to link any individual besides Oswald to the crime.

True, but that is because it wasn’t one “individual”. All the evidence amassed so far from the existing files (especially Oswald’s CI/SIG files, the Staff D connection) shows the hit was an executive action masterminded by the CIA probably in collusion with NSA assets. That no individual has been identified isn’t surprising at all to any who have examined the detailed documents in depth – as Peter Dale Scott has published in his most recent book, cited in Part One.

The original plan, gleaned from multiple documents- interviews, was to kill Kennedy, link Oswald to Castro, and use this as a pretext to invade Cuba. Note the parallels here to the October, 1962 Missile crisis- when the Joint Chiefs tried to get Kennedy to invade Cuba on the basis of the Soviet missiles there. JFK refused, and in so doing put another nail in his coffin, while his enemies looked for other ways to achieve their goal- ending up at assassination of Kennedy – by a Castro dupe. Or so the CIA hoped people would believe. Former CIA accountant James Wilcott, however, noted the phony link to Castro could not be established firmly enough to hold and hence the need to brand Oswald as the lone assassin.

In other words, the CIA aimed for a ‘trifecta’ – blaming the USSR as an accomplice, invading Cuba and killing Kennedy, but they ended up with only one of the three – but to be sure a huge one – as it’s distorted this nation’s history ever since. (Along with shattering all confidence and trust in gov’t – given the government still hold to the phony Warrenite story.)
—————————————————————————————————–

Rebuttal of Scott Aaronson’s “20 Reasons” Oswald Dunnit (Part 4: Conclusion)

We now pick up at Aaronson reason No. 16, as we try to wade through more of his codswallop:
16. JFK was not a liberal Messiah. He moved slowly on civil rights for fear of a conservative backlash, invested heavily in building nukes, signed off on the botched plans to kill Fidel Castro, and helped lay the groundwork for the US’s later involvement in Vietnam.

This one shows glaringly how out of touch Aaronson is with JFK and the politics of the time. It also shows him to be either a know-nothing or troll regarding JFK. As James Douglass has clearly shown (Chapters 1-3, in JFK and the Unspeakable’) the Cold warrior shtick was purely a political ruse to ward off Nixon‘s expected attacks – and it worked! JFK was elected, not Tricky Dick. JFK was, in fact, perhaps the most liberal president of the past 50 plus years. Aside from creating the Peace Corps (which I served in for four years) he also created the Alliance for Progress to deliver low interest loans to South American nations – for which he was pilloried by the financial press. In case Aaronson forgot, he also signed the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in August, 1963 which had all the right winger military types going nutso – including when anti-missile systems were banned as well.
—————————————————————————————————–
“Beware Conspiracy Theorists?” No – Beware Those Who Are Part of the Unspeakable!

Media personality Michael Smerconish in his Op-ed in today’s Denver Post, advises one and all (based on his header) to ”Beware Conspiracy Theorists”. We are supposed to be the bane of national existence, sowing paranoia with our every blog post, and hey – we are little different from the generic nuts who fret over UN helicopters and FEMA concentration camps. In this way, lumped in with whackjobs, all manner of conspiracies are instantly consigned to the dumpster of history.

Nevertheless, it appears those like Michael Smerconish are quite happy to go on killing hope for change in the world multiple times over, as they seek to dissuade the citizen from examining the facts of the conspiracy behind the Kennedy assassination.

Smerconish begins his sarcastic attack by singling out Jesse Ventura’s book: They Killed Our President: 63 Reasons to Believe There Was A Conspiracy to Assassinate JFK. So Smerconish gets Ventura in an interview and asks the question: “Who is ‘they’?” Ventura, honest as he is, responds that he doesn’t know. The ‘they’ employed was generic, and could apply to any of the conceivable forces – or all – that had it in for Kennedy, but especially his national security state. Besides, Ventura could have told Smerconish if he really knew who ‘they’ were he likely wouldn’t be alive to say so! As per Richard Charnin’s excellent graphical proof of conspiracy based on the death of witnesses at the times of the two main investigations. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/10/14/jfk-witness-deaths-graphical-proof-of-a-conspiracy/
—————————————————————————————————–
Frequently Asked Questions on the JFK Assassination:(Pt.7): The HSCA Investigation

Why was the House Select Committee on Assassinations launched and who headed it? What general standards did they apply? Why indeed would such severe impediments be imposed to prevent an honest and forthright investigation as Richard Sprague wanted?

The obvious reason is that there was way too much at stake for the ones that killed Kennedy – a clandestine branch of our own government, embedded in the CIA. Most likely run out of CIA Staff D and the ZR/Rifle program – then mutated into Executive Action against Kennedy. People can toss up hands and put fingers in ears and sing “lalalala’ all they want but there it is! Why else forge such consistent impediments against an open investigation? The only reason would be to protect the interests, people that did it – and who up to now have gotten away with it, including the murder of dozens of key witnesses any time a trail was revived for an investigation. Don’t believe me? Then look at Richard Charnin’s stats of witnesses killed around and at the time of the HSCA investigation. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/10/01/jfk-witness-deaths-7-fbi-officials-due-to-testify-at-hsca/
—————————————————————————————————–
Even Liberals Can Be Victims of Conspiracy Phobia

It’s really distressing to the critical thinker to behold the extent to which crappola continues to be spouted on the JFK assassination, particularly the media’s consistent disparaging of the whole notion of conspiracy. And while most Europeans think we’re idiots for believing that one lone nut killed Kennedy, in America that meme is just fine and dandy. After all, it keeps the hoi polloi in their comfort zones so they can tweet, play fantasy football, and watch ‘Survivor’ without being bothered.

Guest Walter Mears, a former AP reporter, and evidently on the verge of Alzheimers is no better, trying to peddle the baloney that “Oswald was the perfect guy for conspiracy theories” then reciting all kinds of idiocy such as “he defects to Russia, went to Mexico City, kicked out of the Marines, etc.” failing to distinguish actual actions from those that emerged from the false defector program I described 3 blogs ago. Mears goes off the beam, trying to be sardonic or sarcastic, as when he blabs: “I covered Washington well enough to know that if you have a conspiracy and three people are involved, one of them is going to blow the whistle.”

To which all the guests laughed like idiots, unable to grasp how many witnesses were taken out one by one, not only at the time of the Warren Commission, but at the Garrison Investigation and the House Select Committee on Assassinations (1978-79). Indeed, author Richard Charnin has proven – to a mathematical certainty, these witnesses could not have been offed by “coincidence” or some other claptrap. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/10/14/jfk-witness-deaths-graphical-proof-of-a-conspiracy/

Interestingly, Mears did get the key part of the JFK conspiracy right when he blurted: “And if two are involved, it will keep if one of them dies”. But in the JFK “Witness Death project” – likely carried out by CIA contract hit men (such as killed William Bruce Pitzer), it obviously will also “keep” if dozens are killed – one by one as they are called to testify before any given investigation. (See Charnin’s link and proof) Mears actually nailed the reason for the lack of evidence he claimed not to see, but was too dumb to understand how or why. After all, even a broken clock is right twice a day!

Even Kornacki, an otherwise intelligent MSNBC host on most issues, fell down here, displaying more ignorance and historical cluelessness than insight. He made the embarrassing remark: “Yeah, that’s the other part here. We talk about the government as this sort of bumbling, bureaucratic mess. To pull off something as wide scale as in the Oliver Stone movie (‘JFK’) you try to reconcile that with the government we know.”
—————————————————————————————————–
The Southern Poverty Law Center: Still In Over Its Head On the JFK Assassination

But I could go through the whole list of those killed and make similar points. What has the SPLC got to show for it? Only its naïve acceptance of assorted “official” stories which do not jibe with Richard Charnin’s demonstrated statistics. These, when the false filters are removed, show there were at least 96 unnatural deaths (80 homicides, 5 suicides, 8 accidents, 3 unknown).

Charnin notes on his link:
“There are 122 suspicious deaths listed in JFK Calc. Seventy-eight (78) were officially ruled unnatural (34 homicides, 16 suicides, 24 accidents, 4 unknown). Forty-four (44) were ruled natural (heart attacks, cancers, other). But since many accidents, suicides and natural deaths were likely homicides, the number of unnatural deaths was adjusted to 96 (including 80 homicides).”

These adjustments would have taken into account aberrations such as I noted in the case of Pitzer and Ferrie. The attempted SPLC rebuttal (to Richard Belzer) then goes on to state: “In addition, the story pointed out that a large number of people who did testify have had normal life spans”

Of course they did, because their testimonies did not detract from or contradict the false Warrenite narrative of one lone nut! So there’d have been no reason to deal with any of these “witnesses” – many of whom (e.g. Julia Anne Mercer, Jean Hill et al) later admitted that they surrendered to pressure put on them by so-called “authorities”, including the FBI and Secret Service. The ones that had to be dealt with were mainly the material witnesses whose testimonies would have rocked the boat and exposed the Commission for the fraud it was!

Lastly, the SPLC has continued its manifest blindness to Operation Mockingbird assets with this twaddle:“just as many reporters who were skeptical of the Warren commission account were not murdered.”

Again, the contrarian reporters would only have been murdered if they were material witnesses, like Dorothy Kilgallen. There’d be no need at all to go after mere skeptics because anything they wrote could be easily neutralized (or simply ignored for publication) by the entrenched Mockingbird CIA assets. How difficult can this stuff be to grasp? Evidently, it’s like fractal calculus for the good folks at the Southern Poverty Law Center, who one would have thought would have their hands full with racial animus and hate groups without taking on the Kennedy assassination.

The SPLC piece by Elias – as well as the recent follow-up, also illustrates another irritating aspect of the Left’s conspiracy phobia: running from anything that smacks of “anti-government” sentiment, despite the fact we have reams of documents, files to support the need for a critical wariness of anything government claims (as Edward Snowden’s files have disclosed).
—————————————————————————————————–
Rachel Maddow Again LIES About Lee Harvey Oswald and His Rifle

Rachel Maddow appears to be a compulsive liar, at least where Lee Harvey Oswald is concerned. But this ought not be too surprising, given that non-serious, superficial researchers and talking heads (who may only deal with the assassination once or twice a year) are often bound to insert their feet into their foolish mouths. And so Rachel did it again last night, as she did back in March last year,

This was in conjunction with a segment last night on a gun reform law (S. 3714) that JFK had proposed: “to exclude from importation or re-importation into the United States arms or ammunition originally manufactured for military purposes.”

In this context she specifically mentioned the Italian made 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano, and showed an ad for it in the “American Rifleman” magazine along with photostat copies of receipts proving Lee Oswald purchased it. She then added, emulating a Neoliberal know-nothing: “Lee Harvey Oswald bought the gun in March, 1963. He killed President Kennedy with it that November.”


—————————————————————————————————–
Hany Farid’s Pixelated Illusions

Interested people may also wish to process that, in 1995, after President Clinton ordered release of most of the pertinent files to do with the JFK case (as requested by the Assassinations Archives Review Board) the FBI immediately filed an appeal to prevent the release of any files. One is therefore left to wonder why now, they would be so eager to cooperate – since obviously they’d have had to supply Farid with his source photos for analysis.

In Farid’s case, one is left to wonder what exact photo he has proven genuine- since there were four in all. One of those featured small irregularities including that the telescopic scope was absent, because a technician had accidentally retouched it. WHY has Farid not picked it up with this elite software, when it was openly admitted by the management of LIFE magazine? Or, was Farid not given the retouched photo? If not, why not? Perhaps to prevent him from saying that ONE photo at least was a fake?

Then there is the “Oswald ghost” photo recovered at Dallas PD headquarters some time after the assassination. It is shown above, next to another backyard photo. As one can discern, the “ghost” is a cutout into which another image can be pasted-superposed. The cutout image, many of us conclude, was obtained using a Dallas cop stand –in, which photo was also found in Dallas Police files, along with the ghost image. That photo is also shown (Fig. 2). As noted by researcher Jim Marrs (Crossfire, p. 452) photo specialist Robert Hester was called on 22 November, 1963 to help process assassination -related photos for the FBI and Dallas police. Hester reported (and his wife Patricia confirmed) that he saw an FBI agent with a color transparency of one of the backyard photos with NO figure in the picture. This has to be the same Fig. 2. Was the FBI in on the manipulation of images and photos? We don’t know, but given Farid’s connection to the FBI in funding his lab, can we really trust his work? Can we trust he analyzed the actual source photo? And if so – which?
—————————————————————————————————–

Larry Sabato’s New Book Does NOT Disprove Conspiracy in the JFK Assassination

Lastly, for what it’s worth, I reiterate Harrison Livingstone‘s remark that “only an idiot” would accept or believe that the truth or falsity of conspiracy rests exclusively on the acoustic record. (Harrison Edward Livingstone: 1995, Killing Kennedy and the Hoax of the Century, Carroll & Graf Publishers) There is simply too much supplemental supporting evidence, i.e. including from the ballistics, the additional films taken that day, e.g. Nix film, and the actual autopsy photos, as well as skull radiographs and the negative test results from the purported Oswald weapon by a team of sharpshooters appointed by the Warren Commission. Not to mention the inordinately improbable deaths of witnesses, see:https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2011/04/08/a-probability-analysis-of-witness-deaths-within-one-year-of-the-jfk-assassination/

 
2 Comments

Posted by on December 26, 2014 in JFK

 

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

JFK: Videos that Prove a Conspiracy

JFK: Videos that Prove a Conspiracy

Richard Charnin
Dec. 13, 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

Warren Commission defenders say there is no evidence which proves a conspiracy. They need to go from the Boob Tube to YouTube.

Witnesses
Grassy Knoll
– Oliver,Arnold, Hoffman https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2U8jHKG74g
– Zapruder, Hill, Moorman, Newman https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNclkrx9XMA
– S.M. Holland https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfRivH8G9tY

Roger Craig http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFEx8hjD8kE
Marina Oswald https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swHZ0DxB8n8
Judyth Baker http://thelip.tv/episode/lee-harvey-oswalds-lover-jfk-assassination-plot-recruited-develop-super-cancer-kill-castro/

John Connally http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cP04_lGjkO0
Dr Charles Crenshaw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXZ87gOlKkM
E.H. Hunt http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4GD_PIbQZ4
LBJ Mistress http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79lOKs0Kr_Y

FBI Agents (autopsy)
O’Neill no bullet exit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMzhKy-O4T4
Sibert (Ford & Spector) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDNZBfPkbPk

Jack Ruby
LBJ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Udwj7i5ACgY
Polygraph http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxfXNzbSFcQ
True Facts/motive http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yv3o9vx3VNM
They knew Jack http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PuL2XPZ42Q

Investigators
Mark Lane https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAnX7atkpyA
Jim Garrison http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hqo2c_SxQag
Church Committee http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ij1lSmvpgZQ

Expert Evidence
Jack White http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCigDMyHisE
Nathan Darby https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdF64wI-3Fg

Authors
Penn Jones http://www.youtube.com/watch?Fletcher
Fletcher Prouty https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qz56WytRlqo
James Douglass http://vimeo.com/35174755
Jim Marrs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhNgK_PJBTk
David Lifton https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQg91vALZv4
Roger Stone http://www.c-span.org/video/?316819-1/book-discussion-man-killed-kennedy

Doug Horne (ARRB)
Autopsy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LohiQe2LBg
Medical evidence https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrVyOYsx81k
Zapruder film http://vimeo.com/102327635

Documentaries
Oliver Stone https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhVflCawf7w
Nigel Turner http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2agPurqFJk
Richard Belzer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRajqoXzABw
Jesse Ventura http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfDASCapA9Q

Movies
JFK http://ffilms.org/jfk-1991/
Executive Action https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9f96oieNA8
The Missiles of October https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOjhSVpZOuM
Thirteen Days http://ffilms.org/thirteen-days-2000/

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on December 13, 2014 in JFK

 

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

JFK: How will the Warren Commission Apologists explain the Tippit Timeline?

Richard Charnin
Dec. 11, 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

This is for Vincent Bugliosi, Gerald Posner, David Von Pein, John McAdams, Dave Reitzes, Dale Myers, Scott Aaronson, Bob Scheiffer, Rachel Maddow and other interested parties. Can any of you explain why the Warren Commission stated that Tippit was shot at 1:16pm when all the witnesses said it was no later than 1:06?

But first, please explain why the WC noted 1:16 as the time of Tippit’s death (at the SCENE of the shooting) since he was officially pronounced dead at 1:16 in Methodist Hospital? How did the ambulance get to the hospital before 1:16 if he was shot dead at 1:16?

Note: The death certificate from Methodist Hospital signed by Joe B. Brown lists the time of death at 1:15. The police supplementary offense report states that Dr. Liguori pronounced the officer dead at 1:15. An FBI report dated 11/29/63 in which Dr. Liguori pronounced the officer dead at 1:25 looks like it originally said 1:15 and was changed. The Dallas Police Homicide report signed by Liquori said Tippit was pronounced DOA at 1:30.

They had to add ten minutes to the time of Tppit’s death so that they could say Oswald shot him at 1:16. Oswald was spotted outside his apartment at 1:04. He could not have gone to the Tippit scene by 1:06. He would have had to run a 0.9 mile in two minutes. So they changed the time of the shooting to 1:16 – and had to change the time of the ambulance arrival at Methodist Hospital. It is all so transparent.

From S.r. Dusty Rohde, this is THE SMOKING GUN: https://22novembernetwork.wordpress.com/2014/11/15/the-murder-of-j-d-tippit-by-s-r-dusty-rohde/

The insert shown above is taken from the actual Certificate of Death, Tippit’s name was misspelled, but the document clearly shows the time and date of death. There is no way Lee Harvey Oswald shot a “living” J.D. Tippit at either 1:15 or 1:16pm. That statement by the Warren Commission was an outright lie. A lie expressed for the sole purpose of deceiving the American public.

The Warren Commission had the Tippit documents in their hands, they knew the “legal” time of death, they knew Oswald couldn’t have shot Tippit at 1:15 or 1:16pm, and yet they still chose to tell the lie.

J.D. Tippit could not have been shot at 1:16, his legal and lawful time of death is recorded as 1:16pm. Now why does that matter? Before Tippit was pronounced “dead” at the hospital, he had to be removed from the ambulance, wheeled to the emergency room, transferred off of the ambulance gurney onto the hospital bed. Doctors had to do a quick scan, then attempt to clear an airway and possibly administer CPR in the attempt to save Tippit’s life, all “before” declaring the man officially dead.
————————————————————————–
Now, about those witnesses, this is what they said:

These are the witnesses:
• DPD Channel 1 dispatcher Murray Jackson contacts Tippit at 1:03 to get his location but gets no response. https://jaylipp.fatcow.com/JFK/tippet.html

• Dallas County Sheriff Deputy Roger Craig hears of the Tippit shooting at 1:06 over the police radio. http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/WTKaP.pdf

• T.F Bowley arrives at the scene at 1:10. http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339132/

• According to Warren Commission exhibit 705, immediately following T.F Bowley’s transmission at 1:10, the DPD dispatcher called over DPD Channel 1 radio that Tippit had been shot. http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pdf/WH17_CE_705.pdf

And there were many more…
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/08/19/jfk-did-oswald-shoot-tippit-eyewitnesses-no-warren-commission-yes/

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on December 11, 2014 in JFK

 

Tags: , , , , ,

 
Richard Charnin's Blog

JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud Analysis