Tag Archives: JFK conspiracy proved mathematically

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

Richard Charnin
Aug. 15, 2016

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.


Posted by on August 15, 2016 in JFK


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

Responding to Warren Commission apologist “reviews” of “Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy”

Responding to Warren Commission apologist “reviews” of “Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy”

Richard Charnin
Jan.1, 2015
Updated: Oct.16, 2015
JFK Blog Posts

Look inside the book:
Reclaiming Science:The JFK Conspiracy

Currently, there are 32 reviews of the book on Amazon: Fifteen gave it 5 stars, six 4 and two 3. Nine trolls gave it one star to discourage potential readers. I replied to each troll as have others. View the comments to see why I have devoted a chapter in the book to exposing Warren Commission apologists.
Troll #1: Mike Davinroy
Over many years I have read, and enjoyed well over a hundred books on the JFK assassination. I’ve found the vast majority of them to have something new or interesting. Perhaps this book would have been interesting in 1973, but much of what the author states in this “book” are long ago worn out theories that have been largely discounted by most serious researchers of the assassination. In my opinion this author abandons common sense and puts far too much faith in mathematics. It’s been said, “if your only tool is a hammer, you look at every problem as a nail.” This author needs more tools.

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

Richard Charnin: You have made general statements but have avoided specific rebuttals of the evidence in the book. Now I will specifically rebut your very weak non-review. Seems that you are stuck in a 1973 time warp…

In 1973, we did not know that
– the HSCA in 1978 would claim incorrectly that the London Times actuary’s calculation was invalid
– 7 top FBI officials would die in a 6 month period in 1977 before their scheduled testimony at HSCA.
– the HSCA would determine from acoustic evidence that there was a second gunman on the grassy knoll and state that there was probably a conspiracy.
– two FBI officials who attended the autopsy would state that there was no exit from the bullet which struck JFK in the back.

In 1973, we did not know about..
– the ARRB which in 1993 exposed the medical coverup.
– the Zapruder film which was altered to remove JFK’s back of the head exit wound and the JFK Limo FULL stop.
– Jim Marrs’ 1989 book Crossfire which revealed 103 convenient deaths among its many other factual revelations.
– the 1992 film JFK which opened the eyes of the public to the Assassination.
– Gerald Ford’s 1993 admission that he moved the back wound up 5″ to conform with the SBT.
– Judyth Baker who in 1963 was developing a fast cancer drug and was close to Oswald, Ferrie, Ruby and Mary Sherman.

In 1973, we did not have mathematical proof of an impossible number of JFK-related unnatural deaths.etc. etc. etc.

It’s 2014 and you are claiming that mathematics is not applicable to JFK analysis.
That tells me all I need to know about your science/math background.

You bought the book. Thanks. But have you read it?

Peer-review is support from professionals like Jim Marrs (in his book), Richard Belzer (in his book), Judyth Baker (in her book), Andrew Kreig (in his book), Roger Stone, Vince Palamara, Bob Fitrakis, Mark Crispin Miller, Physics PhD’s Phillip Stahl and David L Griscom.

The fact that the mainstream media will not debate the content is indirect confirmation that the analysis is correct. I have not received any support from Lone Nutters like yourself, just inane criticisms and ad hominems as you have done here. I expect this from you since
a) you have an agenda of spreading misinformation,
b) covering up the factual truth and
c) are incapable of refuting the data or the mathematics.

You write: “As much as I admire serious assassination researchers and personally believe it’s theoretically conceivable that there was some type of limited assassination conspiracy (although I know of no defensible evidence pointing to such) – this type of nonsense only hurts the cause of honest conspiracy research.”

What an insipid statement! Theoretically conceivable? Limited assassination conspiracy? No defensible evidence? Hurts the cause of honest conspiracy research? Who are the assassination researchers that you admire? And why have we not seen a review of their books? Your agenda is clear. You have reviewed just one other JFK conspiracy book. Of course, you gave it a low rating, just like the rating readers are giving your review right here.

Troll #2: Mark Ulrik
I would advise against buying this book unless you have a perverse fascination with poorly applied logic and math. Let the following nugget from the author’s blog suffice.
=== Quote Begin ===
Researcher Harold Feldman wrote that of 121 eyewitnesses: 51 (42%) said shots came from the Grassy Knoll area, 32 from the TSBD, and 38 had no opinion.

Given P = 0.42 is probability of a witness being correct in stating that shots came from the Knoll, then the probability PM = 0.58 = 1-.42 that the witness was mistaken. The joint probability PA that ALL 51 witnesses were mistaken and there was NOT a Grassy Knoll shooter is 0.58 to the 51st power.
PA = 0.58^51 = 8.6E-13 = 0.000000000000861 or of 1 in 1,161,909,568,739 or 1 in 1.16 trillion.
=== Quote End ===

It’s certainly not a “given” that P is [the] probability of a particular answer being “correct.” The 0.42 figure is nothing more than the probability of a random witness giving the author the answer he’s looking for.

The 0.58^51 figure is the probability of repeating the experiment (asking random witnesses) 51 times and not getting the preferred answer even once. How is this supposed to “prove” anything meaningful? We already knew that – if you ask a lot of people – odds are you’ll eventually get the answer you’re looking for.

Richard Charnin: Mark, even a 7th grader would see right through your ridiculous statement:  survey, you charlatan. No one was looking for an answer. The percentage of Warren Commission witnesses who claimed the shots came from the Grassy Knoll was 42%. That is not MY number. It was not the number ANYONE was looking for. It’s just the percentage of Warren Commission witnesses who were in Dealey Plaza and said that shots came from the Grassy Knoll. Mark, you are truly clueless and just making a royal fool of yourself.


It is reasonable to assume that 42% is the probability as a start (51 of 121 Warren Commission witnesses). What percentage would you use?





Mark, is your mind so closed that you cannot process this logic from lawyer Andrew Mason on the applicability of witness evidence?

Click to access shot_pattern_evidence.pdf

“One need not start with the belief that witnesses are reliable at all. Provided there are several independent witnesses, determining a witness’ reliability is simply a matter of seeing how their recollections fit with the rest of the evidence. Subjective techniques for assessing witness accuracy and trustworthiness are fraught with uncertainty.

It is very important to distinguish between the fallibility of a single witness and that of a group of witnesses who independently report observing the same fact. If the witnesses are independent, they will either independently agree on a fact because they observed it or they will be independently mistaken. Where there is more than one way to be mistaken, independent errors will be distributed over the range of all incorrect possibilities.

Dishonesty is an inherently random factor unless there is collusion between witnesses.The testimony of the independently mistaken or dishonest witnesses will necessarily fail to converge on a common explanation. Conversely, the convergence of consistent witness evidence on a particular detail can have only one of two rational explanations: either they all shared a common observation or they are not independent.

This use of corroboration as a technique for assessing reliability does not require subjective assessment of the witness’ demeanour or appearance of trustworthiness. It is not the witness recollection per se that is important. It is the fact that the same witness recollection is produced by multiple independent sources that is key. Juries intuitively understand this and, generally, do not need to have the probabilities quantified. They apply common sense to conclude how unlikely it is that multiple witnesses will independently have with the same recollection of something that they did not actually observe. The mathematics of probability supports our common sense.”

Mark, where is your COMMON SENSE? You have posted this garbage before on my blog, and you have been soundly refuted. Now you come back for more with an agenda to discourage readers from buying my book. I’ve got news for you. It won’t work. Rational viewers, unlike you, are suckers for the truth.

Now Mark, I will destroy your bogus “argument”. Heck, you don’t even understand the problem. Even if there was just a 0.10 probability of a witness being correct, the probability is P = 0.9^51= .004 that ALL 51 witnesses would be mistaken. In fact, since 93 witnesses (WC and others) actually stated that shots came from the Grassy Knoll, the probability would be P= 0.9^93= 0.00005 or 1 in 18,000!

There goes your premise, blown to smithereens. Mark, you just flunked math. Actually 93 said Grassy Knoll and 45 TSBD, so the odds are much lower that ALL 93 would be wrong! ONE in TRILLIONS. Get it now?

Mark, you never learn from your mistakes, do you? You just Keep repeating the same old garbage, revealing yourself as just another Lone Nutter with an agenda to discredit my work. But I give you credit for at least trying to refute the math when you know nothing. That takes balls. Unfortunately, your lack of mathematical training is exposed along with your agenda. Just what are your math credentials, anyway?
In reply to your post on Nov 30, 2014 8:22:47 AM PST
Mark Ulrik
Ah, there is nothing like soft spoken academics and their guarded language 🙂

Allow me an analogy. Let’s say I walked into a weatherman’s convention and asked 100 weathermen about tomorrow’s weather. 42 tell me they think it’s going to rain. Does this absolutely prove that it’s going to rain tomorrow? According to Mr. Charnin, it does, because how can those 42 weathermen ALL be wrong? I’m not kidding; this is PRECISELY his argument! Note that the same logic can be used to “prove” the opposite (because how can the 58 that don’t predict rain ALL be wrong?). The contradiction should be obvious to most 7th graders, perhaps even to Charnin.

Charnin will try to claim that the Dealey Plaza witnesses were better equipped to estimate the source(s) of the gunshots than weathermen to predict tomorrow’s weather, but that won’t salvage his argument by a long shot (sorry). If witness impressions really were so accurate, then why would virtually all of them be wrong? The witnesses who thought the shots came from the knoll (area) didn’t hear any shots from the TSDB (area) and vice versa. How does Charnin explain this inconsistency? To admit that gunshots can be confusing to the human ear (or that the acoustical environment of the Plaza was particularly confusing) would be the same as admitting that he has no argument at all.

It should be stressed that only the “TSBD” witnesses include ones that actually SAW a gunman and/or rifle (in the 6th floor window). The TSBD also happens to be the only shooter location supported by credible physical evidence.

Richard Charnin: Mark Ulrik, you have just proved once again that you completely lack the ability to think logically.

Of course, weather forecasters can err because they are predicting a future event. Any or all predictions can turn out wrong since weather forecasting is an inexact science.

I cannot believe that I must explain to you the difference between a forecast and a survey of witness observations. The Dealey Plaza witnesses voiced their observations on what they saw or heard. They were not predicting anything! You truly have no clue.

Ninety-three observers cannot all be wrong in saying shots came from the knoll area.
It is statistically impossible. You probably still don’t get the difference between weather forecasting and a witness survey. Do you know what the definition of a witness is?

Keep it up. You are promoting my book by confirming what i wrote about lone nutter charlatans just like you.

Mark Ulrik
In Mr. Charnin’s learned opinion, random people caught off guard are inherently better at guessing the location of unseen shooter(s) than professional weathermen at guessing tomorrow’s weather. In reality, however, the main difference between polling assassination ear-witnesses and weathermen is that the accuracy of weather predictions is easier to evaluate.

I’d like to congratulate him, however, on having scientifically “proved” all of the statements below.

a) Shots were fired from the front and not from the back
b) Shots were fired from the back and not from the front
c) A total of no more than three shots were fired

“By ‘proving’ everything, he proved nothing,” would be a fitting epitaph on his tombstone.

Richard Charnin: Mark Ulrik, you fail once again. Your epitaph will read: “By not being able to think logically, it was logically determined that he was just another shill.”

You completely misstate my conclusions. I have stated that the vast majority of witnesses (93) said that shots were fired from the front. I did not say that there were no shots from the back. Obviously there were 45 witnesses who said so.  There is no conflict. You cannot even read. You continue to expose your ignorance. And yes, more than three shots were fired. The acoustics picked up 6, but only 4 were noted in the HSCA report. I will let you in on a secret: rifles have silencers.
Troll #3: Norman Logsdon “movie lover” (Bedford , Tx USA)
This book is bogus from the on-set. Lee Oswald was not on the street watching the motorcade. The man misidentified as Oswald is Billy Lovejoy and various people have identified him. I don’t need to read anymore to know this book is worthless. Don’t waste your money.

Richard Charnin: Can you read? Where do you think Oswald was when JFK was shot? I bet you believe the Warren Commission. Tell us. Also, I did not say he was on the street. I said he was standing in the Doorway on the first floor entrance to the TSBD. This is confirmed when you look at detailed witness testimonies of others who were standing there – although none say Oswald was there since the WC would not allow the testimony or they were otherwise intimidated. Now read their testimonies and try and refute them. You can’t. Lovelady was in front – on the steps. Oswald was at the Doorway entrance – the top level (first floor). So are you just another Lone nutter who believes the Warren Commission fairy tale? Yes or No?

Oswald told Dallas Police Captain Will Fritz that he was out with Bill Shelley in front of the TSBD. The Fritz notes were not mentioned by the Warren Commission and were hidden from the public until 1997. Ask yourself why.

If Oswald was lying to Fritz, what was his motive? After all, he already had an alibi: he was seen on the second floor 90 seconds after the shooting by TSBD manager Roy Truly and policeman Marrion Baker. He was holding a coke and not out of breath. If Oswald was not on the 6th floor, why would he not be out front watching the motorcade? And how would he know Bill Shelley was out in front unless he saw him there?

Oswald deniers say that he told Fritz he changed his shirt. Could it have been his tee shirt? The shirt he was wearing at the TSBD is the same style (open in a V pattern) as the one he was wearing at the police station. Lovelady did not open his shirt in a V-pattern to show a tee, assuming he wore one. In any case, Judyth Baket’s pixel analysis of the shirt proves that Lovelady cannot be Doorman.

Warren Commission testimony indicates that Oswald, Shelley, Stanton and Frazier were standing on the TOP level (first floor) of the TSBD. In the Altgens6 photo, there are three men standing on the STEPS below: Lovelady, Williams and Molina. According to Frazier, Sarah Stanton is shading her eyes on the TOP level standing to his right. He was in the Black area and not visible.

Read the testimony of the witnesses on my blog:

Then you will WANT to buy the book.

Troll #4: Wisconsin Badger
The author seems to to understand the concept of “garbage in, garbage out”. This is a Psuedo-scientific account. Not worth the time or money.

Richard Charnin: As expected from the cadre of Lone Nutters, a quick worn-out one-liner: GIGO. Ok, Badger, point out just what in the book is Garbage in.
And prove that the data and math are incorrect. BE SPECIFIC. CITE THE PAGE NUMBER AND THE DATA. If you cannot do so – and you surely cannot, it will prove that your review was pure garbage.

Oh, and answer this question while you are at it.
Do you believe the Single Bullet Theory?
If you say YES or refuse to answer, that will totally close the book on your “review”.

Wisconsin Badger
I think it is hilarious that the author comes and starts arguments with his readers about their opinion of his book. A review is an opinion. My opinion is that this book is awful. The author is so deep down the rabbit hole that he comes off as a crank. The math is jejune.

Richard Charnin: Badger, your “opinion” is nothing more than a “hit job” to reduce my average rating and discourage potential buyers. It is not based on substance. In fact, I’m sure you didn’t read the book.

Your agenda is exposed. I bet you’re one of the Lone Nutters I run into online.
You refused to answer whether or not you believe the SBT. You have not cited a single factual error in the book. Thanks for your inane comment. You proved my case: Lone Nutters like you are FOS. You confirmed the chapter on disinformationists.
Troll #5: John G. Jazwiec (Chicago IL)
This review is from: Reclaiming Science: the JFK Conspiracy (Kindle Edition)

Reclaiming $5.95. I can sum up the entire book in a paragraph. This is not to say the author is wrong. It’s only to say that it is redundant, defensive and didn’t have enough new material to warrant a book costing $5.95.

“Actuary science makes the untimely deaths of known material subjects a statistical impossibility. For those to claim that the sample size was biased due to their connections … don’t realize they are damning themselves by implying the very conspiracy they are so intent on rejecting”

What was supposed to be a book, is really only a persuasive mathematical and logical theorem.

Richard Charnin: There is a lot more in the book than that and you know it. But the mathematical proof alone is worth $5.95 because you never saw it anywhere else, did you? Well, you accomplished your goal: one star brings down the average rating. You must have done the math on that, right?
Troll #6: Henry Sienzant
Anyone who thinks Richard Charnin has established anything needs to consider that his list has a selection bias at work. It’s akin to looking at an obituary page of the NY Times and asking “what are the odds that these people on this page would all die within a day or two of each other?” The odds, calculated beforehand, are miniscule. The odds, calculated after the fact, are 100%, because we already know all of them are dead.

In addition, many of the names on the list have little to no direct link to the assassination. For example, Eddie Benavides is on Charnin’s list, but his only connection to the assassination is that he’s the brother of a witness to another shooting in Dallas – that of a police officer in another part of Dallas on the day of the assassination. By including the dead brother of one witness (but not the living siblings and other close relatives this witness and all the other witnesses), Charnin increases the number of dead in his universe by one and the number of living in his universe by one as well. But he should be counting all the living relatives of all the witnesses, if he’s counting the dead relative. This also establishes his numbers are fudged by a pre-selection bias that exposes his calculations as nonsense.

Another example is New Orleans Mayor Delessops Morrison, who is on Charnin’s list. Morrison is on the list exactly why? His only connection to the assassination is that he was the mayor of the city Oswald lived in for a portion of 1963. He has NO other association with the assassination. Throwing Morrison onto the list is done only to inflate the list of dead, and make the odds more astounding. It again shows the selection bias at work.

Another example: It’s like asking what are the odds the Patriots would win the Super Bowl 49 by the score of 28-24? Before the fact, the odds were astronomically against that particular score, after the fact it’s 100%.

One look no further than this discussion on Amazon with the author to see the logical errors of Charnin exposed:

Richard Charnin: Caution, Henry Sienzant is a Lone Nutter who has zero knowledge of rational analysis, much less mathematics. I have totally exposed him dozens of times during the past two years on the Amazon JFK Forum. Consider his asinine statement:
“It’s akin to looking at an obituary page of the NY Times and asking “what are the odds that these people on this page would all die within a day or two of each other?” The odds, calculated beforehand, are miniscule. The odds, calculated after the fact, are 100%, because we already know all of them are dead.”

My analysis has been lauded by Jim Marrs, in his classic work “Crossfire”, and Mathematician/Physicist Philip Stahl who gave the book a 5 star review on Amazon.

Yes, go to the Amazon Discussion Forum and see for yourself why Henry Sienzant is a total fraud who makes a fool of himself over and over again.


Henry calls my list self-selected. At least 66 of the 122 witnesses in the JFK Calc database were selected by authorities to testify at the (W)arren Commission, (G)arrison trial, (C)hurch Senate and House Select Committee (H)SCA. To any thinking observer, they were obviously relevant.

From Who’s Who in the JFK Assassination:
“DeLessups Morrison, mayor of New Orleans, died in a plane crash piloted by Hugh Ward, business partner of Oswald associate Guy Bannister. According to Penn Jones Jr., before the assassination, Morrison’s secretary had made several inquiring phone calls seeking to rent an apartment for Guy Banister’s business use”. According to author Paris Flammonde, Morrison introduced Clay Shaw to JFK on a plane flight in 1963.

Domingo Benavides was driving his pickup truck along Tenth Street in Oak Cliff on 22nd November, 1963 when he witnessed the Tippit murder. He was not asked by the Dallas Police Department to view a line-up because “he didn’t think he was very good at identifying people”. Benavides later gave evidence to the Warren Commission, and to the CBS: The Warren Report. In February 1964, his brother Edward Benavides, who resembled him, was shot in the back of the head in a club in Dallas.”

From John Simkin:
“Domingo Benavides was convinced that Eddy’s murder was a case of mistaken identity and that he was the intended victim. Domingo Benavides was an eyewitness to the Tippit murder who could not identify Oswald to the Warren Commission. His brother Edward was murdered by an unknown assailant in Feb. 1964. Domingo was anonymously threatened after the Tippit killing. He then changed his story and identified Oswald.

Although he later said the killer resembled newspaper pictures of Oswald, he described the man differently: “I remember the back of his head seemed like his hairline sort of went square instead of tapered off…it kind of went down and squared off and made his head look flat in back.” Domingo reports that he has been repeatedly threatened by police, and advised not to talk about what he saw.

In mid-February 1964 his brother Eddy, who resembled him, was fatally shot in the back of the head in a beer joint on Second Avenue in Dallas. Police said it was a pistol shot, wrote up a cursory report and marked the case “unsolved.”

Domingo’s father-in-law, J.W. Jackson, was so unimpressed with the police investigation of Eddy’s death that he launched a little inquiry of his own. Two weeks later Jackson was shot at in his home. The assailant secreted himself in the carport, fired once into the house, and when Jackson ran outside, fired one more time, just missing his head. As the gunman clambered into an automobile in a nearby driveway, Jackson saw a police car coming down the block. The officer made no attempt to follow the gunman’s speeding car; instead, he stopped at Jackson’s home and spent a long time inquiring what had happened. Later a police lieutenant advised Jackson, “You’d better lay off of this business. Don’t go around asking question; that’s our job.” Jackson and Domingo are both convinced that Eddy’s murder was a case of mistaken identity and that Domingo, the Tippit witness, was the intended victim.”

Henry, take these tests. It would prove that you are irrational and incompetent:

Listen to Penn Jones, the first researcher of JFK-witness deaths:

Troll #7: Steve Roe 

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


Richard Charnin: It was inevitable that one of the most notorious Facebook disinformationists  would come along and continue to make a fool of himself in full public view as he descends into the pathetic pit of his peers. Note that he did not buy the book and fails to refute any of the facts in it. This charlatan still defends the Warren Commission and the Single Bullet theory. He links to Judyth Baker’s website, calling it my fan base. He insults not only Judyth, who has written the best sellers, “Me and Lee” and “David Ferrie”, but all unbiased, rational reviewers who gave the book 4-5 stars. He claims that I have a serious lack of research and knowledge of the assassination? The troll has a serious lack of integrity and shame.


Positive comments from other reviewers

Philip Stahl (Mathematical Physicist
Richard Charnin’s book Reclaiming Science- The JFK Conspiracy, features an apt title because it entails reclaiming the legitimate content that has hitherto been obfuscated and distorted under the specious science (or what I call pseudo-science) of the Warren Commission Report as well as the apologists like Gerald Posner (‘Case Closed’) and Vince Bugliosi (‘Reclaiming History’). Effectively, Charnin’s book is the perfect antidote to the specious science circulated by a complicit media (Google ‘Operation Mockingbird’ for more information)

Granted, it likely won’t be on any NY Times best sellers’ lists but I found it to be one of the best new books on the JFK assassination to emerge in the past 25 years. Charnin, a former consultant and quantitative programmer for investment banks, has written a mathematical masterpiece which uses Poisson analysis to show a significant number of witness deaths in the wake of the JFK assassination were indeed unnatural

This is important given how the matter of JFK witness deaths represents what many serious researchers regard as one component of the ongoing cover up. It is also important because the issue is rife with disinformation and misinformation from know-nothings.

These are people who believe they’re entitled to just recklessly babble about the assassination from a position of woeful ignorance, like Marilyn Elias. Elias tried to refute witness deaths such as that of Dorothy Kilgallen- in her piece ‘Conspiracy Act’ , in The Southern Poverty Law Center Intelligence Report (Winter, 2013, p. 15). Elias also, in some of the worst yellow journalism, tried to tar the whole witness murders theme by castigating Richard Belzer for being a nasty, anti-government sort because he appeared on a radio program with Alex Jones to promote his new book, ‘Hit List: An In-Depth Investigation Into the Mysterious Deaths of Witnesses to the JFK Assassination’ .

I have read Belzer’s book, along with Charnin’s, and believe it to be one of the most important for newcomers and also more experienced researchers (who’ve done at least 10 yrs. work) to get a handle on the matter of the witness deaths, and why they are not coincidental. Elias, for her part, shows her incompetence by her reliance on hack Gerald Posner who has already been exposed for his irresponsible work (Google “Posnerisms” for specifics)

Re: Kilgallen, as Charnin notes (p. 120): “was the only reporter granted an exclusive interview with Ruby in jail. She openly attacked the cover-up in her New York Journal-American columns on 2/2/64 and 9/3/65.”

Most notably (ibid.): “She reported a meeting between Ruby, Tippit and a Texas oilman, and revealed that Oswald was in too many places at one time, had links to U.S. intelligence and his true story was known to just a few government agents.”

This alone would have put Kilgallen on the architects’ radar, for likely elimination, because of: a) her prominence as a journalist, and b) exposing aspects of the plot the architects (especially LBJ who had many links to Texas oilmen, including H.L. Hunt) didn’t want exposed. Two key aspects were the Oswald double – which I examined before and cited James Douglass sterling work exposing it in his ‘JFK and the Unspeakable’, and the actual intelligence background of Oswald – which destroys the lone nut madman myth that LBJ and Hoover wanted to plant in their illegitimate ‘child’ – the Warren Report.

Thus, one sees there would have been ample reason to eliminate Kilgallen, as much or more as the reasons to eliminate David Ferrie (when the Garrison investigation started) and William Bruce Pitzer, the lab specialist at Bethesda who vowed to expose the actual autopsy photos and chicanery.

But this is where Charnin’s probability analyses (e.g. in Chapters 3, 4) really comes to the fore – in separating the suspicious witness deaths from the natural ones. And note, imho, this could only have been done using a Poisson -type analysis. Much of this harkens back to statistics shown at the end of the excellent movie, Executive Action (1973) which I strongly recommend to any interested person. Those stats cited an actuary’s finding reported in the London Sunday Times which calculated the odds of 18 material witness deaths within three years of the assassination at 100.000 trillion to 1. In other words, 100,000 trillion to 1 against being coincidence!

As Charnin points out (p. 25):

“The HSCA statistician dismissed the odds as being invalid, claiming the universe of witnesses was unknowable.”

But, of course, this is nonsense since as Charnin later notes 1400 material witnesses are listed in ‘Who’s Who in the JFK Assassination’.

Charnin also correctly observes (ibid.)

“The (London) actuary’s probability was actually very conservative. At least 42 JFK-related witnesses died unnaturally in the three years following the assassination. Using the 0.000220 weighted JFK -witness mortality rate the probability is E-53 (1/ Trillion ^4). ”

For those more accustomed to standard (scientific) notation this would be: 10^ -53 or, alternatively, 1 in 10^53 odds.

Linked to the issue of witness deaths is how they could have been accomplished with so many seeming objective observers being none the wiser. This Charnin takes up in Chapter 6 on ‘Motives and Techniques’. We learn, for example, of “a special type of poison that induces a heart attack and leaves no trace unless an autopsy is conducted.” This was surely the type used to eliminate David Ferrie before he could testify before Jim Garrison’s investigation. I lived in New Orleans at the time, in Feb. 1967 (attending Loyola University) and no one of my acquaintance bought that Ferrie just killed himself. It didn’t add up.

Charnin’s other chapters are equally compelling including to do with the Warren Commission itself (p. 17), Dealey Plaza (p. 55), Acoustics (69), the Zapruder Film ( 79) , Wounds (83), the Patsy (87), Disinformation (105) and his JFK Calc Spreadsheet (p. 135). The latter has now been enhanced to include Dealey Plaza witnesses’ reference to the origin of the shots.

There are also 38 pages comprising nine appendices- ending with a quiz on the assassination. (Something every would – be bloviator or opinion provider needs to take – to prove he is worthy of making comments!)

Sam Clemens
Richard, thanks for your rebuttal of this insipid, vapid criticism..undoubtedly by a gov’t shill….or intellectual cretin. Anyone with any intelligence and integrity (and no occult agenda) must concede that the WC conclusions were politically motivated and baloney.

As a matter of fact, the HSCA work, pushed toward the same goal of cover-up, was hamstrung almost from the start, but toward the end did allow some “light into the shadows” of this case, and revealed that, yes, there had been at least four shots and that there was probably a conspiracy. The Committee was very guarded in its use of language, but the reality of four shots is prima facie evidence of a conspiracy.

A less guarded and more honest and competent position would recognize–and admit–the existence of several VOLLEYS of shots, comprising something like ten shots and the absolute certainly of a conspiracy to remove a sitting American president…one which might not even include the suspect Oswald.

Martin J Eichler
Typical attack by an uniformed uneducated person who believes in the lone nut fallacy and has a closed mind. And speaking of tools, yes you are one Davinroy.

J. Maringelli
Unfortunately what has clouded and slowed down the exposure of Government guilt in this heinous crime are the people who work for the Government such as Mike Davinroy. The problem with Mike’s “Analysis” is that numbers don’t lie. He and people like him try and confuse the issue for people that have never researched all the true facts in this case. And the proof that the Government Rogue CIA and FBI elements from yesteryear and their children did this crime is overwhelming. All one has to do is look at the thousands of pieces of evidence. Richard Charnin does an amazing job at showing proof from a mathematical viewpoint. Numbers don’t lie but Government Shills do.

Dear Mr. Davinroy,
Your remarks about the book sparked my attention and purchase. Thank you for that. The book is a five out of five if there ever was one. Well done Mr. Charnin!! With all respect to the author the book now adds on mathematical science to the great amount of “non-mathematical” evidence currently available and produces a convergence of an even more sharpened comprehensive point that: THE U.S. GOVERNMENT was responsible for the murder and cover-up. Whether it was the gov’t in whole or in parts a criminal act was accomplished and deliberately diverted from justice. I see the JFK case not just as a murder but worse than that — it was (and still is) a monstrous assault on the constitution. The gov’t caused this deep, winding wound from front to back and must make complete restitution to the American people, the constitution and most important to American History. We must not go on living this terrible, ugly lie. Do not fault Mr. Davinroy. He is probably a good patriotic American. He may be going through what I and a lot of Americans go through when they research the JFK case. It’s called cognitive dissonance. May God & Reason finally convince the U.S. Gov’t to make amends. Remove this dissonance now and forever by the release of ALL files and evidence immediately.

B. Mumford
I think you’re projecting with the title of your review, Mike.

J. Maringelli
Charlie, Well said sir

Sam Clemens
Whew, as a holistic doc and psychotherapist, I must say that you have “hit the nail on the head!!” Cognitive dissonance (and PTSD) is precisely the infirmity from which millions of Americans have been suffering, first from the JFK coup, and more recently from “9-11” disaster (about which the Powers that Be similarly spun a fantasy narrative immediately after the event…intended to be the basis and pretext for our diabolical military campaigns in Central Asia…which seem–like the Vietnam nightmare–to go on endlessly).

Hopefully, many of these folks will eventually recover and awaken from the pain and anguish…and come to realize that they were made dupes by gov’t agencies with dark agendas. Of course, there have also been individuals very willing to act in a complicit way with these agencies…for whatever reason…e.g., for financial gain or because of Pentagon or intelligence connections, but it certainly rankles.

Louis Whitney
Richard… I have just ordered your book and look forward to reading it. Though I know of your work already and have studied many of your posts.

I would like to share how I go about dealing with shills these days. I don’t. Simple. They are not worth it. Arguing with them is a waste of valuable time… and life is short. That is not to say that they should not be exposed. They should be. But arguing their flawed theories? No way.

These “shills” WOULD HAVE US BELIEVE; that 7 men – 1 Chief Justice of the Supreme Court – 4 members of Congress – 1 former CIA director (who despised the man who’s death he was investigating) – and 1 former president of the World Bank, conducted an investigation in a span of 10 months (one we know via the admission of at least two of the commissions own council was tainted by the CIA and FBI and critical info withheld) … GOT IT RIGHT… when AFTER 51 YEARS of research performed by dozens upon dozens of scholars, PHD’s, MD’s, Scientists, intelligent officers, military personnel, medical tech’s and hard core researchers… HAVE IT WRONG. Talk about numbers not lying! There simply is no longer a reasonable doubt that there was a conspiracy in the assassination of JFK… it is a certainty.

Leave a comment

Posted by on January 1, 2015 in JFK


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

Reclaiming Science: the JFK Conspiracy

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

Kindle version

Warren Commission defenders and the Corporate Media avoid the evidence and continue to promote the bogus Single Bullet Theory, claiming that Oswald was the lone shooter, despite overwhelming evidence that he was not on the 6th floor of the Texas Book Depository. In fact, he was photographed standing on the first floor watching the motorcade.

The mainstream media has lost all credibility and must be considered complicit in the ongoing 50 year cover-up.

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

In 1978 the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) dismissed the actuary’s odds, stating the odds were invalid because the universe of witnesses was “unknowable”. But there were 552 Warren Commission witnesses and approximately five hundred others who were sought to testify at the Garrison trial, Church senate hearings and the HSCA. The HSCA did not consider unnatural deaths which comprised the majority of suspicious deaths; it noted just 21 suspicious deaths. But when there were at least 122 by 1978. The actuary’s identity and methodology was never revealed.

In 1989 Jim Marrs published Crossfire in which he listed 103 convenient JFK-related deaths. Along with Jim Garrison’s On the Trail of the Assassins, Crossfire was the basis for Oliver Stone’s historic JFK. In 2003, using Marrs’ list, I calculated the probability of at least 15 unnatural witness deaths in the first year, essentially confirming the actuary’s calculation. My analysis is referenced in Marrs’ updated 2013 edition of Crossfire.

In 2014, I wrote Reclaiming Science: the JFK Conspiracy. It is a comprehensive statistical and reference analysis of unnatural JFK-related deaths, Dealey Plaza eyewitness observations, medical, acoustic and photographic evidence. Reclaiming Science challenges the corporate media to let scientific and JFK experts present the facts and debate Warren Commission apologists in full public view.



Posted by on October 24, 2014 in JFK


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

JFK: Confirming the London Sunday Times Actuary’s 100,000 Trillion to One Odds

JFK: Confirming the London Sunday Times Actuary’s 100,000 Trillion to One Odds

Richard Charnin
Sept.1, 2014
Updated Oct.1, 2014

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

JFK Blog Posts
JFK Calc Spreadsheet Database
Tables and Graphs

An actuary engaged by the London Sunday Times calculated 100,000 trillion to one odds against 18 JFK material witnesses dying in the three year period ending in Feb. 1967. The odds were displayed in the 1972 film Executive Action

“In the three-year period which followed the murder of President Kennedy and Lee Harvey Oswald, 18 material witnesses died – six by gunfire, three in motor accidents, two by suicide, one from a cut throat, one from a karate chop to the neck, three from heart attacks and two from natural causes”.

The calculation has been the source of much controversy. Assuming the data and calculation methodology were essentially correct, then it was clear proof of a conspiracy and refuted the Warren Commission conclusion that Oswald was the lone assassin. Penn Jones was the first independent researcher to investigate unnatural deaths:

The Poisson Probability Function

The actuary’s odds are matched assuming N=454 witnesses (the CIA claimed 418 testified  in person at the Warren Commission). A total of 552 testified (including depositions). There were n=13 unnatural deaths among the 18 material witnesses. We will ignore the five suspicious natural deaths.

The expected number E of unnatural deaths is based on N=454,T=3 years, R=0.000209 the weighted unnatural death rate:
E = N*T*R= 0.285 = 454*3*0.000209
P = Poisson (13, E, false)
P = 9.83E-18 = 1 in 100,000 trillion

It is important to note that the actuary worked with limited information. There were actually at least 42 unnatural JFK-related deaths in the three years following the assassination. View the JFK Calc spreadsheet:

There were at least 10 unnatural deaths among the 418 witnesses who testified in person at the Warren Commission in the three years ending Feb. 1967. The probability is:P= 2.4E-15 = 1 in 400 trillion

There were 20 unnatural deaths among the 552 total witnesses in the 15 years from 1964-78. The probability is:P= 6.35E-16 = 1 in 1500 trillion

In 1978, the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) investigated the allegation (based on the actuary) that a statistically improbable number of individuals with some direct or peripheral association with the Kennedy assassination died as a result of that assassination, thereby raising the specter of conspiracy.

The HSCA declared that the actuary’s calculation was invalid, claiming that the universe (number of witnesses) was unknowable. Warren Commission defenders (Bugliosi, McAdams, Posner, etc.) have questioned the relevance of witness connections to the assassination. The HSCA made a number of errors in coming to that conclusion, It did not cite the
1. suspicious deaths of anti-Castro, CIA, mafia, Dallas police
2. unnatural witness deaths, the key statistic in the analysis
3. known universe of 552 Warren Commission witnesses
4. 500+ called to testify by Garrison, Church and HSCA
5. identity of the actuary
6. methodology used by the actuary
7. 100+ suspicious deaths
8. deaths of Oswald, Ruby, DeMorenschildt, Ferrie, Craig etc.
9. 7 FBI officials due to testify at HSCA died in a 6 month period in 1977.

Unnatural Mortality Rates and Expected Deaths
U.S. National Center for Health Statistics

In order to calculate the probability of a given number of unnatural deaths in a given group, we must first determine the expected number (E) of unnatural deaths.

E= N*T*R, where N is the size of the witness universe, T the time period under study in years, and R the average unnatural mortality rate.

Let H = the number of homicides, A = accidental deaths, S = suicides.
The actuary’s 13 unnatural deaths consist of:
H=8 homicides, A=3 accidents and S=2 suicides.

The corresponding average mortality rates for the period from 1964-66:
HR= 0.000061, AR= 0.000658, SR = 0.000128
The total unnatural rate (unweighted):
RT = HR+ AR+ SR = 0.000847

The total number ET of expected unnatural deaths:
ET = 1.15 = 454*3*0.000847
Only one unnatural death would be expected! But there were 13.

The weighted average mortality rate R is:
R = (H*HR + A*AR + S*SR)/ (H+A+S)
The average weighted unnatural rate:
R = .000209 = (8*0.000061+ 3*0.000658+ 2*0.000128)/13

The expected number E of unnatural deaths is based on the weighted rate:
E = 0.285 = 454*3*0.000209

The Poisson Probability Function
The Poisson function calculates the probability of 13 unnatural deaths in three years assuming 454 witnesses to match the actuary’s odds.
P = Poisson (13, 0.285, false)
P = 9.83E-18 = 1 in 100,000 trillion

If the 3 accidents and 2 suicides were actually homicides, then applying the 0.000061 average homicide rate, we have 13 homicides among 454 witnesses over three years.
E= 0.083= 454*3*0.000061
P= Poisson (13, 0.083, false)
P = 1.33E-24= 1 in 750 million trillion

Data Source
The reference Who’s Who in the JFK Assassination contains information on 1400+ JFK-related suspects, victims, witnesses,Law Enforcement officials and investigators. Approximately 100 died suspiciously in 1964-78 and are listed in the JFK Calc spreadsheet database.

Crossfire, by Jim Marrs, includes a list of 103 “convenient deaths”.

There are 122 suspicious deaths (78 officially ruled unnatural) listed in the spreadsheet JFK Calc. The probability of 78 unnatural deaths is 1 in trillions.

The Simkin JFK Spartacus Education website contains biographies of 656 JFK-related individuals. Approximately 70 died suspiciously (44 unnatutally, included 22 homicides). The probability is 1 in trillions.

HSCA Testimony
The chief of research of the HSCA, Jacqueline Hess, testified:
Our final conclusion on the issue is that the available evidence does not establish anything about the nature of these deaths which would indicate that the deaths were in some manner, either direct or peripheral, caused by the assassination of President Kennedy or by any aspect of the subsequent investigation.

One, to compute valid actuarial statistics, one must be able to determine to a reasonable degree of specificity, the universe of individuals to which the specific group is being compared. In other words, we would have to determine the total number of individuals who exist in each of the categories into which those individuals who have mysteriously died, fall. This means that we would need to establish the number of individuals who in any manner could be considered witnesses to the assassination of President Kennedy and Lee Harvey Oswald, the number of individuals who had any contact with Oswald or Ruby or with Ruby’s nightclubs, the number of individuals who professed to have material knowledge of the case or of the major figures in the case, all news reporters who had expressed interest, taken interviews or investigated the case, and all Members of Congress who sought to introduce legislation concerning the investigation of the case. This, as you can imagine, would have been an impossible task.

This was an incorrect statement. The universe of witnesses could be the four investigations in which at least 67 died suspiciously from 1964-78.

Two, in addition, for each of the individuals identified in the groups I have just listed, we would have to establish age, sex, race, occupation, geographical location, and any other extraordinary factors which have to be taken into consideration in order to compute mortality rates. Again, this was judged to be an impossible job.

Another incorrect statement. Natural mortality rates (heart attack, cancer, etc.) are age adjusted. Unnatural death rates are not age-related.

Three, we would need to determine the number of individuals in these categories who have, in fact, died and the number of individuals who, according to actuarial mortality rates, should have died.We had thus established the impossibility of attempting establish through the application of actuarial principles, any meaningful implications about the existence or absence of a conspiracy. Despite the fact that an inference of conspiracy, as here postulated by the critics, did not exist, we nevertheless decided not to dismiss the cited deaths out of hand, but rather, to look more closely at the nature of certain specific deaths to determine whether or not they could individually be considered mysterious or in some other manner a reflection of some sort of conspiracy.

Impossible to determine an approximate number of JFK-related individuals who died suspiciously? That is a canard. All the HSCA had to do was view the list of those called to testify in four JFK investigations – including the HSCA. It ignored 100+ deaths, including 7 top FBI officials who died suspiciously within 6 months in 1977, De Morenschildt and others who were due to testify at HSCA. Note: Hess noted 23 names, including two key Mafia figures (Sam Giancana and John Roselli). But the two were not included in the detailed report requested by the HSCA interrogator. Strange.

Mr. EDGAR – Will you provide for the record a detailed listing of the 21 names and the evidence you have found relating to their deaths?
Ms. HESS – Yes. Do you want me to read them for the record?
Mr. EDGAR – It might be helpful.

Ms. HESS – Edward Benavides, Albert Guy Bogard, Hale Boggs, Lee Bowers, Jr., Bill Chesher, Nicholas J. Chetta, David Goldstein, Thomas Hale Howard, William Hunter, Clyde Johnson, Dorothy Kilgallen, Thomas Henry Killam, Jim Koethe, FNU Levens, Nancy Jane Mooney, Teresa Norton, Earlene Roberts, Harold Russell, Marilyn April Walle, a.k.a. Betty McDonald, William W. Whaley, James R. Worrell, Sam Giancana, John Roselli.

Mr. EDGAR – Thank you. I think it very helpful for the record that those names be included. Can you indicate why Mr. DeMohrenschildt’s name was not included?
Ms. HESS – His was one of those which deemed further investigation and became part of a great investigative effort.

Actuary – 18 material witness deaths
M=homicide, A=accident, S=suicide, H=heart attack, O=other
W = testified at WC
Note:* No anti-Castro; CIA; Mafia; Dallas police in HSCA list of 21 deaths

M 6405 GARY UNDERHILL * CIA/Life magazine, predicted his death


O 6606 FRANK MARTIN W * Dallas Policeman (sudden cancer)
M 6610 WILLIAM PITZER * Navy autopsy photographer, near retirement

O 6701 JACK RUBY W * Connected to Dallas PD, mob (sudden cancer)
M 6702 DAVID FERRIE * CIA, knew Oswald
M 6702 ELADIO DEL VALLE * anti-Castro, knew Ferrie

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


Posted by on September 1, 2014 in JFK


Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

JFK-related Witness Homicides: Warren Commission Apologist Confusion

JFK-related Witness Homicides: Warren Commission Apologist Confusion

Richard Charnin
Aug. 23, 2014

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

JFK Blog Posts
JFK Calc Spreadsheet Database
Tables and Graphs

It is strange how Warren Commission apologists still can’t get the difference between a random and selected group. They claim that the universe of 1400 JFK-related witnesses is not a RANDOM group; that it is SELF-SELECTED and therefore a probability calculation of 34 official homicides from the group of 1400 over the 15 year period from 1964-78 is not valid.

The apologists have used the same talking point from their disinformation playbook years after I have explained it a number of times in various forums. To use such a convoluted argument over and over again betrays utter confusion and/or an attempt to discredit the logic of the witness unnatural death analysis.

Yes, it is true, the group of 1400 JFK assassination-related individuals is NOT a random group. AND THAT IS WHY THE ZERO PROBABILITY OF 34 HOMICIDES IN THE GROUP IS VALID. The apologists cannot or refuse to accept the logic of that simple statement of fact.

The 1400+ JFK-related witnesses are listed in Michael Benson’s “Who’s Who in the JFK Assassination”. In the group, there were 34 officially ruled homicides (actually there were quite a few more since many suicides and accidents and heart attacks were statistically proven to be inflated and therefore were actually homicides). But we will stick with the bogus 34 official homicides.

How many accidents, suicides, suspiciously timed heart attacks, and sudden cancers were likely homicides?

In a RANDOM group of 1400, only two homicides would be expected given the average 0.000084 homicide rate over the 15 year period from 1964-78. But there were 34 homicides in the JFK-RELATED group of 1400!

The key point is that JFK-related witnesses were murdered at a MUCH HIGHER RATE than would be statistically expected in a RANDOM group of 1400.

The only relevant factors in calculating the probability are

1) N, the number of JFK-related witnesses
2) n, the number of official homicides
3) T, the time period in years
4) R, the average homicide rate

That is all we need to calculate the probability of n homicides in the N-group.
We first calculate E, the expected number of homicides.
E = N*T*R = 1.77 = 1400*15*0.000084.

The probability is calculated using the Poisson function:
P=POISSON (34, 1.77, false) = 1.57E-31 or 1 in 6 million trillion trillion.

This is not a poll. It is not a correlation analysis. Motivation for any given murder is not a factor. The 34 official murders among 1400 witnesses is all that matters. The 1 in 6 million trillion trillion probability means we have proven a conspiracy beyond any doubt.


Witnesses: N
Homicides: n
Time: T= 15 years
Rate: R= 0.000084

Prob: P= POISSON(n, N*R*T, false)

Example: In the table, find the probability of n=50 homicides among N=1400 JFK-related individuals over the T=15 years from 1964-78 is
P= 1.42E-53 = 0.0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 001

The probability is still effectively ZERO assuming N=8000 JFK-related individuals:
P= 2.38E-19 (1 in 4 million trillion).

Homicide Probability Sensitivity Analysis

………………………………….Homicides (n) …………………….
N......10...... 20...... 30...... 40...... 50...... 60...... 70...... 80
Warren Commission
552 3.77E-09 1.55E-22 3.90E-38 3.48E-55 2.57E-73 2.58E-92 4.93E-112 2.27E-132
4 Investigations
1100 1.86E-06 7.54E-17 1.88E-29 1.66E-43 1.21E-58 1.20E-74 2.26E-91 1.03E-108
"Who's Who in the JFK Assassination"
1400 1.42E-05 6.41E-15 1.78E-26 1.75E-39 1.42E-53 1.58E-68 3.31E-84 1.68E-100

3000 3.83E-03 3.53E-09 2.00E-17 4.03E-27 6.67E-38 1.51E-49 6.47E-62 6.70E-75
4000 1.92E-02 3.15E-07 3.17E-14 1.13E-22 3.33E-32 1.33E-42 1.02E-53 1.87E-65
5000 5.05E-02 7.70E-06 7.22E-12 2.40E-19 6.58E-28 2.46E-37 1.75E-47 2.99E-58

6000 8.83E-02 8.34E-05 4.84E-10 9.96E-17 1.69E-24 3.91E-33 1.72E-42 1.82E-52
7000 1.16E-01 5.14E-04 1.39E-08 1.34E-14 1.06E-21 1.15E-29 2.36E-38 1.17E-47
8000 1.25E-01 2.10E-03 2.16E-07 7.89E-13 2.38E-19 9.78E-27 7.63E-35 1.44E-43


Leave a comment

Posted by on August 23, 2014 in Uncategorized


Tags: , , , , , , ,

JFK: Mathematical proof that the Oswald backyard photos were faked

JFK: Mathematical proof that the Oswald backyard photos were faked.

Richard Charnin
June 9, 2014

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

JFK Blog Posts
JFK Calc Spreadsheet Database
Tables and Graphs

The famous photo of Oswald holding a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle and a copy of the Daily Worker which appeared on the cover of LIFE magazine convinced millions he was the Lone Assassin. But there were four photos which upon close inspection and a mathematical analysis prove they were faked.

Philip Stahl has developed a mathematical proof that the photos were faked:

Using differential equation fractal analysis, Stahl shows that the V-shaped shadow under Oswald’s nose is essentially identical in all four photos. Stahl debunks the pixel analysis of software scientist Hany Farid who claimed that the photos were genuine. Farid’s lab was partially funded by the FBI. Very strange.

There is absolutely no change in Oswald’s facial position or expression in the four backyard photos – a physical impossibility. In 1977, Canadian Defense Dept. photographic specialist Major General John Pickard determined that there was a 99% probability the LIFE Magazine cover photo was a fake and noted that each photo was taken from a slightly different angle. When one photo was laid atop another in succession, it is found that nothing matches exactly. Pickard observed: “Yet, impossibly, while one body is bigger – the heads match perfectly.” Very strange.

Judyth Vary Baker wrote this comprehensive essay on Farid’s flawed analysis of the backyard photos.

Oswald had worked in a photo lab (Jagger-Chiles-Stovall). He told DPD Captain Will Fritz that his face was superimposed on another body – and that he would prove it. He never had the chance.

Oswald told Fritz that he never owned a Mannlicher-Carcano.

David von Pein, a Warren Commission apologist, claims that Oswald owned the Mannlicher Carcano:

Michael T. Griffith, a well-known JFK researcher, provides substantial evidence that Oswald did not own the rifle:

Oswald could have purchased a rifle anonymously at any gun shop in Texas, so why would he buy a Carcano using a traceable mail order as “Alex Hidell” from Klein’s Sporting Goods in Chicago?

Hidell was apparently a cover name for agents. It was also the ID found on Richard Case Nagell, a CIA agent. Nagell became aware of a plan to assassinate JFK and was afraid of being the patsy. So he got himself arrested to give him an alibi by shooting the ceiling of a bank as Dick Russell wrote Nagell’s story in “The Man Who Knew Too Much”.

This article attempts to unmask the real “Alek Hidell”.

When will the corporate media ever report the above facts and analysis? Probably never. Note Rachel Maddow’s pathetic discussion of Oswald and the Mannlicher Carcano. Very strange.

Rachel never mentioned the testimony of award-winning Dallas Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig. Four Dallas police officers (Boone, Craig, Weitzman, Fritz) initially located a 7.65 Mauser on the 6th floor of the Texas Schoolbook Depository. It was reported all over the media. There was no question about it: “7.65 Mauser” was stamped on the weapon. The CIA initially reported that it was a Mauser. But a few hours later, it morphed into a Mannlicher Carcano. The rest is history. Very strange,


Posted by on June 9, 2014 in JFK


Tags: , , , , , ,

JFK Probability Analysis: Suspicious Deaths of Dealey Plaza Witnesses

JFK Probability Analysis: Suspicious Deaths of Dealey Plaza Witnesses

Richard Charnin
June 4, 2014
Updated: Oct. 30, 2017

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

JFK Blog Posts
JFK Calc Spreadsheet Database
Tables and Graphs

The 1977 House Select Committee on Assassination (HSCA) claimed that the London Sunday Times actuary’s 1 in 100,000 trillion probability calculation that 18 material witnesses would die (13 unnaturally) in the three years following the assassination was invalid. The HSCA claimed that the witness universe was unknown. But the HSCA did not consider Dealey Plaza witnesses or other knowable witness groups (Warren Commission, Garrison/Shaw trial, Church Senate hearings – and the HSCA itself).

It is an interesting exercise to calculate the probabilities of suspicious deaths of 28 Dealey Plaza witnesses. Of the suspicious deaths, 14 were officially ruled unnatural (5 homicides, 7 accidents, 2 suicides).

Assuming there were 600 Dealey Plaza witnesses, the probability of 14 ruled unnatural deaths during the period 1963-1978 is 1 in 230 million. But the nine accidents and suicides were likely homicides.

The probability of 14 homicides for 400, 600 and 1000 witnesses:
400: 1 in 900 trillion
600: 1 in 4 trillion
1000: 1 in 5 billion

Sixteen Dealey Plaza witnesses testified at the Warren Commission, 3 were sought to testify at the Garrison trial, 3 at the Church Senate hearings and 3 at the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA).

The probabilities of JFK witness deaths for various groups have been previously posted: Warren Commission, London Times actuary,Garrison/ Shaw, Church, HSCA, Simkin Educational Forum, JFK-related 1400+ witness reference “Who’s Who in the JFK Assassination”.

1 6311 Lee Harvey Oswald
2 6311 J.D. Tippit
3 6512 William Whaley
4 6606 Frank Martin
5 6608 Lee Bowers
6 6611 James Worrell
7 6701 Jack Ruby
8 6901 Charles Mentesana
9 6901 Buddy Walthers
10 7001 Merriman Smith
11 7008 Bill Decker
12 7101 Mac Wallace
13 7109 Roscoe White
14 7109 Cliff Carter
15 7309 Thomas E. Davis
16 7402 J.A. Milteer
17 7501 Allen Sweatt
18 7502 Ira (Jack) Beers
19 7505 Roger Craig
20 7509 Earl Cabell
21 7604 James Chaney
22 7608 Johnny Roselli
23 7703 Charles Nicoletti
24 7707 Ken O’Donnell
25 7801 Clint “Lummie” Lewis
26 7805 David Morales
27 7901 Billy Lovelady
28 8403 Roy Kellerman

Dealey Plaza witness deaths:

Quick JFK Witness death Calculator:

Leave a comment

Posted by on June 4, 2014 in Uncategorized


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

JFK: Debunking Scott Aaronson’s “Twenty Reasons to Believe Oswald Acted Alone”

JFK: Debunking Scott Aaronson’s “Twenty Reasons to Believe Oswald Acted Alone”

Richard Charnin
April 30, 2014

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

JFK Blog Posts
JFK Calc Spreadsheet Database
Tables and Graphs

I came across this blog post by Scott Aaronson: Twenty Reasons to Believe Oswald Acted Alone.

I replied with a brief one paragraph comment which was not posted. This is a response to each of the twenty reasons.

Aaronson is a 33 year old quantum physicist who readily admits he is unfamiliar with the evidence and is new to the JFK assassination. But it is the detailed factual evidence which proves a conspiracy. Aaronson states opinions which rehash the standard disinformation playbook of myths contrived to frame truth seeking researchers as conspiracy theory (CT) buffs. His lack of knowledge of relevant historical events prior and subsequent to the assassination is apparent. One can only conclude that he has been brainwashed by a complicit corporate media and academia which has covered up the assassination evidence for fifty years.

Why would someone so disciplined in the scientific method fail to do his homework? He notes that his heroes Carl Sagan and Bertrand Russell were conspiracy believers. It may be that for the 50th anniversary of the assassination, Scott felt compelled to write something quickly – without getting into the wealth of inconvenient details and facts. But the devil is in the details.

Aaronson states: I also started dipping, for the first time in my life, into a tiny fraction of the vast literature about the JFK assassination. The trigger (so to speak) for me was this article by David Talbot, the founder of
I figured, if the founder of Salon is a JFK conspiracy buff—if, for crying out loud, my skeptical heroes Bertrand Russell and Carl Sagan were both JFK conspiracy buffs—then maybe it’s at least worth familiarizing myself with the basic facts and arguments.

But another reason is that I’m skeptical that anyone actually comes to believe the JFK conspiracy hypothesis because they don’t see how the second bullet came in at the appropriate angle to pass through JFK’s neck and shoulder and then hit Governor Connally.

RC: JFK was hit in the back 5.5 inches below the collar by a bullet on a downward trajectory which did not exit. I am more than skeptical – actually dumbfounded- that anyone actually believes the Single Bullet Theory. There are three possibilities: the believer is a) unfamiliar with the evidence, b) familiar with the evidence but is dumb as rocks, or c) a JFK disinformationist.

Scott is surely unaware of Gerald Ford’s moving the back wound up to conform to the Magic Bullet’s bogus point of entry:

Update: Philip Stahl is an astronomer, mathematician and physicist who posts as “Copernicus”. I sent him a link to this post. He closes the book on Aaronson with a series of devastating articles.

Aaronson never considered the following facts and analysis before claiming to believe the Warren Commission report that Oswald was the “lone nut” assassin.

1) To believe that Oswald killed JFK you must believe the following:

2) 16 mindblowing facts about who killed JFK:

3) 20 questions and answers on the JFK Calc spreadsheet:

This is a summary of Aaronson’s twenty reasons followed by my comments.

1. Conspiracy Buff Psychology
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.

RC: History has taught us just the opposite. People conspire all the time.

2. Ruby: Genesis of Conspiracy thinking
The shooting of Oswald by Jack Ruby created the perfect conditions for conspiracy theorizing to fester.

RC: So, wouldn’t that be a normal, rational response. To permanently silence the patsy? And Ruby himself confirmed it was a conspiracy multiple times.

3. Historical Lone Nuts
Other high-profile assassinations to which we might compare this one—for example, those of Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, RFK, Martin Luther King Jr., Gandhi, Yitzchak Rabin…—appear to have been the work of “lone nuts,” or at most “conspiracies” of small numbers of lowlifes. So why not this one?

RC: You don’t know that they were killed by “lone nuts”. Did it ever occur to you that the targets were all liberals who wanted change? JFK was a liberal who wanted to change things.

4. LHO the psychopath
Oswald seems to have perfectly fit the profile of a psychopathic killer (see, for example, Case Closed by Gerald Posner).

RC: You should know what people who knew Oswald had to say. Quite the opposite of the Posner propaganda piece. Here are some things you don’t know about Oswald.

5. No evidence of others
A half-century of investigation has failed to link any individual besides Oswald to the crime. Conspiracy theorists love to throw around large, complicated entities like the CIA or the Mafia as potential “conspirators”—but in the rare cases when they’ve tried to go further, and implicate an actual human being other than Oswald or Ruby (or distant power figures like LBJ), the results have been pathetic and tragic.

RC: Oswald never had a trial. Even Posner admits he would never have been convicted as there is no evidence that he was on the 6th floor of the TSBD at 12:30. The Altgens6 photo is strong evidence that he was on the first floor watching the motorcade. Conspirators included Clay Shaw, Jack Ruby, David Ferrie, Hunt and the Cubans, et al. You call the Shaw trial “pathetic and tragic”, but even though he was acquitted, the jurors said that they were convinced it was a conspiracy. Shaw was a contract CIA agent who lied at his trial. CIA Director Helms admitted Shaw was a CIA operative in 1979. David Ferrie was murdered shortly after he was named as a witness. Garrison’s case was sabotaged.

There were at least 78 material witness deaths that were officially ruled unnatural and at least forty other suspicious heart attacks and sudden cancers.

6. Gen. Walker shooting
Oswald had previously tried to assassinate General Walker—a fact that was confirmed by his widow Marina Oswald, but that, incredibly, is barely even discussed in the reams of conspiracy literature.

RC: LHO did not shoot Walker. There is no evidence of that. Marina was forced to say it to protect her kids; she claimed it was not true years later.
There are many problems with the case against Oswald.

7. The Tippit canard
There’s clear evidence that Oswald murdered Officer Tippit an hour after shooting JFK—a fact that seems perfectly consistent with the state of mind of someone who’d just murdered the President, but that, again, seems to get remarkably little discussion in the conspiracy literature.

RC: LHO did not shoot Tippit. It was physically impossible.  LHO was seen standing at a bus stop near his rooming house at 1:04pm. According to 10 witnesses, Tippit was shot at 1:06. The Warren Commission ignored  all witness testimony. The WC claimed Tippit was shot at 1:15. They had to do this to give Oswald enough time to get to the scene. It was impossible for Oswald to travel one mile in two minutes. The world’s fastest milers need just under 4 minutes.  The bullets recovered  were from an automatic and did not match Oswald’s revolver. Eyewitnesses saw two shooters. Let’s end this crap.

8. Oswald a violent, pathological liar
Besides being a violent nut, Oswald was also a known pathological liar. He lied on his employment applications, he lied about having established a thriving New Orleans branch of Fair Play for Cuba, he lied and lied and lied.

RC: Thriving branch? That’s a joke. Oswald was working for Guy Banister (FBI) to distribute leaflets to stage a fake altercation. Oswald was CIA and an FBI informer.

9. Oswald attitude in custody
According to police accounts, Oswald acted snide and proud of himself after being taken into custody.

RC: That is untrue. When will you provide specifics? See the testimony of Detective Will Fritz. Oswald could not reveal his ties to the FBI and CIA. He was calm, cool and asked for legal representation.

10. Conspiracy Theories are wildly inconsistent
Almost all JFK conspiracy theories must be false, simply because they’re mutually inconsistent.

RC: Cite the theories and the inconsistencies. Can you provide specifics? Yes, some theories are false, created by disinformationists to confuse the public (such as the REELZ “Smoking Gun” fiasco).

11. Witnesses are unreliable
The case for Oswald as lone assassin seems to become stronger, the more you focus on the physical evidence and stuff that happened right around the time and place of the event. To an astonishing degree, the case for a conspiracy seems to rely on verbal testimony years or decades afterward—often by people who are known confabulators, who were nowhere near Dealey Plaza at the time, who have financial or revenge reasons to invent stories, and who “remembered” seeing Oswald and Ruby with CIA agents, etc. only under drugs or hypnosis. This is precisely the pattern we would expect if conspiracy theorizing reflected the reality of the human nervous system rather than the reality of the assassination.

RC: There were 200 witnesses in Dealey Plaza. Over 90 said they heard shots from the Grassy Knoll; about 45 at the TSBD. Were they all liars or mistaken? Were they inventing stories? What about the Parkland doctors who all said the throat wound was one of entrance and the head wound an exit? You are sadly misinformed about one-sided witness testimony which indicates at least one addition shooter at the Grassy Knoll. Why do you avoid specifics?

12. Assassination motive
If the conspiracy is so powerful, why didn’t it do something more impressive than just assassinate JFK? Why didn’t it rig the election to prevent JFK from becoming President in the first place?

RC: JFK had many enemies: Big Oil, Military Industrial Establishment, anti-Castro Cubans, mobsters, Joint Chiefs. The public execution gave a message to all future presidents.

13. Who hired the shooters?
Pretty much all the conspiracy writers I encountered exude total, 100% confidence, not only in the existence of additional shooters, but in the guilt of their favored villains (they might profess ignorance, but then in the very next sentence they’d talk about how JFK’s murder was “a triumph for the national security establishment”).

RC: 100% confidence is justified by ballistic, video, acoustic and eyewitness evidence which all point to at least one more shooter behind the picket fence at the Grassy Knoll.

14. Too big to cover up, someone would have talked
Every conspiracy theory I’ve encountered seems to require “uncontrolled growth” in size and complexity: that is, the numbers of additional shooters, alterations of medical records, murders of inconvenient witnesses, coverups, coverups of the coverups, etc. that need to be postulated all seem to multiply without bound.

RC: That’s because the evidence, which you are apparently unaware of, is overwhelming. Why do you ignore this evidence? There were over 100 material witness unnatural deaths. The probability is ZERO.

15. JFK the conservative
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. Yes, it’s possible that he would’ve made wiser decisions about Vietnam than LBJ ended up making; that’s part of what makes his assassination (like RFK’s later assassination) a tragedy. But many conspiracy theorists’ view of JFK as an implacable enemy of the military-industrial complex is preposterous.

RC: Yes, JFK moved slowly on civil rights, but then in 1962 he ordered integration at the Univ. of Alabama and gave the first great presidential speech for black equality. He did not seek to kill Castro; he was negotiating for peaceful coexistence with Castro and Khruschev behind the scenes. The CIA and the military were determined to force the issue, even after JFK ordered the anti-Castro camps shut down. He signed a memorandum to pull out of Vietnam by 1965 and the Test Ban Treaty with the Russians in 1963.

16. LBJ the liberal
By the same token, LBJ was not exactly a right-wing conspirator’s dream candidate. He was, if anything, more aggressive on poverty and civil rights than JFK was. And even if he did end up being better for certain military contractors, that’s not something that would’ve been easy to predict in 1963, when the US’s involvement in Vietnam had barely started.

RC: LBJ was NOT a liberal; he was forced to appear as one to placate the left and carry on JFK’s initiative on civil rights. LBJ gave the military the Vietnam War they wanted by staging the bogus Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964. He kept the oil depletion allowance for his Texas buddies.

17. Conspiracy buffs have a nervous system disorder
Lots of politically-powerful figures have gone on the record as believers in a conspiracy, including John Kerry, numerous members of Congress, and even frequently-accused conspirator LBJ himself. Some people would say that this lends credibility to the conspiracy cause. To me, however, it indicates just the opposite: that there’s no secret cabal running the world, and that those in power are just as prone to bugs in the human nervous system as anyone else is.

RC: What a ridiculous statement! Its just the opposite. So your heroes Sagan and Bertrand Russell suffered this disorder? Where is your logic? If anything, coincidence theorists like yourself suffer from massive propaganda disorientation. To believe everything the government claims is a severe attention disorder.

18. The intelligence agency incompetence canard
As far as I can tell, the conspiracy theorists are absolutely correct that JFK’s security in Dallas was unbelievably poor; that the Warren Commission was as interested in reassuring the nation and preventing a war with the USSR or Cuba as it was in reaching the truth (the fact that it did reach the truth is almost incidental); and that agencies like the CIA and FBI kept records related to the assassination classified for way longer than there was any legitimate reason to (though note that most records finally were declassified in the 1990s, and they provided zero evidence for any conspiracy). As you might guess, I ascribe all of these things to bureaucratic incompetence rather than to conspiratorial ultra-competence. But once again, these government screwups help us understand how so many intelligent people could come to believe in a conspiracy even in the total absence of one.

RC: It’s always incompetence, never venality. Sorry, the agencies are not incompetent. Total absence of a conspiracy? You ignore or are ignorant of the totality of evidence which proves a conspiracy.

19. Psychological need to call it a conspiracy
In the context of the time, the belief that JFK was killed by a conspiracy filled a particular need: namely, the need to believe that the confusing, turbulent events of the 1960s had an understandable guiding motive behind them, and that a great man like JFK could only be brought down by an equally-great evil, rather than by a chronically-unemployed loser who happened to see on a map that JFK’s motorcade would be passing by his workplace.

RC: Oh, really? We need a conspiracy to satisfy our need for excitement? Wrong. We need to learn the truth. You believe that only a Lone Nut would want to bring down JFK or RFK, or MLK, or John Lennon, or JFK,Jr, or Wellstone, or Gandhi, etc. It’s never a conspiracy. That is very naive. Newsflash! We live in a world of conspiracies. It makes the world go round.

20. Can’t Connect the Dots
At its core, every conspiracy argument seems to be built out of “holes”: “the details that don’t add up in the official account,” “the questions that haven’t been answered,” etc. What I’ve never found is a truly coherent alternative scenario: just one “hole” after another. This pattern is the single most important red flag for me, because it suggests that the JFK conspiracy theorists view themselves as basically defense attorneys: people who only need to sow enough doubts, rather than establish the reality of what happened. Crucially, creationism, 9/11 trutherism, and every other elaborate-yet-totally-wrong intellectual edifice I’ve ever encountered has operated on precisely the same “defense attorney principle”: “if we can just raise enough doubts about the other side’s case, we win!” But that’s a terrible approach to knowledge, once you’ve seen firsthand how a skilled arguer can raise unlimited doubts even about the nonexistence of a monster under your bed. Such arguers are hoping, of course, that you’ll find their monster hypothesis so much more fun, exciting, and ironically comforting than the “random sounds in the night hypothesis,” that it won’t even occur to you to demand they show you their monster.

You avoid any and all analysis of the evidence. You make pompous claims which have no basis in fact and just perpetuate myths while admitting ignorance of the facts and evidence of the assassination. You employ Warren Commission apologist propaganda and parrot lies that have been promoted by the corporate media – who refuse to consider, much less debate, the evidence. Hear no evil; see no evil.


Posted by on April 29, 2014 in JFK


Tags: , , , , , , ,

JFK Calc: Questions on the Spreadsheet Analysis

JFK Calc: Questions on the Spreadsheet Analysis

Richard Charnin
April 9, 2014
Updated:June 7, 2014

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

JFK Blog Posts
JFK Calc Spreadsheet Database
Tables and Graphs

Warren Commission apologists invariably thrash JFK-related witness death analysis – as well as the observations of Dealey Plaza and medical eyewitnesses. Rather, they ask questions that are irrelevant and meant to distract from the facts. They don’t bother to actually read the posts, comprehend the logic or deal with the evidence.

The JFK Calc spreadsheet database includes 126 witnesses who died unnaturally and suspiciously (122 from 1964-78).

This post will present the answers to questions that should legitimately be asked on the JFK witness mortality data and calculation methodology.

1) What is the data source of the witnesses?
See Jim Marrs’ “Crossfire” (103), Michael Benson’s “Who’s Who in the JFK Assassination (1400)”, Richard Belzer and David Wayne’s “Hit List” (50) and the Simkin Educational website (656).

The analysis is cited in Hit List, Crossfire, Judyth Baker’s Ferrie, Phil Nelson’s LBJ:Mastermind to Colossus, physicist/astronomer/mathematician Philip Stahl and political author Andrew Kreig.

Dealey Plaza eyewitnesses and associated probabilities are based on articles by these excellent researchers: Stewart Galanor, Harold Feldman, Vince Palamara and John Craig.

2) Of the 122 total suspicious deaths in JFK Calc, how many were officially ruled unnatural?
There were 78 officially ruled unnatural deaths (34 homicides, 24 accidents, 16 suicides, 4 unknown). But a statistical analysis based on historical accident, suicide and heart attack mortality rates indicates at least 84 homicides and 99 unnatural deaths.

......Homicide Unnatural Total
.....Ruled Est Ruled Est Deaths
1964... 12 19... 19 23... 25
1964-66 16 35... 35 42... 48
1964-78 34 84... 78 99... 122

3) Can you prove that the witnesses were relevant?
Ninety-six (96) of the 122 are listed among the 1400+ in “Who’s Who in the JFK Assassination”. Sixty-seven (67) testified or were sought in four investigations: Warren Commission (1964), Garrison/Shaw trial (1967-69), Church senate Intelligence (1975), HSCA (1976-78). The investigators must have considered them relevant or they would not have been sought to testify.

Simkin’s JFK site contains 656 JFK-related biographies. Sixty-four (64) are in JFK Calc. In this group, 40 deaths were officially ruled unnatural, a one in 1 trillion^3 probability. There were 22 official homicides among the 40. But there were 47 estimated true homicides.

Satisfy yourself. Do your homework. Read one of the above books. Run a google search of the names.I do not have to prove they were all relevant. The burden of proof is on the apologists to prove they were all insignificant and unrelated to the assassination.

4) What method is used to calculate the probabilities?
The steps are:
1) Determine the number of witnesses in the group,
2) specify the time period,
3) determine the number of unnatural deaths,
4) apply the applicable unnatural mortality rates for the period.
5) calculate the number of expected unnatural deaths.
6) calculate the probability using the Poisson distribution function.

5) Why do you claim that many officially ruled accidents, suicides and heart attacks were homicides?
Any analysis should consider the anomalous facts of each case (timing, etc.) which indicate homicide. We can estimate the approximate number of true homicides by calculating the statistically expected number of accidents, suicides and heart attacks. We use respective mortality rates for each cause of death. The official ruled number of accidents, suicides and heart attacks far exceeds the expected number. The difference between the official and expected numbers is a fair approximation of the number of true homicides. deatZJYllKTnc#gid=74

6) What is the Paradigm Shift?
It’s a new way of looking at the problem. There is no need to consider motive in the death of any particular witness. Motive is not a factor in the calculation of probabilities. The only factors are purely numerical: the total number of witnesses in the designated “universe”, the number who died unnaturally, the cause of death, and the time period under study. The 67 who were sought to testify were obviously relevant – and so were the other 55. But to analyze the relevance of a given witness is a moot point. We must consider the total number. The motive for any given death is a non-issue in calculating the probability.

7) Didn’t the HSCA statistician claim that calculation of the odds was impossible since the universe of witnesses was unknown?
Yes, but the HSCA was wrong. It did not consider groups of witnesses where the number was known: For example, 552 testified or gave affidavits at the Warren Commission (the CIA stated that 418 witnesses testified). Approximately 600 were sought or testified in three subsequent investigations.

8) Didn’t the HSCA statistician claim that the London Times actuary’s calculation of 100,000 trillion to one odds was invalid?
Yes, but the HSCA was wrong. The actuary’s math was confirmed assuming 454 witnesses given 13 unnatural deaths (8 homicides, 3 accidents, 2 suicides) in three years. The Times could have asked the actuary to calculate the probability of 16 officially ruled homicides from 1964-66 based on the average 0.000061 national rate: 1.3E-23 (1 in 70 billion trillion); or the probability of 34 officially ruled homicides from 1964-78 using triple the average 0.000084 national rate: 7.6E-17 (1 in 1,000 trillion).

9) Didn’t the HSCA investigate a number of suspicious witness deaths?
The HSCA noted just 21 deaths but there were at least 100 others. Unbelievably, 7 top FBI officials died (5 heart attacks, 2 accidents) within a six month period in 1977 just before they were due to testify at HSCA! Assuming 20 FBI were called to testify, the probability that seven would die is one in 200 trillion. There were a dozen other prospective HSCA witnesses who died before they could testify.

10) Aren’t you using unproven assumptions?
The data is factual, not assumed: officially ruled unnatural deaths, government mortality statistics, specific time periods. The classic Poisson distribution is used to calculate the probabilities based on factual data. It is a straightforward analysis using public information. It is not a poll.

11) Weren’t witnesses in high risk locations?
Yes, it’s true. Fifty-one (51) of 122 deaths occurred in Dallas. Was this just a coincidence?

12) How are the witnesses classified?
There were Ruby associates,reporters, FBI, CIA, anti-Castro Cubans, mafia, police and others. Most had inside information.

13) How do you know that the timing of deaths was a factor?
Just look at this graph. Notice the spikes in 1964 and 1977. Was it just a coincidence that so many deaths occurred during the Warren Commission and HSCA?

14) Has your study been peer-reviewed?
As stated above, the analysis is cited by Richard Belzer and David Wayne in Hit List and by Jim Marrs in Crossfire. Both are major JFK assassination historical references.

Philip Stahl (“Copernicus”), a prolific author, astronomer, space physicist and mathematician, has cited the JFK-witness death probability analysis in several of his blog posts:

The analysis is available to anyone who wants to review it: JFK researchers, actuaries, mathematicians, media. Now what about McAdams, Posner, Bugliosi and the mainstream media? Not a word. Perhaps because they can’t refute the logic or the math. I asked McAdams to have one of the Marquette math professors review it. No luck.

15) Do you disagree with John McAdams’ survey that a majority of Dealey Plaza witnesses said shots came from the Texas Book Depository? Yes, for the same reasons Harold Feldman and Stewart Galanor disagree in their surveys. McAdams cooked his numbers by omission and commission.

16) You claim the Zapruder film was altered. What is your evidence?
It is based on the following facts:
First, 33 of 59 witnesses said the JFK limo came to a FULL stop; 13 said NEAR stop. The probability is ZERO that they would ALL be mistaken.
Second, the Z-film does not show even a NEAR stop.
Third, the film does NOT show Secret Service agent Clint Hill covering JFK and Jackie, or giving the thumbs down sign to the following cars.
Fourth, 11 Hollywood photography experts have concluded that the film was altered.
Fifth, the chain of custody was broken.

17) What about the controversy on the location of JFK’s wounds?
Well, 43 of 44 witnesses at Parkland and the autopsy initially claimed there was a large EXIT wound in the right rear of JFK’s head. Parkland doctors said there was an entrance wound in the throat. I won’t bother calculating the probability that they were all mistaken.

18) Do you believe that Oswald fired the shots?
No. For many reasons. Here is just one: 47 Dealey Plaza witnesses heard a double-bang of two nearly instantaneous shots. The alleged Mannlicher Carcano rifle required at least 2.3 seconds between shots. Were all 47 mistaken?
The 1…2.3 pattern
The Double Bang

19) What if your estimates of the number of material witnesses, unnatural deaths and homicides are incorrect? Wouldn’t this invalidate the results?
Not at all. No one can say what the exact numbers are. But they are surely greater than the officially ruled numbers.

The uncertainty is handled by a probability sensitivity analysis. It consists of two tables: a range of witness group size estimates vs ranges of unnatural deaths and homicides. The homicide table ranges from 1400-10000 witnesses and 34 (ruled) to 90 (expected) homicides. All plausible scenario combinations give ZERO probabilities – absolute proof of a conspiracy.

The Dallas 1964-78 homicide rate was triple the national and used in the following calculations.
– 34 officially ruled homicides and a plausible 1400 witness universe:
P= 7.6E-17 or 1 in 13,000 trillion.
– 84 expected homicides and an inflated 5000 witness universe:
P= 4.0E-28 or 1 in 2000 trillion trillion.

20) What about the unnatural deaths of Dealey Plaza witnesses?
There are 20 in JFK Calc. A sensitivity analysis assuming 200-600 witnesses and 8-15 homicides is another strong indicator of a conspiracy. Assuming 400 Dealey Plaza witnesses and given the
– 0.000084 average national homicide rate, the probabilities range from 1 in 15 million (8 homicides) to 1 in 60,000 trillion (15 homicides).
– 0.000253 average Dallas homicide rate, the probabilities range from 1 in 5000 (8 homicides) to 1 in 11 billion (15 homicides).

21) What do you conclude based on the JFK Calc analysis?
The answer should be obvious to anyone who has read and understood the analysis: A conspiracy has been mathematically proven beyond ANY doubt.


Posted by on April 9, 2014 in JFK


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

JFK Witness Mortality: Key Statistics

JFK Witness Mortality: Key Statistics

Richard Charnin
March 26, 2014

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

JFK Blog Posts
JFK Calc Spreadsheet Database
Tables and Graphs

The Summary sheet in the JFK Calc Spreadsheet/database provides a convenient overview of key witness death information.

There are 126 JFK-related witnesses (122 from 1964-78) categorized by
1) Geographic Locations and connection.
2) Officially ruled unnatural deaths for 1, 3 and 15 years.
3) Unnatural death probabilities based on JFK-weighted and national rates.
4) Probabilities of 34-90 homicides (1400-5000 witnesses).
5) Likely homicides ruled as suicides, accidents, heart attacks, other illnesses.
6) List of witnesses called to testify by investigation.

Apologists claim that many of the 126 witnesses were not JFK-related, but
a) 97 are listed among the 1400+ in Who’s Who in the JFK Assassination
b) 50 witnesses listed in Hit List are included among the 126.
c) at least 70 were sought to testify in four investigations.
d) 70 of the 656 listed in the John Simkin JFK Index are included.
e) 51 deaths occurred in the Dallas area indicating a connection between them.

For those who maintain that there were more than 1400+ JFK-related witnesses, homicide probabilities are calculated in a matrix table of 1400 to 5000 witnesses and 34 ruled homicides to an estimated 90 actual. The 0.000253 homicide rate used for the calculations was triple the average national rate.

1) The probability of 34 RULED homicides among 1400 witnesses from 1964-78:
P= 7.60E-19 (1 in 13,000 TRILLION).
2) The probability of 84 ESTIMATED ACTUAL homicides:

Note: An actuary engaged by The London Sunday Times calculated a 1 in 100,000 TRILLION probability of 18 material witness deaths (13 unnatural) in the 3 years following the assassination. The calculation is confirmed assuming 454 witnesses and 0.000209 weighted unnatural mortality rate. A total of 552 witnesses (418 gave testimony and 134 affidavits) were interviewed by the Warren Commission.

Deaths spiked in 1964 (Warren Commission) and 1977 (House Select Committee)

Sensitivity analysis probabilities:10-50 unnatural deaths; 1500-2500 witnesses.

Leave a comment

Posted by on March 26, 2014 in JFK


Tags: , , , , ,