RSS

Tag Archives: JFK

Proof that Oswald was standing in front of the Texas Schoolbook Depository when JFK was shot

Proof that Oswald was standing in front of the Texas Schoolbook Depository when JFK was shot

Richard Charnin
Sept. 27, 2017

Reclaiming-Science: The JFK Conspiracy
JFK Blog Posts

The evidence is overwhelming; Oswald never fired a shot.

The experts agree: Oswald was photographed standing at the doorway of the TSBD in the Altgens6 photo taken at the time of the shooting:
http://www.oswald-innocent.com

Carolyn Arnold was an eyewitness who was never interviewed by the Warren Commission. Here’s why:
http://22november1963.org.uk/carolyn-arnold-witness-oswald

Warren Commission and later testimony from Lovelady and Frazier proves Oswald was standing on at the entrance to the TSBD https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/08/07/10851/

Why is the evidence dismissed? https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2015/05/30/oswald-in-the-doorway-why-is-the-preponderance-of-the-evidence-dismissed/

Timeline of events
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2015/05/29/jfk-timeline-of-events-from-1200-122pm/

Evidence Oswald was on the first floor minutes before the shooting
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2015/05/24/jfk-evidence-oswald-was-on-the-1st-floor-minutes-before-the-shooting/

Prove it to yourself in this survey
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2015/04/05/jfk-20-questions-on-oswald-in-the-doorway-it-is-not-a-test-its-an-opinion-survey/

Judyth Baker’s pixel analysis
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/07/27/jfk-judyth-baker-pixel-analysis-of-altgens6-photo-proves-oswald-is-doorman

If you believe Oswald was NOT standing in front of the TSBD, then you must believe all of the following…
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/07/14/to-believe-oswald-was-not-standing-in-front-of-the-tsbd-you-must-believe-that/

Fritz notes released in 1997: Oswald told him he was “out with Bill Shelley in front”
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/04/05/10137/

 

Advertisements
 
Leave a comment

Posted by on September 27, 2017 in JFK

 

Tags: , , , ,

Philip Stahl: Exposing JFK Media Propagandists and Warren Commission apologists

Richard Charnin
Sept. 14, 2015

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

Philip Stahl: Exposing JFK Media Propagandists and Warren Commission apologists

Stahl is a prolific Astronomer, Physicist and JFK researcher who has written many Physics texts and The JFK Assassination: Final Analysis. The following posts on his blog illustrate the extent to which the media will go in covering up the truth about the JFK assassination.

I sent Stahl this link: Debunking Scott Aaronson’s “Twenty Reasons to Believe Oswald Acted Alone”
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/04/29/10285/

Stahl responded with this set of devastating articles which closed the book on Aaronson:
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/10/why-some-quantum-physicists-need-to.html
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/10/scott-aaronson-in-over-his-head-on-jfk.html
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/10/rebuttal-of-scott-aarons-2o-reasons-for.html
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/10/rebuttal-of-scott-aaronsons-20-reasons.html

JFK Forum Lone Nutters
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/05/why-i-dont-waste-time-posting-on-jfk.html
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/05/why-i-remain-uniquely-qualified-to-have.html
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/05/educating-australian-bloke-on-basic.html
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/09/will-lone-nuts-trot-out-more-malarkey.html

John McAdams
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/04/john-macadams-tries-to-rip-my-review-of.html

Rachel Maddow (MSNBC): In this video Maddow lies about Lee Oswald and the Mannlicher Carcano.
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/02/rachel-maddow-again-lies-about-lee.html

The Beltway Crowd: Bob Woodward vs. Oliver Stone
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/12/why-i-trust-oliver-stone-over-bob.html

Gerald Posner and Vince Bugliosi:
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/frequently-asked-questions-on-jfk_22.html

Vince Bugliosi
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/04/vince-bugliosis-magnificent-obsession.html
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/04/vince-bugliosis-magnificent-obsession_29.html
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/04/vince-bugliosis-magnificent-obsession_30.html

Bill O’Reilly
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/killing-kennedy-what-it-got-wrong-pt-2.html
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/03/oreillys-lies-in-killing-kennedy-show.html
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/11/be-still-my-heart-oreilly-does-jfk.html

Bob Schieffer: CBS
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/10/bob-schieffer-not-worthy-to-be-called.html

Time Magazine
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/13-pages-on-conspiracy-industry-and.html

Stanley Kutner, Bill Maher, Tom Brokaw
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/what-have-we-learned-this-past-week.html

NAT GEO
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2011/11/nat-geo-continues-with-elites-kennedy.html
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2011/11/more-on-nat-geo-explorer-lost-bullet.html

Stephen King
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2011/11/stephen-king-really-prepared-to-get-his.html

Jill Abramson: NY Times
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/ny-times-reviewer-jill-abramson.html

Philip Shenon: NY Times
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/10/author-philip-shenon-is-he-idiot-or-dupe.html

Steve Kornacki: MSNBC
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/even-liberals-can-be-victims-of.html

Michael Smerconish
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/10/beware-conspiracy-theorists-no-beware.html

Larry Sabato: Univ. of Virginia
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/10/larry-sabatos-new-book-does-not.html

Glenn Garvin: Miami Herald
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/glenn-garvin-fact-dont-matter-in-jfk.html

Marilyn Elias: Southern Poverty Law Center
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-southern-poverty-law-center-still.html
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-second-assassination-today-fifty.html

The “Skeptics Society”
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/11/top-ten-ways-to-test-conspiracy-claims.html
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/11/hyper-skepticism-of-conspiracy-phobics.html

 
1 Comment

Posted by on September 13, 2015 in JFK

 

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

JFK: Warren Commission apologists claim that…

Richard Charnin
September 11, 2015

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

Warren Commission apologists claim that…

1. Oswald shot Tippit.
But Tippit was shot no later than 1:06 pm. Oswald was seen outside his rooming house a mile away at 1:04 (some claim he was at the Texas Theater). The WC had to add 10 minutes to the time of death (1:16) to fabricate the myth that Oswald had enough time to get to the scene. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/08/19/jfk-did-oswald-shoot-tippit-eyewitnesses-no-warren-commission-yes/

2.The Magic Bullet theory is correct.
But the bullet entered 5.5” below JFK’s collar and never exited. Gerald R. Ford, a member of the Warren Commission, suggested that the panel raise its initial description of the bullet wound in Kennedy’s back in a transparent, illegal scam to bolster the ridiculous SBT. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/11/10/jfk-reelzs-nonsensicalsmoking-gun-the-parkland-doctors-and-executive-action/

3. The three tramps were not Harrelson, Holt and Rogers.
But they were identified by Lois Gibson , who works for the Houston Police Department and is probably the most respected forensic artist and facial expert in the world. She has just been awarded with a notation in the Guinness Book of World Records for the highest crime solving rate based on composite sketches. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFkA9-xksdk.

4.Cancer and heart attacks cannot be induced.
But Judyth Vary Baker and Mary S. Sherman, under the direction of cancer expert Alton Ochsner, developed a cancer-producing agent to kill Castro. http://theamericanchronicle.blogspot.com/2013/04/cancer-murder-and-new-orleans.html . The 1975 Church Senate Intelligence Committee heard testimony of methods to induce heart attacks and cancer. http://www.globalresearch.ca/cia-targeted-assassinations-by-induced-heart-attack-and-cancer/5326382

5.The witness unnatural death probability calculation does not take margin of error into account.
But this was not a poll of witnesses. It is a statistical analysis based on historical data. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2011/04/08/a-probability-analysis-of-witness-deaths-within-one-year-of-the-jfk-assassination/

6. The Weigman photo proves that Lovelady was standing at the Doorway.
But it does not show Lovelady at 12:30. The Altgens 6 photo was taken at the precise second that JFK was shot. It shows Lovelady standing on the steps. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/08/07/10851/

7. Oswald was the Lone Gunman on the 6th floor.
But according to Det. Will Fritz, no one could place him there. And he was seen on the second floor at 12:25 by Carolyn Arnold – who was not called to testify at the WC. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2015/05/24/jfk-evidence-oswald-was-on-the-1st-floor-minutes-before-the-shooting/

8. No one testified that they saw Oswald in front on the steps of the Texas School Book Depository.
But the Warren Commission and the FBI had their patsy and would never allow such testimony. To claim they would is laughable disinformation. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/07/14/to-believe-oswald-was-not-standing-in-front-of-the-tsbd-you-must-believe-that/

9. Lovelady was Doorman. Oswald was not in front of the TSBD.
But Lovelady and Frazier both testified that Lovelady was standing on the steps in front of Frazier. Doorman was on the first floor. So Lovelady could not have been Doorman. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2015/05/30/oswald-in-the-doorway-why-is-the-preponderance-of-the-evidence-dismissed/

10. The HSCA determined that the London Times actuary’s 1 in 100,000 trillion probability that 18 material witnesses would die (13 unnaturally) within three years of the assassination was invalid. The HSCA claimed the witness universe was “unknowable”.
But the HSCA did not consider a) unnatural deaths, b) 552 Warren Commission witnesses, of whom at least 30 died suspiciously, c) 7 FBI officials were due to testify at HSCA and died suspiciously within a 6 month period, d) and at least 100 others. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/07/01/jfk-mysterious-witness-deaths-london-sunday-times-and-hsca-cover-up/

11. The HSCA noted just 21 suspicious deaths.
But not one of them was Mafia (8), CIA (16), FBI (9), Dallas police (12) or anti-Castro Cuban (5). There were at least 122 suspicious deaths between 1964 and 1979.
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/12/31/jfk-witnesses-a-closer-look-at-the-hsca-list-of-21-deaths/

12. There is no proof that the suspicious witnesses were JFK-related.
But approximately 67 of the 122 in the JFK Calc spreadsheet were called to testify at the WC (1964), Garrison/Shaw trial (1967-69), Church Senate Intelligence Committee (1975-76) and HSCA (1976-79). https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/07/17/jfk-assassination-paradigm-shift-deaths-of-witnesses-called-to-testify/

13. There was no connection between the witnesses.
But at least 50 were from the Dallas area. It cannot just be a coincidence. If there was no connection, the deaths would have been distributed randomly throughout the United States. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#gid=73

14. Warren Commission apologist John McAdams said that John Simkin’s JFK Index includes a number of individuals who were inserted in the index because they died.
That is laughable but not unexpected considering the source. Seventy (70) of the 656 died suspiciously, 44 unnaturally (including 22 homicides). The probability: 1 in trillions. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/12/25/jfk-related-unnatural-and-suspicious-deaths-in-the-jfk-calc-spreadsheet-and-simkins-jfk-index/

15. Fingerprint expert Nathan Darby was proven wrong after claiming that fingerprints taken from the 6th floor of the TSBD were those of hitman Mac Wallace.
But “Wallace’s police ‘ten-print’ from his 1951 arrest, used in Mr. Darby’s comparison, was taken 12 years before the murder of JFK and even Mr Darby himself observed differences in the two prints that had arisen during the intervening time (e.g., he recorded what appeared to be an injury to the skin that was not present in the 1951 print but disrupted the 1963 print). He still felt confident enough to swear an affidavit stating that he had found 14 matching points, the threshold for admissibility in Texan courts. By all accounts, he later revisited the prints out of personal interest and found a 32-point match”. http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/free/lobster68/lob68-mac-wallace.pdf

16. Oswald’s palm prints were found on the Carcano
http://michaelgriffith1.tripod.com/faulty.htm
But Dallas police officials said during public interviews that Oswald’s prints had NOT been found on the weapon. When the FBI’s Latona examined the Carcano on November 23, he did not find Oswald’s prints on the weapon. Moreover, Latona said the rifle’s barrel did NOT look as though it had even been processed for prints. There is evidence that suggests the palm print was obtained from Oswald’s dead body at the morgue, or later at the funeral home So suspicious was the palm print that even the WC privately had doubts about the manner in which it was obtained (Garrison 113; Marrs 445; cf. Lane 153-158)

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

Why would he order a sub-par rifle from Klein’s Sporting Goods in Chicago using an alias when he could have purchased a superior rifle anonymously anywhere in Texas?

http://michaelgriffith1.tripod.com/faulty.htm
– Oswald was at work when he is said to have purchased the money order. So who bought the money order? If Oswald didn’t buy it, why does the handwriting seem to be his? There are forgers who can copy a person’s handwriting so well that it is difficult if not impossible to detect the fakery. The original order form and envelope were destroyed, so the FBI had to rely on microfilm copies of this evidence.

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

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

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

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on September 11, 2015 in Uncategorized

 

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

A Physicist/ Mathematician/ Astronomer reviews “Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy”

Richard Charnin
Feb. 15, 2015
Updated: May 28, 2016

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

Philip Stahl is a prolific Astronomer, Physicist and JFK researcher. He wrote: The JFK Assassination: Final Analysis and reviewed my book:  Reclaiming Science:The JFK Conspiracy:

I sent Stahl  my post: Debunking Scott Aaronson’s “Twenty Reasons to Believe Oswald Acted Alone : https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/04/29/10285/
He then wrote a 4-part article which closed the book on Aaronson:
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/10/why-some-quantum-physicists-need-to.html
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/10/scott-aaronson-in-over-his-head-on-jfk.html
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/10/rebuttal-of-scott-aarons-2o-reasons-for.html
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/10/rebuttal-of-scott-aaronsons-20-reasons.html

These are recent posts:
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2016/05/lee-oswald-innocence-campaign-long.html
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2016/05/rip-mark-lane-one-of-earliest-jfk.html
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2016/05/did-rafael-cruz-help-lee-oswald-kill.html
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2016/03/what-maddow-left-out-in-her-segment-on.html
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2016/03/ridiculous-memes-about-jfks-supply-side.html

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/12/skeptics-society-still-tilting-at-jfk.html
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/12/tom-hanks-finally-gets-to-broadcast-his.html
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/11/convergence-of-two-important-books.html
http://brane-space.blogspot.be/2015/11/reelz-tv-killing-kennedy-50-questions.html

http://brane-space.blogspot.be/2015/11/reelztv-reels-off-outdated-answers-in.html
http://brane-space.blogspot.be/2015/11/yet-another-prof-blows-it-on-oswald-and.html
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/05/how-i-became-interested-in-jfk.html
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/05/why-i-dont-waste-time-posting-on-jfk.html
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/05/why-i-remain-uniquely-qualified-to-have.html

Exposing Trolls and Disinformationists:
1- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/04/john-macadams-tries-to-rip-my-review-of.html
2- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/02/rachel-maddow-again-lies-about-lee.html
3- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/03/oreillys-lies-in-killing-kennedy-show.html
4- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2011/10/stephen-kings-new-scifi-tale-fun-but.html
5- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/04/vince-bugliosis-magnificent-obsession.html

6- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/ny-times-reviewer-jill-abramson.html
7- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/10/author-philip-shenon-is-he-idiot-or-dupe.html
8- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/even-liberals-can-be-victims-of.html
9- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-southern-poverty-law-center-still.html
10- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-second-assassination-today-fifty.html

11- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/10/bob-schieffer-not-worthy-to-be-called.html
12- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/12/why-i-trust-oliver-stone-over-bob.html
13- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/10/larry-sabatos-new-book-does-not.html
14- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/glenn-garvin-fact-dont-matter-in-jfk.html
15- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/11/be-still-my-heart-oreilly-does-jfk.html

16- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/04/vince-bugliosis-magnificent-obsession_29.html
17- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/04/vince-bugliosis-magnificent-obsession_30.html
18- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/what-have-we-learned-this-past-week.html
19- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/05/educating-australian-bloke-on-basic.html
20- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/11/top-ten-ways-to-test-conspiracy-claims.html

21- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/13-pages-on-conspiracy-industry-and.html
22- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/killing-kennedy-what-it-got-wrong-pt-2.html
23- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/11/hyper-skepticism-of-conspiracy-phobics.html
24- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/10/beware-conspiracy-theorists-no-beware.html
25- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/09/will-lone-nuts-trot-out-more-malarkey.htm

26- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/06/jfk-woukd-not-have-escalated-in-vietnam.html
27- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/06/rip-vince-bugliosi-fervent-but.html
28- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/09/shattered-consensus-another-prime.html
29- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/09/why-rachel-maddow-is-wrong-on-james.html
30- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/06/germans-tom-hanks-wasting-his-time-with.html

Stahl responds to frequently asked questions on the assassination:
1- Oswald’s Background:
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/frequently-asked-questions-on-jfk.html
2- Oswald’s Sheep-Dipping:
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/frequently-asked-questions-on-jfk_10.html
3- Garrison Investigation:
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/frequently-asked-questions-on-jfk_12.html
4a- Warren Commission 1:
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/frequently-asked-questions-on-jfk_13.html:
4b- Warren Commission 2:
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/frequently-asked-questions-on-jfk_14.html
5- Bullets, Wounds:
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/frequently-asked-questions-on-jfk_15.html

6- The WC Rifle Tests:
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/frequently-asked-questions-on-fhe-jfk.html
7- HSCA Investigation:
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/frequently-asked-questions-on-jfk_19.html
8- Nix and Zapruder Films:
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/frequently-asked-questions-on-jfk_20.html
9- Plots and Assassins:
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/frequently-asked-questions-on-jfk_21.html
10- Media Complicity:
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/frequently-asked-questions-on-jfk_22.html

Miscellaneous:
1- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/analysis-of-pixel-diffusion-in-oswald.html
2- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-pre-assassination-framing-of-lee.html
3- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-pre-assassination-framing-of-lee_1807.html
4- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/09/jfk-and-national-security-state-1.html
5- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/09/jfk-and-national-security-state-2.html

6- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/12/yes-americans-deserve-to-know-what-cia.html
7- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/dallas-city-with-death-wish-in-its-eye.html
8- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/ike-jfk-also-hostage-to-national.html
9- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/04/secret-service-scandalnot-first.html
10- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/02/was-zapruder-film-tampered-with.html
11- http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/07/jfk-would-have-welcomed-re-opening-of.html
————————————————————————————-

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on February 13, 2015 in JFK

 

Tags: , , , , ,

JFK Lone Nutters and Trolls: A compendium of lies, stupidity and ignorance

JFK Lone Nutters and Trolls: A compendium of lies, stupidity and ignorance

Richard Charnin
Jan.27, 2015
Updated:Sept.29, 2015

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

It’s very easy to spot a JFK disinformationist/troll. They use variations of the same Lone Nutter playbook to deceive readers and divert discussions. They ignore facts, avoid the scientific method and apply logical fallacies. I have blocked Facebook trolls who are not included in the following list.

Andrea Skolnik
On the JFK Ventor Group, Andrea claimed that I pull statistics out of my behind. So now Andrea has formally joined the class of Lone Nutters who criticize my work with ad-hominems. I hereby challenge her to refute the data, content, calculations and logic in any of these JFK blog posts. Andrea’s only expertise is in attacking truthseekers. https://docs.google.com/document/d/15vokd2I6Zd32OWUvkQ29furIWkOPWZ9Pwms3Wy4Sc6E/pub

John McAdams
Falsified the testimony of Dealey Plaza witnesses on the source of the shots. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/02/26/jfk-dealey-plaza-witnesses-john-mcadams-strange-list/
McAdams was also wrong in attempting to debunk the relevance of witness deaths provided by JFK researchers Penn Jones, Sylvia Meagher, Jim Marrs, Richard Belzer, David Wayne, Craig Roberts, etc. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/07/08/debunking-john-mcadams-debunking-of-jim-marrs-witness-list/

Dale Myers
Composed three MYTHS which he claims are scientific proofs:
1- With Malice a fraudulent attempt to prove that Oswald killed Tippit.
2- A bogus animation to prove the impossible Magic Bullet Theory.
3- Disputes HSCA acoustic experts who proved a Grassy Knoll shooter.

Myers is easily proven to be a fraud on all three counts: https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2015/01/15/jfk-debunking-emmy-award-winning-researcher-dale-myers/

1- According to FBI agents Sibert and O’Neill who attended the autopsy, the magic bullet entered JFK’s back 5.5” below the collar and did not exit!
2- Oswald could not have shot Tippit at 1:16pm as the Warren Commission claimed becuase Tippit was declared dead in the hospital at 1:16pm! All witnesses heard shots no later than 1:06pm. Oswald was seen outside his apartment at 1:04pm, 0.9 miles from the shooting.
3- Gunshots were recorded on a dictabelt at the assassination. There was a ZERO probability that six shots would synchronize with the Zapruder film: http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/10/larry-sabatos-new-book-does-not.html

Steve Roe
This notorious disinformationist/Lone Nutter gave my book a one-star review. He wrote:
“Wait for the bargain bin if you really want to read this book, March 31, 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”.
Some review; some character.

Ed Cage
This Lone Nutter is relentless. He asks the same idiotic questions over and over even though they have been answered. But he ignores the commenting on the evidence. For example, the magic bullet: Cage refuses to consider that FBI agents Sibert and O’Neill attended the autopy and claimed that the so-called “magic bullet” NEVER EXITED. Cage writes regarding the Dale Myers cartoon: “I have been to DP 18 to 20x with stepladder, measuring tool, camera and a wooden rifle with a scope. If you watched the first 4 min of the video I posted narrated by Peter Jennings it should make sense. If you are still doubtful let me ask you … Where do you think the ce399 exit from JFK’s throat went?”
FBI O’Neill: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMzhKy-O4T4
FBI Sibert: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDNZBfPkbPk

Zachary Jendro
Claims that the black man sitting in front of Doorman in the Altgens6 photo raised his arm showing the same pattern shirt as Doorman. What are the odds? Jendro will go to any (arms) length to try and debunk Judyth Baker’s pixelation analysis of Doorman’s shirt which proved he was Oswald. Also, Jendro cannot refute the Warren Commission testimony of both Lovelady and Frazier that Lovelady was standing on the steps. Frazier testified that he was on the top level (first floor entrance) standing next to Sarah Stanton. It is only logical to conclude that Lovelady must be the (cutout) figure standing in front of Stanton.Therefore, Oswald must be Doorman standing on the top level entrance to the TSBD. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/08/07/10851/

Judyth Baker’s pixel analysis of Doorman’s shirt proves it cannot be Lovelady: http://judythvarybakertruth.blogspot.com/2015/01/zachary-jendro-maybe-judyth-needs-to.html
https://www.facebook.com/groups/Project.Innocent.Lee.Harvey.Oswald/permalink/1388580938105429/

Mike Davinroy
This charlatan posted on Facebook about a year ago where he failed to debunk my witness death analysis. Now he is on Amazon posting a “review” of my book which again reveals his ignorance. He calls my book “Lipstick on a Pig”. He wrote: “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.”
A rational reader replied: “You’re saying you admire serious researchers and “honest conspiracy research,” yet know of no evidence to support a conspiracy. So who are these “serious” researchers you admire? Bugliosi? McAdams? Posner?”http://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-Science-Conspiracy-mathematical-disinformation/dp/1502715996/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1414159047&sr=1-1&keywords=Reclaiming+Science:The+JFK+Conspiracy&tag=amazonsearchshop-20

John Iacoletti
Claims that heart attacks and cancers cannot be induced. He does not comprehend that I was conservative in tripling the national homicide rate from 0.000084 to 0.000253 to calculate the probability of 34 official JFK-related homicides among 1400 witnesses from 1964-78. The conservative probability is 1 in 13,000 trillion. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#gid=74

Note: the 34 official homicides were grossly understated since the official ruled accidents, suicides and heart attacks exceeded their mathematical expectation. The difference between the official and expected numbers were likely homicides. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2015/01/14/jfk-exposing-another-disinformationist-on-facebook/

Carmine Savastano
Claims that the official, ruled causes of 100+ JFK-related witness deaths are not verifiable. But he goes even further: he states the deaths caused by homicide, accident, suicide, heart attack and sudden cancer are NOT suspicious. He demands that I post references to all coroner reports. I told him that he should just get them himself. This charlatan is transparent and completely illogical – a classic troll. He is effectively calling researchers who have written books and articles on JFK-related witness deaths incompetent: Penn Jones, Sylvia Meagher, Richard E. Sprague, Jim Marrs, Richard Belzer, David Wayne, Jesse Ventura, John Simkin and Craig Roberts, etc… Carmine is parroting his mentor John McAdams. But his comments are even more out of touch than McAdams.

Mark Ulrik
This Facebook troll from Denmark also tried to discredit my work a year ago. He showed up again on Amazon – just like Davinroy. Of course, he he gave my book a one-star review, calling it “junk Science”. But like all Lone Nutters, he reveals his mathematical ignorance. He claims that surveys of Dealey Plaza witnesses as to the source of the shots is like weather forecasting. Mark is too brain-damaged to realize that witnesses testified as to what they heard, not what they expected to hear. Mark does not comprehend that a survey is not a prediction: https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/07/08/debunking-john-mcadams-debunking-of-jim-marrs-witness-list/

Lance Upperton
Has dedicated a web site in which he disparages anyone who believes that Oswald was Doorman standing at the entrance to the TSBD. It’s been six months since I asked Lance to answer simple YES or NO questions on this topic. He refused to do so with the lame excuse that the questions contain assumptions. It is merely designed to ascertain his beliefs. Here are the questions: https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/04/05/10137/

Kyle Gizas
This Facebook troll claims that a statistical analysis of witness deaths is equivalent to a pre-election poll in which respondents are asked who they will vote for. He exposes his statistical naivete just like Mark Ulrik in comparing witness surveys of what DID HAPPEN to weather forecasting models which predict what MIGHT HAPPEN. Kyle is too dense to comprehend that dead witnesses were not polled on their cause of death: https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/03/16/9978/

Last, but not least, a Lone Nutter wrote: Even though the probability of the unnatural deaths is ONE in 100,000 TRILLION, it was still possible! Sorry, I don’t have the link to this insanity.

Stay tuned. This post will be updated with additional examples of Lone Nutter trolling inanities.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on January 27, 2015 in JFK

 

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

A math-phobic troll claims that JFK-related witness deaths are NOT suspicious

A math-phobic troll claims that JFK-related witness deaths are NOT suspicious

Richard Charnin
Jan.24, 2015

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

Carmine Savastano claims that the official, ruled causes of 100+ JFK-related witness deaths are not verifiable. But he goes even further: he states the deaths caused by homicide, accident, suicide, heart attack and sudden cancer are NOT suspicious. He demands that I post references to all the coroner’s reports. I told him that since he wants proof, he should just get them himself. This charlatan is transparent and completely illogical – a classic troll.

He is effectively calling great researchers incompetent in their books and articles on convenient JFK-related witness deaths: Penn Jones, Sylvia Meagher, Richard E. Sprague, Jim Marrs, Richard Belzer, David Wayne, Jesse Ventura, John Simkin and Craig Roberts, etc… Carmine is parroting his mentor John McAdams. But his comments are even more out of touch than McAdams.

The 122 JFK Calc witnesses official and estimated true cause of death:https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#gid=1

Graphical proof of a conspiracy:https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/10/14/jfk-witness-deaths-graphical-proof-of-a-conspiracy/

The Facebook thread:https://www.facebook.com/groups/JFKED/permalink/1541586816108007/

Carmine Savastano
Ah Richard…More insults, no evidence. I am noticing a pattern. What you have concluded means little without evidence to prove it. Well take that up with those who doubt it. I doubt your sources based on the evidence that can be verified.

Richard Charnin
Let’s pursue your statement in general. Provide us with evidence in the JFK assassination (do not include Judyth Baker’s evidence) that you consider to be verifiable and proven. Also display another list of evidence that you consider unverifiable and unproven. Cite your sources.

Carmine Savastano
instead how about she answers questions repeatedly asked instead of having others attempt to change the subject. Speculation is not my style. So is there evidence or not? It is a simple proposition. I am not claiming anything I cannot prove. I do not like making multiple lists as some do. Just evidence. I have offered the problems they can be addressed reasonably or you can insult and ignore reasonble questions. Simple really. Since I have not made the book with unproven claims I do not need to prove them. Have you got those coroner’s reports yet? The evidence is in these threads, easy to find if you look.

Richard Charnin
we would like to know what conclusions you have come to. Surely, there must be some evidence that you consider proven and verifiable and other evidence which is not. With all of your experience in investigating the claims of JFK researchers and others, as an intelligent critic you must have some opinions on this matter. You have already claimed that evidence heretofore presented (by myself and Judyth, for example) is unverifiable and unproven, right? So give us two lists: Column A- proven; Column B – unproven. We like Chinese food.

Carmine Savastano
Well I do appreciate the compliment even if it was sarcasm, that may be the nicest thing you have ever said to me. Levity aside, I consider significant amounts of evidence proven. I am happy to discuss them at length. However, is it too much to ask that Judyth answers the many questions others and I have posed before we change the subject?

Carmine Savastano
How about a few?

Richard Charnin
Do not discuss them at length. Just give us a list. With sources, please. I would say give us as much as you can, and not limit the number to just a few.

Carmine Savastano
Lists do not offer background and context. No if you want a list that might be possible when I get a few answers. Speaking of lists, did you review all the coroner’s reports? Perhaps you can answer a question while I wait for Judyth? Us? I see some are hungry to attack something, I fear you shall have to wait. I am waiting for my answers still, so you will have to as well.

Richard Charnin
You can list them in a sequence of chapters over the next day or two, as if you are writing a book.

Richard Charnin
Don’t ask me about the coroner’s reports. I asked YOU questions. Please do not try to divert from the issue at hand.

Carmine Savastano
Why thanks, how nice of you. You answer a question perhaps I will too.
No Richard you failed to answer them, now you presume to ask. Amusing.

Richard Charnin
You are still in avoidance and changing the subject. Please respond to MY questions. You may proceed.

Carmine Savastano
Still the same question, since you do not wish to answer it, shall I then conclude you did not read the coroner’s reports? Thus, the natural deaths are not contended by evidence. Just hypothesis, which is fine, it is possible, just not conclusive.

Richard Charnin
You are still in avoidance and changing the subject. Please respond to MY questions. You may proceed. You can read the coroner’s reports yourself. In fact, include them. Cite your sources.

Carmine Savastano
It is charming how you seek to turn this around. Yet it is you and JVB who will not offer evidence and answer questions. The subject never changed you just seek to change it.

Richard Charnin
Now, that you have attempted to change the subject, the onus is on YOU to cite the evidence of verifiable and unverifiable claims SPECIFICALLY. And please cite YOUR sources.

Carmine Savastano
Yes richard because its not about Judyth, you, or me, its about what evidence we have to prove our claims. Im still waiting. Here is my evidence that contends your claims. Care to comment? Seeking to make it about me will not prove your claims. Try as you might. Citations are in the article Are many Suspicious deaths supported by Evidence?
(A rebuttal of “A closer look at the HSCA list of 21 deaths” by Richard Charnin) http://tpaak.com/new-blog/2014/12/20/are-many-suspicious-deaths-supported-by-evidence
Some claim a large and expansive list of deaths related to the Kennedy assassination. This is in addition to the expansive plot that often accompanies such claims. That is evidence I support, want more?

Richard Charnin
I am not turning anything around. I asked you to enlghten us with some examples of verifiable and unverifiable evidence – and to cite your sources. Are you prepared to do that? You are the one who is expounding as if you are expert on verifiable and unverifiable evidence. Let’s see what you have. What is verifiable? What is not? And cite your sources.

Carmine Savastano
It is cited in the article. Here is more evidence.
http://tpaak.com/new-blog/2015/1/14/a-question-of-time
This supports Oswald did not know until november 19th, which does not support the story offered.

A Question of Time
Lee Harvey Oswald could not have been employed at the Texas School Book Depository without learning of the job from Ruth Paine. This infers he did not plan to be in the Depository in November. Secret Service Agent Forrest Sorrells changed the parade route on November 18th, not just before. Howeve…
TPAAK.COM

Richard Charnin
Just a summary list will suffice. Column A and Column B with a statement and a link We want to see very quickly where you stand..

Carmine Savastano
Keep asking I will keep posting articles. The evidence is listed already under References. I like lists with context. I support and you can verify the sources.

Carmine Savastano
So do you have answer on the coroner’s reports? Wikipedia? How about the dozens of unproven sources prior cited from JVB’s book. Since you want to discuss evidence let everyone do so, or admit perhaps there are some problems.

Richard Charnin
Carmine, let me help you since beneath your calm veneer, you appear to be on the verge of a state of panic. Here is the list of names in JFK Calc with the official cause of 122 unnatural and suspicious deaths. You have asked me to verify the information which I have gotten from lists drawn by Penn Jones, Sylvia Meagher, Jim Marrs, Richard Belzer, David Wayne, Jesse Ventura.John Simkin and Craig Roberts. I also have provided a link to the 21 deaths noted by the HSCA: https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/…/jfk-witnesses-a…/ .

Now you have the list of 122 names. If you want to REFUTE THE OFFICIAL CAUSES OF DEATH then I suggest that YOU go through each coroner’s report. After all, YOU WERE THE ONE WHO MADE THE CLAIM THAT THE LIST WAS NOT VERIFIABLE. RIGHT? SO GO RIGHT AHEAD AND PROVE YOUR CASE:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#gid=1

Carmine Savastano
Hah, Though you are a panic, I need not fear losing composure over unproven claims. So have you read the coroner’s reports? If not how do you claim the deaths were not natural as the attending coroner stated they were? I like primary evidence not secondary hypothesis.

Richard Charnin
Again, Carmine, please read my comments. I asked you to provide a list of what you believe to be unverifiable and verifiable evidence. TWO COLUMNS, with a link to support your case. CAN YOU PROVIDE THIS MENU?

Carmine Savastano
If you did not bother to review the medical evidence in each case how can you be so sure of your figures? Would that not infer errors are likely form making prior assumptions that could inflate the list unnecessarily?

Carmine Savastano
Richard, you have ignored my questions for days, answer a few and maybe I shall indulge your latest demand, or just try to change the subject because you cannot answer the question. Did you read the coroner’s report?

Richard Charnin
Must I spell it out for you? Create a spreadsheet of claims with these column headings: Claim (Evidence)- Verifiable- Unverifiable- Link

Carmine Savastano
Must I explain it requires verifiable evidence not your best guess to prove a death was mysterious? That all the lists in the world not based on verifiable evidence prove nothing. If the body of evidence does not support something it remains unproven.

Richard Charnin
The official, ruled cause of deaths are not verifiable? Prove it. The onus is on you to get the coroner’s reports for the 122 and try and refute ALL the researchers I have listed above. Now go to it and stop diverting. This is not a joke. But your avoidance is HILARIOUS.

Carmine Savastano
Yes it is verifiable. Its your list , your burden of proof. You are hilarious. You should have read them, if you chose not to, not my problem. So do you admit that 50 natural deaths were listed as not without full verification using the medical files?

Richard Charnin
I got the list from articles and books written by Penn Jones, Sylvia Meagher, Richard E. Sprague, Jim Marrs, Richard Belzer, David Wayne, Jesse Ventura. John Simkin and Craig Roberts. NOW ARE YOU GOING TO CLAIM THAT THEY ALL USED UNVERIFIABLE DATA? ARE YOU GOING TO CLAIM THEY ARE AMATEUR RESEARCHERS? ARE YOU GOING TO CLAIM THAT JOHN MCADAMS IS CORRECT IN HIS DISMISSING THIS EVIDENCE SINCE YOU APPARENTLY AGREE WITH HIM? ARE YOU A MCADAMS WANNABEE?

Carmine Savastano
That is wonderful. Books are secondary sources. For the most accurate I would suggest medical files and primary sources. I claim anything beyond primary verifiable evidence is not verifiable. Lists do not prove things, evidence does. Better evidence gives more accurate results. Authors can use interpretation which can change the facts from as they were originally stated. It does not matter who wrote the book. Remember its not about them, you , or me, but evidence.

Richard Charnin
Carmine Savastano, get ready for Part II. I am seriously thinking of posting the contents of this thread on other JFK groups and on my blog. You will experience deja vu as you are about to be humiliated once again.

Carmine Savastano
Richard I am aware you have been talking about me for some time. I’m more than ready for your next article. Post away. I have nothing that I regret saying. So perhaps check the coroner’s reports, while your busy attempting label me whatever the latest claim is.

Judyth Baker
For those who would like a simple explanation of what Richard has done, let’s show all of you why “coroner’;s reports” are not necessary in Charnin;s work. I’ll take the example of a tsunami. In that one event, an unusual number of people llost their lives. It was a head count and no coroner’s report was needed for each victim. The unusual number of deaths spiked the statistics: you could see a correlation and everybody knew this was a ‘tsunami’ related phenomenon: all those deaths. Now, apply this to the Kennedy assassination statistics for those who had any link to the Kennedy assassination and the EXPECTED number of deaths. The spike is there. It’s a relative ‘tsunami” event. It doesn;t matter about quibbling about whether a death was declared natural or not. It doesn’t matter if a coroner lied or not or was pressured to cover up a fact or two. It has to do with the raw death count. The raw death count is outrageously out of proportion to the normal expected death count. Charnin shows you just how high that spike goes–and here we have non-statisticians quibbling about coroners’ reports. They’re out of their league and embarrassing themselves.

Judyth Baker
Maybe I’ll use “this is Judyth” a lot more, just to get their panties in a bunch, LOL!

Carmine Savastano
Judtyh here is why you are wrong. The attending medical expert knows more than you and Richard claim to and have actually seen the conditions of the body and tested them. So without contending primary evidence its your best guess. No matter who likes it or endorses it.

Richard Charnin
So Carmine, are you saying that the officially ruled homicides, accidents, suicides, sudden cancers and heart attacks are different from the coroner’s reports? Then go get the official causes of death. What is the purpose of the coroner’s report if it is not to indicate the official cause of death? You have totally embarrassed yourself and can no longer be considered credible in anything you say. If I may be frank, your statement is not just wrong, it is STUPID – even more so than anything McAdams has ever written on this subject. So here is the deal. YOU go through ALL 122 coroner reports for the OFFICIAL causes of death. Then compare each of the 122 to the OFFICIAL cause of death that a dozen JFK researchers have noted and which are included in the JFK Calc database. For the official causes of death, you need to look at column H in this JFK Calc tab. Now go to work. PROVE YOUR POINT. PROVE THAT I AM WRONG. PROVE THAT THE CAUSES OF 122 DEATHS LISTED IN JFK CALC ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE CORONER’S REPORTS. YOU SAID IT.NOW PROVE IT.

Carmine Savastano
No Richard you are. Hence your feasibly incorrect list.

Richard Charnin
Carmine, let’s put an end to this madness. Let’s get down to the basics. You appear to be confused by your repetitive demands to see the coroner reports. You apparently do not comprehend that suspicious deaths include two categories: unnatural and natural.

There were 122 suspicious deaths, of which 78 were OFFICIALLY RULED UNNATURAL: 34 homicides, 24 accidents, 16 suicides, 4 unknown. Of the other 44 OFFICIALLY RULED NATURAL deaths, 25 were due to heart attacks and 19 due to other causes (cancer, etc.) Only 17 UNNATURAL deaths were statistically EXPECTED among the 1400 JFK-related witnesses based on the weighted average unnatural death rate (0.000247).

Only 2 homicides were expected based on the 0.000084 average homicide rate. The probability of 34 homicides is 1.57 E-31 (1 in 6 million trillion trillion). Those were the OFFICIAL CAUSES OF DEATH. The probability of 78 unnatural deaths is even lower: 2.76E-62 (1 in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion).

Based on the STATISTICAL EXPECTATION of each cause of death, I calculated an ESTIMATE of the TRUE CAUSES OF DEATH: 86 HOMICIDES, 8 ACCIDENTS, 3 SUICIDES,4 UNKNOWN, 10 HEART ATTACKS, 6 CANCERS AND 5 OTHER NATURAL. I distinguish between the OFFICIAL CAUSES OF DEATH and the estimated TRUE cause of death. BUT AS I HAVE SHOWN ABOVE, EVEN ASSUMING THE OFFICIAL CAUSE OF DEATH, THE PROBABILITIES ARE ZERO. Therefore, the estimated true cause of death is essentially a moot point even though it illustrates that the OFFICIAL CORONER REPORTS do not reflect the ACTUAL CAUSE OF DEATH.

Do you get it now, Carmine Savastano? Or will you remain in your current state of ignorance and naivete? Will you continue to persist in your insane demand that I provide coroner’s reports for each of the 122 deaths when the OFFICIAL CAUSE OF THESE DEATHS HAS BEEN PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE SINCE 1978?

Carmine Savastano
Richard, all you need is to prove with the primary evidence that you are correct. According to it not your claims you are not. Unless you assess all the relevant evidence to prove your claims. I did not mistake your claims. Suicides are unnatural not suspicious because you claim they are, 24 accidents not suspicious, 4 unknown, not suspicious, add the 44 natural deaths you never bothered to look into and that makes 72 deaths by natural or unnatural means, not suspicious without substantial proof. Unnatural means do not definitively mean suspicious, See the difference yet? I read your article just fine. Try mine. Yours is a hypothesis, not based on all the primary evidence.http://tpaak.com/…/are-many-suspicious-deaths-supported…
Are many Suspicious deaths supported by Evidence?
(A rebuttal of “A closer look at the HSCA list of 21 deaths” by Richard Charnin) Some claim a large and expansive list of deaths related to the Kennedy assassination. This is in addition to the expansive plot that often accompanies such claims. Yet would a successful plot include the need to el…
TPAAK.COM

Richard Charnin
Suicides and accidents and heart attacks are not suspicious? Carmine Savastano, you have lost your last chance to redeem yourself. YOU ARE TOTALLY WITHOUT A CLUE. AND I LOOK FORWARD TO POSTING YOUR COMMENTS ON MY BLOG FOR THE WHOLE WORLD TO SEE THAT FACT.

Carmine Savastano
No unless there is evidence or someone bothers to regard the medical report to prove it. Not because you claim it. Even in capital letters. Please do, then something might seem reasonable on your blog.

Richard Charnin
Judyth is right. Coroner reports are a RED HERRING. It is the spiking of deaths during periods when the individuals died before they were called to testify that is apparently beyond the capacity of Carmine’s intellect to process – like the deaths of 7 TOP FBI officials:

Improbable Timing of Witness Deaths https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/10/01/jfk-witness-deaths-7-fbi-officials-due-to-testify-at-hsca/

Suspicious deaths spiked in 1964 (Warren Commission) and in 1977-78 (HSCA). In 1977, seven top FBI officials due to testify at HSCA died in a 6 month period, five from heart attacks, one from an accidental gunshot and one from an accidental fall.

7706 LOUIS NICHOLS Former #3, responsible for JFK investigation; heart attack
7706 REGIS KENNEDY Confiscated films of assassination; heart attack
7708 JAMES CADIGAN Document expert; died from a fall in his home
7708 ALAN BELMONT Liaison to Warren Commission; natural causes
7710 J.M. ENGLISH Head of Forensic Sciences Laboratory; heart attack
7710 DONALD KAYLOR Fingerprint chemist;bogus Oswald “print” on rifle; heart attack 7711 WILLIAM SULLIVAN Headed Division 5 (Counter-espionage); Gunshot accident

The timing of the 7 deaths is powerful proof of a conspiracy beyond any doubt, since it is focused on a specific group within a very short time interval. The HSCA did not mention any of these deaths in its claim that the London Sunday Times actuary’s 100,000 trillion to one odds of 18 material witness deaths in three years was invalid.

For each of the four scenarios, we calculate probabilities assuming a) 7 heart attacks, b) the official cause of deaths (5 heart attacks, 2 accidents); c) 4 homicides and 3 heart attacks; d) 7 homicides. The official cause of death may not be the actual cause; heart attacks and cancer can be induced. In order to calculate the probability of witness deaths we need the mortality rates for each cause of death.

 
3 Comments

Posted by on January 24, 2015 in JFK

 

Tags: , , , ,

JFK: Exposing another disinformationist on Facebook

Richard Charnin
Jan.14, 2015
Updated: Jan.19, 2015
JFK Blog Posts

Look inside the book:
Reclaiming Science:The JFK Conspiracy

In response to my Facebook post exposing Carmine Savastano, another troll pops up. They are like a swarm of bees. Add this one to the list: John Iacoletti. He exhibits all the trademarks of a troll:
1) ASK THE SAME QUESTIONS OVER AND OVER AGAIN ALTHOUGH THEY HAVE ALREADY BEEN ANSWERED AND 2) MAKE INANE COMMENTS WHICH DISPLAY A STUNNING IGNORANCE OF THE FACTS.

John Iacoletti surely knows that he is just a shill. He parrots John McAdams, the Godfather of Warren Commission defenders and disinformationists (see below). Everything he said has been refuted and covered. He is just copying from the Lone Nutter playbook. That is obvious. It is truly amazing that he would make such a fool of himself with his outrageous comments.

This guy cannot be a quantitative programmer. He does not understand 1) the difference between a poll and descriptive mortality statistics from official sources, 2) does not know that heart attacks and cancer can be induced, 3) does not realize that national historical mortality rates are age-adjusted, 4) does not comprehend the mathematical fact that tripling the NATIONAL homicide rate (since 51 of 122 suspicious JFK-related deaths took place in Dallas) has virtually no effect on the probability of 34 JFK-related homicides in a 15 year period. IT IS STILL 1 IN 13,000 TRILLION.

Iacoletti has REVEALED himself in no uncertain terms.He is the POSTER CHILD for JFK disinformationists. The actual Facebook thread follows this summary.

John, you have just revealed your agenda to disinform and discredit. As you claim to be engineer at IBM, I would not expect that from you. Let’s take them one at a time.

1- You question ONE of 122 suspicious deaths and really believe that discredits my analysis? In choosing Benavides, you give yourself away; that is the one death that all Lone Nutters refer to in their feeble attempts to discredit my analysis. You are using the same playbook. I got Benavides from the Penn Jones original list – and he was on Jim Marrs list of 103 names in the original “Crossfire”. Even if they were wrong about the date of Benavides’ death, it is just ONE name out of 122 that you and your ilk keep bringing up. Very telling.

2- You claim that I do not take age into account. I gave you a link to National mortality rates for various causes of death 1963-1978 which are clearly identified as age-weighted. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc&usp=sheets_web#gid=41

And here are the 122 deaths – including the age of the suspicious heart attack victims. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc&usp=sheets_web#gid=55

3- You ask: how can a heart attack be induced? Are you that naive? Simple. By suffocation with a pillow – and other means. http://www.globalresearch.ca/cia-targeted-assassinations-by-induced-heart-attack-and-cancer/5326382

4. You ask: how can cancer be injected? Unbelievable. Have you read “Me and Lee”? Are you aware that humans were used as guinea pigs and injected with cancer viruses developed to kill Fidel Castro? Are you aware that Jack Ruby claimed he was injected with cancer a few days after he was granted a new trial? And that he died 29 days later due to cancer?

5. You ask: “Why do you assume that JFK witnesses as a group are a representative sample of the population and can be compared directly to total US mortality schedules? For example it’s not that remarkable that mobsters are murdered at a greater rate than the general population, whether they have anything to do with JFK or not. It’s not that notable that elderly people have accidents and heart attacks at a rate higher than the general population. There is very little age info in your tables”.

That is a canard. You failed to read the post. The victims ranged from the 20s to the 60s. I gave the ages of the heart attack victims. Billy Lovelady died of a heart attack at age 41. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc&usp=sheets_web#gid=1

So you are saying that the suspicious deaths of 7 top FBI officials (5 heart attacks, 2 accidents) in a 6 month period in 1977 who were due to testify at HSCA was just a 1 in 200 trillion coincidence? https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/10/01/jfk-witness-deaths-7-fbi-officials-due-to-testify-athet-hsca/

I provided the link to the source data for age-weighted mortality rates from the U.S. National Center for Health Statistics, but you did not bother to look at the spreadsheet: I gave you the mortality rates for the general population and multiplied by 3 to account for the fact that over 50 of the 122 witnesses died in the Dallas area which has a higher death rate then the general population. Even after TRIPLING THE NATIONAL HOMICIDE RATE, the probability of 34 homicides in fifteen years among the 122 witness is 7.6E-17 or 1 in 13,000 trillion. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc&usp=sheets_web#gid=74

I even gave you a spreadsheet to calculate the probabilities yourself by inputting mortality rates (R), number of unnatural deaths (n) for a selected number of witnesses (N) and time period (T): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc&usp=sheets_web#gid=78

Your repeated questions and comments indicate BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that you are just another sophisticated troll with an agenda. I know that you are not stupid. I doubt that you are ignorant. BUT YOU ARE NOT A SERIOUS SEEKER OF THE TRUTH. YOUR COMMENTS AND REPEATED QUESTIONS WERE MEANT TO DISCREDIT MY WORK. I HAVE RESPONDED ACCORDINGLY.

John replied:
Richard’s methodology is flawed. He’s taking a list of 122 “suspicious” deaths that he got from elsewhere, without doing any verification or validation of any kind (the presence of Eddie Benavides on his list proves that), and comparing the causes of death with mortality rates for the entire United States. He has no inkling that his 122 is not a representative sample of the United States. He doesn’t adjust or account for age, weight, smoking, lifestyle, diet, occupation, and other known factors for cancer and heart disease in any way. He assumes without evidence that it’s even possible to induce a sudden cancer death via injection, or to induce a heart-attack in such a way that it’s undetectable. He doesn’t consider, for example, that mobsters might be murdered at a higher rate that the general population. He just waves his hand and his equations and declares therefore that X number of these people were murdered because statistics. That is junk science at its finest. Then when questions like this are raised, he doesn’t attempt in any way to address the issues, answer the questions, or incorporate feedback in any way, like a real scientist would do. Instead he insults you, calls you a troll, and avoids the questions. He then will challenge you to buy his book, which he is busy self-promoting all over Facebook pretty much every day.

Richard Charnin:
Not a representative sample? Wow. Of course not. It is a selected group of JFK-related witnesses who died unnaturally. This is not a poll. You have completely ignored everything I posted regarding mortality rates. I thought you were a smart guy. Was I wrong.

I suggest you take this up with Richard Belzer (“Hit List”), Jim Marrs (“Crossfire”), Craig Roberts (“JFK: The Dead Witnesses” and Philip Stahl (Brane-space). Penn Jones (“Forgive my Grief 1-4”) is turning over in his grave. You have just made a total fool of yourself with that asinine response.

You still believe heart attacks and cancers cannot be induced after I have showed you the evidence? You are amazingly obtuse in your arrogance and self-induced ignorance. You want me to verify 122 deaths by providing official documents? You really think that anyone would respond to that ridiculous request? I ALREADY GAVE YOU THE OFFICIAL, RULED CAUSES OF 122 DEATHS. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjAk1JUWDMyRdDFSU3NVd29xWWNyekd2X1ZJYllKTnc#gid=1
BUT YOU DISMISS IT IN WITH YOUR ARROGANCE.

YOU ARE LOOKING TO WASTE MY TIME WITH SUCH AN ASININE DEMAND. YOU ARE SO TRANSPARENT.
YOU ARE INSULTING THE INTELLIGENCE OF EVERYONE READING YOUR TRIPE. You are now officially an INTERNET LAUGHINGSTOCK just like your mentor John McAdams whose DISINFORMATIONIST PLAYBOOK you are shamelessly using..

…………………………………………………………

Original Facebook Thread

John Iacoletti
I totally see the rantings of a trolling disinformationist. But his name is Charnin. It seems like you don’t understand probability any better than the appropriate use of your caps lock key. Also, why are you posting this diatribe here to a person who isn’t even a member of this group?
Yesterday at 1:05pm · Edited · Like · 1

Richard Charnin
John Iacoletti, you have just revealed your ignorance and complicity. You call ME a disinformationist? Now I pass the challenge on to you. Go ahead, debunk my work with specifics. I dare you to even try..
Yesterday at 1:22pm · Like

Richard Charnin
GO AHEAD John Iacoletti, DO IT! No generalities, I want to see you SPECIFICALLY comment on the CONTENT. Your comment about the CAPS lock is PATHETIC. It is typical drivel from one who does not care to deal with the CONTENT.
Yesterday at 1:27pm · Edited · Like

John Iacoletti
I noticed you didn’t answer the question about why you’re badmouthing a person who isn’t even in this group. Where can I find your raw data on the people whose deaths you studied (names, ages, causes of death)? I don’t see this in your spreadsheets or articles….See More
Yesterday at 1:28pm · Like

Richard Charnin
I did not post this TO a person. I posted this to everyone else to show how pathetic disinformationist trolls are. Sorry if you object.
Yesterday at 1:29pm · Like

John Iacoletti
…and while I’m here, does anybody really care how Richard’s ebook is ranking every single day?
Yesterday at 1:31pm · Edited · Like

John Iacoletti
I think perhaps your biggest flaw is your assumption that JFK witnesses as a group are a representative sample of the population and can be compared directly to total US mortality schedules.
Yesterday at 1:37pm · Like

Richard Charnin
You will have to research that for yourself. You did not read my posts. You can start with these books: Hit list (Richard Belzer, David Wayne), Crossfite (Jim Marrs), They Killed Our President (Jesse Ventura, Dick Russel,David Wayne), Dead Witnesses (Roberts), Who’s Who in the JFK Assassination (Benson), Forgive my Grief (Penn Jones), JFK Index (John Simkin). I give all the links in my blog posts or in the JFK Calc spreadsheet. Now go ahead and try your best to defend Carmine.
Yesterday at 1:51pm · Edited · Like

Richard Charnin
People want know which are the most popular conspiracy books. I gave them the list. Sorry if you object. I apologize for including my book on the list.
Yesterday at 1:43pm · Like · Remove Preview

Richard Charnin
And while I’m at it, does anybody give a damn what you think?
Yesterday at 1:44pm · Like

John Iacoletti
“Research it yourself” is a copout. You’re publishing summary tables without disclosing your raw data. Why should anybody take your word for it? That’s bad science, Richard.
Yesterday at 1:45pm · Like

Richard Charnin
But I will defend the right of you to make a fool of yourself, just like Carmine and 5 LNs who gave my book a one star rating on Amazon. Why don’t you join the crew?

John Iacoletti
Not even attempting to address questions or objections to your method is bad science, Richard. Why don’t you answer the questions? Arrogance is not an answer. Changing the subject is not an answer.
Yesterday at 1:54pm · Like · 1

Delbert Grady
This is why we can’t have nice things…
21 hrs · Like

Freda Ann Dillard
Richard, I find it interesting that you resort to name-calling for anyone who questions you. For that reason alone, I have no interest in anything you have to say just as I do with anyone who resorts to such behaviour.
18 hrs · Edited · Like

Richard Charnin
Freda Ann Dillard, fine with me. You have no idea of what I have had to put up with through the years of being attacked unfairly. So you have no justification in making that statement without knowing the facts. Name-calling? Come on.
18 hrs · Like

Richard Charnin
Freda Ann Dillard, just who started the ad hominems in this thread?
18 hrs · Like

Freda Ann Dillard
You know what they say…. if you can’t stand the heat….
18 hrs · Like

Richard Charnin
John Iacoletti, you say I did not provide the raw data? Are you serious? What raw data? You sound just like Carmine.Here is all the data, here are all the calculations. And I even tripled the mortality rates for the probability calculations considering…See More
18 hrs · Edited · Like

Richard Charnin
And here are the national mortality rates. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005124.html
Deaths by Major Causes, 1960–2011
INFOPLEASE.COM
18 hrs · Like · Remove Preview

Richard Charnin
The national rates are used to calculate the weighted average JFK mortality rates right here…
18 hrs · Like

Richard Charnin
Freda Ann Dillard, oh I can take the heat, all right. I WELCOME A SINCERE DESIRE TO DISCUSS MY DATA/ ANALYSIS RATIONALLY.- LIKE THE DATA AND CALCULATIONS IN THESE SUMMARY TABLES…
17 hrs · Edited · Like

Richard Charnin
This is how the probability of JFK-related unnatural deaths is calculated: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisson_distribution

John Iacoletti
Thanks for the pointer to the other tabs. You haven’t addressed my objections, which I will state again. Why do you assume that JFK witnesses as a group are a representative sample of the population and can be compared directly to total US mortality…See More
2 hrs · Like

Richard Charnin
You have not understood what I just said. I calculated probabilities using U.S. mortality rates and TRIPLED those rates to account for the fact that 51 of the 122 suspicious deaths occurred in Dallas, which had double or triple the homicide rate of th…See More
1 hr · Like

Richard Charnin
You can do the calculations yourself using this sheet….:
1 hr · Like

Richard Charnin
And here are the calculations for various witness groups over various time periods for official and true causes of death. That is a mouthful, yes? So take a close look. I hope that all this puts your mind at ease. I HAVE DONE THE WORK AND CONSIDERED VIRTUALLY ALL OF THE MATHEMATICAL VARIABLES.
1 hr · Like

Richard Charnin
John Iacoletti, I have been writing math models all my life. I have three degrees in applied mathematics. Began my career as aa numerical control engineer in the aerospace industry, as a “Quant” on Wall Street working in investment banking/corporate f…See More
1 hr · Edited · Like

Freda Ann Dillard
Buddy Walthers was killed in the line of duty while trying to apprehend an escaped convict. Another deputy was also wounded.
So, my question is how does this relate to JFK?
1 hr · Like

Richard Charnin
You are assuming that the murder had nothing to do with Walther’s knowledge and activities in regard to Ruth Paine and Roger Craig’s testimony. He confirmed Craig’s testimony when he went out to Paine’s house and saw the Rambler. As you know, Roger…See More

Freda Ann Dillard
My dad was a Dallas police officer who had his own role that weekend. He had a heart attack in 1977. He survived which would, thankfully, make him ineligible for this study. He’s also had a brain tumor. Maybe this was all part of the conspiracy also.
1 hr · Like

Freda Ann Dillard
Richard, I assume nothing. I look at the facts without trying to make it fit my own agenda… that is if I had an agenda.
1 hr · Like

Richard Charnin
http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKindex.htm
The Assassination of John F. Kennedy
Read the essential details about the Assassination of John F. Kennedy. Main index menu covering the Important…
SPARTACUS-EDUCATIONAL.COM
1 hr · Like · Remove Preview

Richard Charnin
That statement about your father was uncalled for and reeks of misplaced sarcasm. I stand by my work. If you have problems with it, I say, go ahead, refute the list of 122 witnesses (and that is a conservative number). And the associated probability calculations.
1 hr · Edited · Like

Freda Ann Dillard
As I tell my clients who ask, yes, there are some questionable deaths, but if you were alive on November 22, chances are pretty good that you are going to die sometime after.
1 hr · Like

Freda Ann Dillard
Richard, you and others expect folks to accept what y’all say just because you say it and, if we don’t, we are made fun of, called names and ridiculed. You have posted so many links here to prove your point that it’s ridiculous. Thank goodness, I have tougher skin than that but then I’m not looking for fame and glory, not to mention that I suck at math.
———————————————————-

Note: several comments followed after I saved the above. The administrator deleted the full thread.

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

IACOLETTI AND JOHN MCADAMS: TWO PEAS IN A POD.

John Iacoletti appears to be an avid follower of John McAdams. He has apparently copied McAdam’s talking points which I debunked in this post: https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/07/08/debunking-john-mcadams-debunking-of-jim-marrs-witness-list/

1. MORTALTY RATES
John McAdams, you will never give it up will you? You keep stating things that are absolutely untrue. Like I don’t show the mortality statistics I use. You would see them if you clicked on the link that I provided. Here it is again:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc…

You don’t do your homework, John. Here is the source link for the rates which appear on the sheet whose link I just gave you.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005124.html

2. JM- AGE-ADJUSTED?
OK, Information Please almanac was your source of “expected” deaths. But for the numbers to have any meaning, they would have to be adjusted for age and sex.

2. RC
They were age-adjusted, John. Read the heading. But you fail to comprehend that unnatural deaths are not age-adjusted. A bullet does not know the age of its victim

3. JM- DANGEROUS OCCUPATIONS?
Also, they would need to take into account the fact that a fair number
of people on the list were in more-dangerous-than-average occupations (cops, mobsters).

RC
That is a canard John, Do you mean the 7 top FBI officials who all died within a 6 month period in 1977 just before their scheduled HSCA testimony? Five supposedly died by heart attacks and two by accidents (gunshot mistaken for a deer and a fall)? Very dangerous occupations? What a joke.

I’ve got you dead to rights, John. Now you resort to a pathetic statement about Simkin’s list when they are all relevant. YOU MUST DISPARAGE EVERYONE IN YOUR UNENDING DISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN. That the names are relevant is obvious to everyone but you, John.

4. JM – AMATEUR?
Huff and puff all you want. It can’t conceal the fact that you are an amateur, who just doesn’t know what he’s doing.

RC
I’m an amateur? With 3 degrees in mathematics and a lifetime of experience creating quantitative solutions in aerospace/defense (Grumman, Kollsman Instrument), Wall Street Investment Banking (Merrill Lynch White Weld, Smith Barney, E.F. Hutton and a number of foreign banks (Bank of Montreal, Nomura Securities, Algemene Bank) and consumer products manufacturers (Pepsi, Kodak, ATT, etc.). I know who you are. Do you know who I am?

I COULD GO ON AND ON. I CONFIRMED THE LONDON TIMES ACTUARY’S CALCULATION FOR 18 WITNESS DEATHS IN THREE YEARS. THAT’S WHY THE INSURANCE COMPANY PAID HIM THE BIG BUCKS. THAT’S WHY HE PASSED HIS ACTUARIAL EXAMS. OF COURSE, WE NOW KNOW THAT THERE WERE OVER 40 UNNATURAL DEATHS IN THE FIRST THREE YEARS.
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/…/jfk-witness-deaths-w…/

I CHALLENGE YOU TO FIND ONE PROFESSIONAL MATHEMATICIAN OR ACTUARY WHO IS PREPARED TO REFUTE MY ANALYSIS.

JM
It’s not my job to find a professional to refute you. Common sense is enough.

RC
Not your job?. I know, your job is to obfuscate. But why don’t you mosey on down to the Math department at Marquette and ask them to look at my work? And/or contact your buddies Bugliosi and Posner? And/or your life insurance company? Common sense would tell you to do that – if you really want to refute my work.

5. JM – PEER REVIEW?
But if you were any sort of intellectually serious person, you would submit your work to a scholarly journal, and see if it could pass peer review. Deep down, I think you know it could not, and would be laughed at by editors and reviewers.

RC
I have submitted my work to millions. So far, NOT A SINGLE PERSON, INCLUDING YOU, HAS REFUTED IT. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO IS BEING LAUGHED AT. MEANWHILE, HERE ARE SOME TABLES AND GRAPHICS YOU SHOULD MULL OVER.
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/…/jfk-witness-deaths-g…/

6. JM – WITNESS CONNECTIONS?
To actually do the probabilities that Charnin is claiming to do, one would need a list of people “connected to the assassination” BY OBJECTIVE CRITERIA. The fact that some buff claims they have a connection doesn’t really make them “connected.” The list so haphazard that nobody can figure out the population from which it is drawn. But that population clearly includes many thousands of people.

For example, you can get on the list for being an actual witness (but very few people on it are actual witnesses), knowing an actual witness, being part of Dallas law enforcement, being FBI, or CIA, or Secret Service, or anti-Castro Cuban, or a journalist covering the assassination, or an employee of TIME-LIFE, or having any connection at all with the mafia, or just being somebody that some buff author *suspects* of having an connection to the assassination. If *all* of these people had any knowledge dangerous to a conspiracy, that would imply a massive conspiracy that could not possibly be concealed. But the worst thing about all this nonsense is that clearly a lot of people are considered “connected” BECAUSE THEY DIED.

So of course, if one makes a list of “connected” people, and simply having died constitutes a “connection,” the list of “connected” people is going to include a lot of people who died. Charnin doesn’t understand this.

RC
OH, BOY, THE PATHETIC “SOMEONE WOULD HAVE TALKED” ARGUMENT. YOU KNOW AS WELL AS I, JOHN, THAT MANY DID. THERE HAS BEEN A MASSIVE CONSPIRACY TO HIDE THE FACTS – AND YOU ARE A BIG PART OF IT.

John, you say: “But that population clearly includes many thousands of people”. How many John? Do you have a list? Does it include George Washington and Abraham Lincoln who are among the 2479 names in the Warren Commission Index cited by Bugliosi?

The FBI said they interviewed 25,000 witnesses. The probability that 38 would be killed in 3 years is less than 1 in 10 BILLION TRILLION. The probability that 80 would be killed in 15 years is less than 1 in 2 TRILLION.

WHAT A JOKE. THEY ARE CONNECTED BECAUSE THEY DIED? THAT’S WHY THERE IS A LIST! AND WHAT YOU ARE MISSING IS THAT THE REASON THEY ARE ON THE LIST IS NOT THAT THEY DIED, BUT HOW AND WHEN THEY DIED. DUH.

OK, JOHN, GO DOWN THE LIST OF 120 SUSPICIOUS DEATHS- ONE BY ONE. TELL US WHY EACH IS NOT “CONNECTED”.

AND THEN SHOW US YOUR LIST. WHO DO YOU SAY WAS CONNECTED TO THE ASSASSINATION? GIVE US THE NAMES. DO YOU HAVE A LIST?

ALAN BELMONT
ALBERT BOGARD
Allen Sweatt
BETTY MACDONALD
BILL CHESHER
Bill Decker
BILL HUNTER
Bill Waters *
Billy Lovelady
BUDDY WALTHERS
C.D. Jackson
Carlos Prio Soccaras
CHARLES CABELL
Charles Mentesana *
Charles Murret
Charles Nicoletti
CLAY SHAW
Clayton Fowler
CLIFF CARTER
Clint “Lummie” Lewis
Clyde Johnson
Darrell W. Garner
Dave Yaras
DAVID FERRIE
DAVID MORALES *
Delesseps Morrison
Desmond Fitzgerald
Donald Donaldson
DONALD KAYLOR *
Dorothy Hunt
DOROTHY KILGALLEN
EARLE CABELL
Earle Wheeler *
Earlene Roberts
Eddie Benavides
Edward Voebel
Eladio Del Valle
Felix Rodriguez
FLORENCE SMITH
Francis G. Powers *
FRANK MARTIN
GARY UNDERHILL
GEORGE DE MORENSCHILDT
George McGann
GRANT STOCKDALE *
GUY BANISTER
HALE BOGGS
HANK KILLAM
HAROLD RUSSELL
Henry Delaune
Hiram Ingram
HUGH WARD
J. EDGAR HOOVER
J.A. Milteer
J.D. TIPPIT
J.M. ENGLISH *
JACK RUBY
JACK ZANGRETTI
JAMES CADIGAN
James Chaney
James Plumeri *
James Truitt
James Weston
JAMES WORRELL
JIM KOETHE
JIM REEVES *
Jimmy Hoffa
John Crawford
John D. Sullivan *
John Holbrook *
JOHN PAISLEY *
JOHNNY ROSELLI
Joseph C. Ayres
KAREN CARLIN
Karyn Kupcinet
Ken O’Donnell
LEE BOWERS
LEE HARVEY OSWALD
Leonard Pullin *
LISA HOWARD *
Lou Staples
LOUIS NICHOLAS *
Lucien Sarti
MAC WALLACE *
MANUEL ARTIME
Manuel Quesada
MARILYN WALLE
MARY PINCHOT MEYER
MARY SHERMAN
MAURICE GATLIN
Michael Groves *
NANCY CAROLE TYLER
Nicholas Chetta
Paul Dyer *
Paul Helliwell *
Paul Raigorodsky
Phil Geraci III (father)
Ralph Yates *
REGIS KENNEDY
Richard Cain
Robert Alan Surrey
ROBERT F. KENNEDY
ROGER CRAIG
Roland Masferrer
ROSCOE WHITE
ROSE CHERAMIE
Roy Kellerman
Sam Giancana
Sheffield Edwards
Thomas E. Davis
Thomas Karamessines
TOM HOWARD
WARREN REYNOLDS
William H. Cooper
William Harvey
William Pawley *
WILLIAM PITZER
WILLIAM SULLIVAN
WILLIAM WHALEY
Winston Scott *
Google Drive

 
6 Comments

Posted by on January 14, 2015 in JFK

 

Tags: , , ,

 
Richard Charnin's Blog

JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud Analysis