Tag Archives: John McAdams

John McAdams on Philip Stahl’s review of “Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy”

John McAdams on Philip Stahl’s review of “Reclaiming Science:The JFK Conspiracy”

Richard Charnin
Feb.24, 2015

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

Philip Stahl is a Physicist/Mathematician/JFK Researcher, a prolific writer on many subjects. He just wrote a very positive review of my book:

John McAdams, the notorious JFK disinformationist, posted the following comment on Stahl’s review:
“No academic appointment. No job as a scientist with any reputable organization. Usually, “peer review” means reviewed by a bonafide expert for a scholarly journal. Here is what I can find on Stahl: Mr. Stahl has been an atheist for over 25 years and has written dozens of articles on atheism in major newspapers. He’s also engaged in numerous one-on-one debates with priests, ministers. He lives in Colorado and enjoys hiking, computer chess, writing science fiction and GO. And this was published on his blog, not in any reputable journal. Not even in a reputable popular outlet”!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/rcGX-ZxJKKQ

McAdams’ post is graphic proof that Warren Commission apologists do not do their homework, have an agenda to spread disinformation and are not interested in the truth. McAdams omits Stahl’s accomplishments and completely ignores the content of his review. And you wonder why McAdams was fired from Marquette? His post is a pure hatchet job. Classic McAdams. Who cares if Stahl is an atheist? So was Einstein. But this is the kind of garbage we have come to expect from McAdams. He is very predictable.

Stahl has written extensively on JFK:

On his blog, Stahl notes that he has specialized in space physics and solar physics, developed the first astronomy curriculum for Caribbean secondary schools and has written twelve books – the most recent: Modern Physics: Notes, Problems and Solutions; and earlier, BEYOND ATHEISM, BEYOND GOD; Astronomy & Astrophysics: Notes, Problems and Solutions’; ‘Physics Notes for Advanced Level’ Mathematical Excursions in Brane Space; Selected Analyses in Solar Flare Plasma Dynamics; and ‘A History of Caribbean Secondary School Astronomy’ which details the background of his development and implementation of the first ever astronomy curriculum for secondary schools in the Caribbean.

Here are some of Stahl’s books that John McAdams ignores. He never read them. McAdams has plenty of time to read them now that he is no longer teaching. But he won’t because he knows he is incapable of understanding physics and math. What do you expect from a disinformationist?

Stahl posted on McAdams a long time ago:

“Then there is Jack Dickey’s article which mainly extols one of the top disinformationists around, Prof. John McAdams. According to Dickey’s piece, based on talking to McAdams, he is a “debunker”. Just like the guys that debunk UFOs John sees his job as debunking conspiracy theories, and hence being a proper apologist (like Vince Bugliosi) for the Warren balderdash.

Long before there was Twitter, Facebook or Blogs, there was something called Usenet where entities known as “newsgroups” sprang up to encourage debate and discussion on any number of issues, topics. I had observed McAdams putdowns in the (un-moderated) newsgroup alt. conspiracy.jfk for some months before actually engaging in a one on one exchange with him. This was concerning my REAL FAQ that I had published in the newsgroup as an antidote to a pro-lone nut FAQ by frequent poster John Locke.

In one particular confrontation, McAdams complained about my reference to Jackie “climbing over the limo trunk” in an effort to retrieve part of JFK’s blown out skull fragment (later inferred to be the Harper bone fragment retrieved by William Harper). He insisted she wasn’t “climbing over anything” to which I then said, Ok, she’s moving across it to the rear – which shows a frontal shot”. He tried to “debunk” this but a picture says a thousand words. And in my FAQ Part 5 readers can see the image for themselves.

I added more kapow to my response citing her Warren Commission Testimony (from Volume Five of the special hearings) where she says:

“You know, then, there were pictures later of me climbing out the back, but I don’t remember that at all.”

And from her secret testimony (excised from original version), op. cit., p. 16:
“I was trying to hold his hair on. But from the front there was nothing. I suppose there must have been. But from the back you could see, you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on.”

But once again, McAdams disputed my sources and said Jackie also must have been mistaken, as there was no time at which she climbed across the trunk. SO much for John’s “debunking” which is largely a matter of denying reality.

Perhaps the best information ever assembled on John McAdams (nee, “Paul Nolan”) was put together by Jim Hargrove. The basic thrust is to answer questions concerning McAdams and his background because it so much seems to fit the sort of CIA assets described in the CIA document 1035-960 wherein it specifies under subsection (3b) the objective: “to employ propaganda assets to negate and refute the attacks of the critics”. While TIME author Dickey waxes on about, oh no, move along, no CIA here with McAdams, he never does cite the CIA document that legitimized the role for assets including in Usenet newsgroups.

Hence, when McAdams blabs: “These people think the CIA cares about them. It does not!”

One is led to ask, ‘Oh really? Then how account for the CIA document that explicitly states in one primary objective: “To employ propaganda assets to [negate] and refute the attacks of the critics”.

How can this be reconciled with a guy who “just likes to brawl”? Well, if brawling consumes more time than useful communication about facts (like Jackie’s limo trunk action) and files (like Oswald’s 201-289248 CI/SIG) than one can say the objective has been achieved.

If McAdams has been a real CIA propaganda asset, it makes sense one of his first obligations would be to neutralize any outlets for serious JFK assassination discussion he doesn’t control (like his moderated newsgroup). Thus his intrusions into the un-moderated group shed definite light on his intentions. Consider, for example, this McAdams post from (John McAdams) Date: 14 Feb 1997 22:17:02 -0700:

“You buffs have been cooperating marvelously with my scheme to make this group a shambles. And you know the bizarre part? My scheme is not a secret. I have publicly announced it. I have made it perfectly obvious. I have rubbed you buffs’ noses in it. It’s blatantly obviously to everybody.”

Hmmmmmm……sounds like a fuckin’ CIA asset to me.

Now, let’s clear our heads and think about this a bit: Would a normal everyday professor of Political Science be doing these things? Would he be bragging about leaving a Usenet newsgroup a “shambles”? It doesn’t add up. Bill Hargrove, in his “McAdams FAQ” provides the Charter Policy written by McAdams himself for his own moderated group. Reading its first paragraph sheds a lot of light:

This group will be for the purpose of providing an area for serious discussion and research of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. The group will be moderated to prevent the noise and chronic personal attacks which have plagued alt.conspiracy.jfk and made it nearly useless as a vehicle for intelligent research. Questions surrounding JFK’s death have made this one of the most talked about and controversial issues of our generation. This will be the one usenet group which deals seriously with this importanttopic.

But as Hargrove observes:
“One supposes that since the noise and chronic personal attacks which have plagued the alt.conspiracy.jfk group were and are part of McAdams freely admitted plans to turn the group into a shambles, the moderated group can only be seen as his personal vehicle for selective manipulation of content”

Which is totally logical, and again, it comports with CIA doc. 1035-960! Hargrove then quotes McAdams from a letter written to The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:
“(Dr) Gary Aguilar accused me on the politics forum of being A CIA sponsored disinformationist because I was once the Marquette Official representative of the I.C.P.S.R. an utterly unspooky social science data archive.”

In truth, The ICPSR is housed in the Institute for Social Research, or ISR which itself has been documented as recipient of “spook” (e.g. CIA) research grants. They also have a webpage:

Which the interested reader can explore for himself. My own take is that it could easily be a CIA (Clandestine Operations) front for psy-ops intelligence operations which could easily include anti-conspiracy propaganda. We already know that the founder of American Propaganda – Edward Bernays – was steeped in the social sciences and firmly believed the public was too irrational to entrust to its own thought and conclusions and therefore had to be manipulated toward specific directions. In his own words: “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society”

What better way to do that than from a networked academic consortium – interwoven into all the social sciences – with access to a central data clearinghouse that’s amassed everything from the latest frequency of teen pregnancies, to homicides by race or gender, or assorted other historical arcania. It’s literally a propagandist’s dream.”

Leave a comment

Posted by on February 24, 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.

John McAdams
Falsified the testimony of Dealey Plaza witnesses on the source of the shots.
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.

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:

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:

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:
FBI Sibert:

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.

Judyth Baker’s pixel analysis of Doorman’s shirt proves it cannot be Lovelady:

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?”

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.

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.

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:

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:

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:

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: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

JFK: Videos that Prove a Conspiracy

JFK: Videos that Prove a Conspiracy

Richard Charnin
Dec. 13, 2014

Look inside the books:
Reclaiming Science:The JFK Conspiracy
Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts

JFK Blog Posts
Probability/ Statistical Analysis Spreadsheets:
JFK Calc: Suspicious Deaths, Source of Shots Surveys;
Election Fraud: True Vote Models, State and National Unadjusted Exit Polls

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

Grassy Knoll
– Oliver,Arnold, Hoffman
– Zapruder, Hill, Moorman, Newman
– S.M. Holland

Roger Craig
Marina Oswald
Judyth Baker

John Connally
Dr Charles Crenshaw
E.H. Hunt
LBJ Mistress

FBI Agents (autopsy)
O’Neill no bullet exit
Sibert (Ford & Spector)

Jack Ruby
True Facts/motive
They knew Jack

Mark Lane
Jim Garrison
Church Committee

Expert Evidence
Jack White
Nathan Darby

Penn Jones
Fletcher Prouty
James Douglass
Jim Marrs
David Lifton
Roger Stone

Doug Horne (ARRB)
Medical evidence
Zapruder film

Oliver Stone
Nigel Turner
Richard Belzer
Jesse Ventura

Executive Action
The Missiles of October
Thirteen Days

Leave a comment

Posted by on December 13, 2014 in JFK


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

Reclaiming Science: the JFK Conspiracy

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

Kindle version

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 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.

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.

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. Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy 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: Cover-up by the numbers

JFK: Cover-up by the Numbers

Richard Charnin
Aug.29, 2014
Updated: Sept.7, 2014

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

JFK Blog Posts
JFK Calc Spreadsheet Database
Tables and Graphs

Key Statistics in the JFK Cover-up

London Times actuary
ZERO (E-17) probability (1 in 100,000 trillion) of 18 witness deaths by Feb. 1967
13 unnatural deaths (8 homicides,3 accidents,2 suicides)
454 approximate number of witnesses used for calculation
552 Warren Commission witnesses (1964-78)

1 shooter according to the Warren Commission
3 shots according to the Warren Commission
4 DPD officials identified a 7.65 Mauser on the 6th floor of the TSBD
6 shots fired based on HSCA acoustic analysis of dictabelt recording

Magic Bullet
2 FBI agents attending autopsy said there was no bullet exit from the back wound
5 Ford raised the back wound 5 inches to accommodate the Single Bullet Theory
7 wounds supposedly caused by the Magic Bullet

Official ruled vs. Expected Unnatural Deaths
1400 estimated witnesses (1964-78):
34 homicides; 2 expected
16 suicides; 3 expected > 13 homicides
24 accidental; 10 expected > 14 homicides
25 heart attacks; 10 expected > 15 homicides
14 other illness; 6 expected > 8 homicides
ZERO probability of 84 estimated homicides = 34+ 13+ 14+ 15+ 8

Oswald in the Doorway at 12:30
5 TSBD employees testified they were standing in the doorway
6 figures in Altgens6 standing in the doorway

Tippit shooting
10 witnesses saw or heard shots at 1:06PM. The WC said 1:16.
24 MPH required for Oswald to walk 0.8 miles to the scene in two minutes.

22 Parkland Hospital witnesses said there was an entrance wound in the throat
22 Parkland witnesses said there was an exit wound in the right rear of the head
22 Autopsy witnesses said there was an exit wound in the right rear of the head
ZERO probability they were all mistaken.

Suspicious deaths (JFK Calc spreadsheet)
7 FBI officials due to testify at HSCA in 6 months (1977)
13 JFK-related witnesses predicted they would be murdered
20 Jack Ruby contacts
20 of 500 Dealey Plaza witnesses
21 reported by HSCA statistician (there were at least 80 more)
30 Warren Commission witnesses (1964-78)
51 of 122 deaths occurred in the Dallas area (ZERO probability)
67 of 122 witnesses were sought in 4 investigations

Simkin JFK Index (Spartacus Educational)
656 JFK-related individuals
70 official unnatural and suspicious deaths (ZERO probability)
22 homicides. Probability 5.9E-24 (1 in a trillion trillion)
44 unnatural deaths. Probability 4.4E-41 (1 in a trillion trillion trillion)

Source of Shots Surveys: Witnesses who said Grassy Knoll
35 McAdams (36%)
51 Feldman (61%)
52 Galanor (52%)
93 Charnin (77%)
100% Probability of Grassy Knoll shooter

JFK Limo; Zapruder film
59 Limo witnesses
33 said the Limo came to a FULL STOP
44 heard a double-bang of nearly simultaneous shots
100% Probability of FULL LIMO STOP
100% Probability of Zapruder film alteration (does not show full stop)

Suspicious Deaths of JFK-related individuals (1964-78)
1400+ JFK-related individuals in Who’s Who in the JFK Assassination
122 suspicious deaths listed in JFK Calc
34 officially ruled homicides (ZERO probability)
78 officially ruled unnatural deaths (ZERO probability)
84 estimated homicides based on statistical expectation of other causes
99 estimated unnatural deaths based on expectation of natural causes
ZERO (E-31 or 1 in 6 million trillion trillion) probability of 34 ruled homicides

Witness Deaths spiked in 1964 (Warren Commission) and 1977 (HSCA)

Leave a comment

Posted by on August 29, 2014 in JFK


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

JFK: Talking points from the McAdams-Reitzes Academy of Disinformation

JFK: Talking points from the McAdams-Reitzes Academy of Disinformation

Richard Charnin
July 7, 2014

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

JFK Blog Posts
JFK Calc Spreadsheet Database
Tables and Graphs

The following topics are often cited by Warren Commission apologists to prove that Oswald was the Lone Gunman. The topics comprise a basic curriculum of talking points for Lone Nutters in the McAdams-Reitzes Academy of Disinformation. Nothing fancy. The links are to articles which expose the lies (there are many other articles which do the same):

1. Rifle
2. Handgun
3. Brennan
4. Backyard photos
5. Buell Frazier

6. Curtain rods
7. Oswald on the 6th floor?
8. Palm print
9. 6.5 bullet fragment
10. Dealey Plaza witnesses

11. Ruth Paine
12. Head wound
13. Tippit
14. Zapruder
15. Roger Craig

16. Oswald pixel analysis
17. Oswald testimony
18. Witness deaths
19. Dealey Plaza
20. John McAdams

Leave a comment

Posted by on July 7, 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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Richard Charnin's Blog

JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud Analysis