Tag Archives: probability analysis

Probability Analysis of Unlikely Historical Events

Richard Charnin

77 Billion to One: 2016 Election Fraud
Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts
Proving Election Fraud: Phantom Voters, Uncounted Votes and the National Poll

Did you ever view a discussion, much less a probability analysis of  these events in the mainstream media?

Conspiracy Theories and Mathematical probabilities

Unnatural Deaths of at least 78 JFK-related witnesses from 1963-1978.

Seth Rich and 8 other DNC-related suspicious deaths

Election Fraud: True Vote vs. Recorded

Suspicious Deaths of 75 Bankers and 125 Scientists
Suspicious Deaths of 11 Holistic Doctors in 3 months

Suspicious Deaths of 16 Microbiologists in 4 months

10 Terrorist Attacks and Concurrent Drills

Cancer Deaths of 7 Latin American Leaders

Mystery Deaths for various group size assumptions

No automatic alt text available.

Leave a comment

Posted by on July 14, 2017 in JFK, Uncategorized


Tags: , , , , , , ,

NY Democratic Primary: More frustration

NY Democratic Primary: More Frustration

Richard Charnin
April 20, 2016

Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts
Proving Election Fraud: Phantom Voters, Uncounted Votes and the National Poll
Democratic Primaries spread sheet.
Election Fraud Slides

Momentum was on Bernie’s side. He had just won a solid victory in Wisconsin. Now he was coming home. A Brooklyn native, he was drawing great crowds. The following entertainers gave speeches on his behalf: Harry Belafonte, Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon, Mark Ruffalo, Spike Lee, Rosario Dawson.

Pre-election polls showed that Hillary was a likely winner. But Bernie had the Big Mo; he would overcome the systemic fraud which plagued his campaign in the primaries.

NYC was a natural for Bernie, despite the fact that Hillary Clinton was a senator for eight years. But it was Arizona all over again. Thousands of voters reported their registrations were changed or dropped.

Only 22% of approximately 8 million registered voters turned out. Clinton won by 57.9-42.1%. 

The UNADJUSTED exit poll indicated a close race. Hillary led  by just 52-48%,  an 11.8% discrepancy from the recorded vote.  There were 1391 respondents and a 2.6% exit poll Margin of Error. Clinton led by a whopping 62-38% in the vote count with 33% of precincts reporting.

At 9:03 pm, there were 1307 exit poll respondents, Clinton led the actual count by 680-627 (52.0-48.0%). With just 84 additional respondents (1391 total), Clinton’s lead increased to 802-589 (57.7-42.3%). She had 122 additional respondents and  Sanders had 38 fewer.

How could Clinton gain 122 of 84 respondents and Sanders’ total drop?  It is mathematically impossible. Therefore the final vote has to be impossible as well. The exit poll was forced to match the recorded vote with impossible adjustments.

CNN Exit poll- Gender Clinton Sanders
1307 respondents 9:03pm 680 627
 Vote share 52.0% 48.0%
Final EP: 1391 respondents 802 589
Adjusted Vote share 57.7% 42.3%
Change: +84 respondents  +122  -38


In 2014, NY voter registration  was  49D-24R-27I. The split was 85D-15I in the exit poll, which (as always) was forced to match the 57.9-42.1% recorded vote.

Assuming primary voting was proportional to registration, the split would have been 65D-35I and the race would have been a tie.  If Clinton had 58% of Democrats, Sanders won the election by 52.5-47.5%.

Final Exit Poll (adjusted) Mix Clinton Sanders Margin
Democrats 85% 62% 38% 24%
Independents 15% 28% 72% -44%
 Total 100% 56.9% 43.1% 13.8%


2014 Registration Mix Clinton Sanders Margin
Democrats 65% 62% 38% 24%
Independents 35% 28% 72% -44%
 Total 100% 50.1% 49.9% 0.20%
True Vote Mix Clinton Sanders Margin
Democrats 65% 58% 42% 16%
Independents 35% 28% 72% -44%
Total 47.50% 52.50% -5.00%

How did the exit pollsters adjust Sanders 48% share in the NY primary at 9pm (1307 respondents) to 42% at the final (1391 respondents)? This indicates that an equivalent of 107,000 votes were flipped from Bernie to Clinton.

The pollsters had to increase the percentage of women voters by 1%, Clinton’s share of men by 5% and her share of women by 6%. The 125 increase in Clinton’s respondents among the final 84 exit poll respondents is obviously impossible. That is proof of Election Fraud in the NY Primary.

Assuming that Sanders’ 48% exit poll was accurate, he must have won the election due to thousands of suppressed votes. Sanders True Vote = 48% exit poll + suppressed vote.

The exit poll does not include approximately 400,000 disenfranchised voters (120,000 in Brooklyn and 280,000 elsewhere). Therefore Bernie must have had approximately 52%, assuming he had 70% of 400,000 disenfranchised voters.

Sanders True Vote = 52% = 48% Voted + 70% Disenfranchised
= 48%* 1790 + 70% * 400 = 860+280 
= 1140 / 2190

The following table is a sensitivity analysis of Sanders share as a function of his share of the suppressed vote and the exit poll. As you can see, Sanders wins 24 of the 25 scenarios.

Sanders%   Suppressed Vote
Sanders 65.0% 70.0% 75.0% 80.0% 85.0%
Exit Poll   Sanders  True Vote
50% 52.7% 53.6% 54.6% 55.5% 56.4%
49% 51.9% 52.8% 53.7% 54.6% 55.6%
48% 51.1% 52.0% 52.9% 53.8% 54.7%
47% 50.3% 51.2% 52.1% 53.0% 53.9%
46% 49.5% 50.4% 51.3% 52.2% 53.1%

As always, the final CNN exit poll was forced to match the recorded vote.

View the Early Exit Poll vs. Final (matched to recorded vote) vs. True Vote


Probability of 11.8% exit poll discrepancy
……………..Sanders Clinton Margin
Recorded …..42.1%….. 57.9%……15.8%
Exit poll…….48.0%…..52.0%……4.0%

The probability P of the discrepancy is 1 in 126,000.
 P = 1- normdist(0.579,0.52,.026/1.96, true)

Sanders’ exit poll share declined in the recorded vote in 18 out of 19 primaries.
The probability: P=1-binomdist(17,19,.5,true) =  0.000038 = 1 in 26,000.

Cumulative Vote Shares

NY Primary Congressional District  cumulative vote shares indicate a  trend to Clinton with increasing district size reminiscent of increasing, non-intuitive GOP vote shares in Governor and Senate elections. 

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

Inline image

 Final NY Exit Poll – forced to match the recorded vote
Gender Mix Clinton Sanders Margin
men 41% 50% 50% 0.00%
women 59% 63% 37% 26.00%
Total 57.67% 42.33% 15.34%
Age Mix Clinton Sanders Margin
18-29 18% 35% 65% -30%
30-44 24% 53% 47% 6%
45-64 39% 63% 37% 26%
65+ 19% 73% 27% 46%
Total 57.46% 42.54% 14.92%
Race Mix Clinton Sanders Margin
white 59% 50% 50% 0%
black 22% 75% 25% 50%
latino 14% 64% 36% 28%
asian 2% n/a n/a
other 3% n/a n/a
Total 54.96% 45.04% 9.92%
Party id Mix Clinton Sanders Margin
democrats 83% 62% 38% 24%
republicans 3% n/a n/a
independents 14% 28% 72% -44%
Total 55.38% 44.62% 10.76%
Ideology Mix Clinton Sanders Margin
very liberal 29% 44% 56% -12%
somewhat liberal 37% 59% 41% 18%
moderate 29% 67% 33% 34%
conservative 5% n/a n/a
Total 54.02% 45.98% 8.04%
When decided Mix Clinton Sanders Margin
last week 23% 57% 43% 14%
earlier 76% 58% 42% 16%
Total 57.19% 42.81% 14.38%
Area Mix Clinton Sanders Margin
urban 64% 62% 38% 24%
suburban 31% 51% 49% 2%
rural 6% n/a n/a
Total 55.49% 44.51% 10.98%
Region Mix clinton sanders Margin
new york city 52% 63% 37% 36%
long island 9% 58% 42% 16%
hudson valley 16% 56% 44% 12%
urban upstate 14% 50% 50% 0%
rural upstate 9% 42% 58% -16%
Total 57.72% 42.28% 15.44%

Posted by on April 20, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized


Tags: , ,

A Preliminary Probability Analysis of the Wisconsin Primary

Richard Charnin
April 6, 2016
Updated: May 29

Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts
Proving Election Fraud: Phantom Voters, Uncounted Votes and the National Exit Poll 

This is a preliminary analysis of the   Wisconsin Democratic primary exit poll and recorded vote discrepancies.

Bernie Sanders had 563,127 votes (56.5%) and Hillary Clinton 429.738 (43.1%). But the 4:24 pm exit poll indicates that Bernie  did even better. The first 1100 respondents indicated that Sanders had 68% of the white vote. The Public Policy Polling (PPP) pre-election poll  indicated that Sanders was leading black voters by 51-40%.

The final adjusted CNN Exit Poll   indicates that white voters comprised  83% of the electorate (Sanders had  59%). The probability of the 9% decline from 68% to 59% is 1 in 4000. But Census tables showed that Whites comprise 92% of the Wisconsin electorate. I split the difference and assumed 88% were whites. Blacks  comprised 10% of the vote (Sanders had 31%) .

Assuming  Sanders had  31% of the non-white vote, he won WI by  63.6-36.4%.

Why the 20% decline in Sanders 51% pre-election poll share of blacks? Why the 9% decline in Sanders 68%  exit poll share of whites? The probabilities of the discrepancies are way beyond the  margin of error.

The poll shows that 7% of voters were Latino (3%), Asian (2%), Other (2%). But the vote shares are NA.  Why are vote shares not available for 124 (7%) minority respondents?Was it because their respective turnout rates were too low? The pollsters could have combined the 7% as Other Non-whites. Apparently they used the same vote shares for the 7% as they did for blacks in matching the recorded vote.

The CNN final exit poll (1774 respondents) is shown in this spreadsheet.  Vote shares are calculated for each category.  It is standard operating procedure to force the exit poll to match the recorded vote in all categories  by adjusting  the voter turnout percentages and/or the vote shares. 

Who still believes that in Wisconsin, the recorded vote represents the true vote? 

Gender Pct Clinton Sanders Other
Men 43.0% 35.0% 64.0% 1.0%
Women 57.0% 49.0% 50.0% 1.0%
Total 100.0% 43.0% 56.0% 1.0%
Age Pct Clinton Sanders Other
18-29 19.0% 18.0% 82.0% 0.0%
30-44 24.0% 33.0% 66.0% 1.0%
45-64 39.0% 54.0% 46.0% 0.0%
65+ 18.0% 62.0% 37.0% 1.0%
Total 100.0% 43.6% 56.0% 0.4%

Assume vote shares of Latino, Asian, Other  non-white groups are equal to the Blacks

Race Pct Clinton Sanders Other
White 83.0% 40.0% 59.0% 1.0%
Black 10.0% 69.0% 31.0% 0.0%
Latino (na) 3.0% 69.0% 31.0% 0.0%
Asian (na) 2.0% 69.0% 31.0% 0.0%
Other (na) 2.0% 69.0% 31.0% 0.0%
Total 100.0% 44.9% 54.2% 0.9%

Given  a) the 7.9% discrepancy between Sanders’ 56.7% recorded 2-party vote share and his estimated 64.6% exit poll share, and b) assuming a 3.0% exit poll margin of error, there is a 95% probability  that his True share was in the range 62-68%. The probability is 97.5%  that he had at least 62%.

The probability of the 7.9% discrepancy between Sanders’ estimated 64.6% poll and 56.9% vote share is P= 1.14E-07 or 1 in 8.7 million.

The sensitivity analysis shows Sanders vote share for increments   around his base case shares of whites and non-whites.

Sanders had 61.4% in the worst case scenario, assuming he had 65% of whites and 35% of non-whites. He had 67.9% in the best case scenario, assuming he had 71% of whites and 45% of non-whites.


Base Case

Race Pct Sanders Clinton
White 88.0% 68.0% 32.0%
Non-white 12.0% 40.0% 60.0%
TOTAL 100.0% 64.6% 35.4%

The sensitivity analysis matrix shows Sanders vote shares for various increments  around his base case shares of white (68%) and non-white voters (40%). He had 64.6% in the base case.

Bernie had 55.6% in the worst case (recorded vote) scenario (59% of whites and 31% of non-whites). He had 68.8% in the best case  (72% of whites and 45% of non-whites). 

Sanders % White voters

Sanders 59.0% 64.0% 68.0% 72.0%
 % Non-white Sanders Total%
45.0% 57.3% 61.7% 65.2% 68.8%
40.0% 56.7% 61.1% 64.6% 68.2%
35.0% 56.1% 60.5% 64.0% 67.6%
31.0% 55.6% 60.0% 63.6%  (base)  67.1%



Posted by on April 6, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized


Tags: , ,

Five Democratic Primaries: Exit Poll Discrepancies and Win Probabilities

Five Democratic Primaries:  Exit Poll Discrepancies and  Win Probabilities

Richard Charnin
Updated March 20, 2016

Matrix of Deceit: Forcing Pre-election and Exit Polls to Match Fraudulent Vote Counts
Proving Election Fraud: Phantom Voters, Uncounted Votes and the National Exit Poll (E-book)

Election Fraud Overview

This is a summary exit poll analysis of the five March 15 Democratic primaries. It follows previous posts on the Massachusetts and Michigan primaries.

In the five unadjusted exit polls there were 7,220 respondents. Clinton led by 53.2-44.7%.

In the final adjusted polls polls, there were 7979 respondents (759 additional). She led the final adjusted polls (which were matched to the recorded vote) by 55.6-42.4%.

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

Inline image

Assuming a 30% cluster effect, the exit poll margin of error is:
MoE = 1.3*1.96 *sqrt [p*(1-p)/N],  where  p =2-party exit poll share, N = sample-size.

Sanders win probability is  P = NORMDIST (V, 0.5, MoE/1.96, true)
V = his 2- party exit poll share. His win probability is 80% in MO and 74% in IL.

The probability of the 10%  OH exit poll discrepancy is P= 0.00102 (1 in 976):
P = 1- NORMDIST(EP, VS, MoE/1.96,true),  where  EP=48.1% is Sanders’  2-party exit poll share and VS=43.0% his 2-party recorded vote share.

 Sanders’ exit poll share exceeded his recorded share in n= 15 of N= 16 polls.
P= 0.00026 = 1-BINOMDIST(n-1,N,0.5,true) or 1 in 3855.
There is a 99.9% probability that this anomaly was due to election fraud.

Clinton had 586 (77.2%) of the FINAL 759 respondents, or 21.9% above her unadjusted share. Sanders had 20% (24.7% below his unadjusted share).

He had 37% of Democrats, 64% of Independents, 49% of males and 38% of females. But since the adjusted polls were forced to match the recorded vote,  he must have done better in those categories.

In the 2014 elections, 41.6% of males and 43.2% of females voted. In the five Democratic primaries, 43.4% of males and 56.6% of females voted.In the 2014 elections, 82% of voters were white. In the five primaries, 63% were white.

The Chicago Board of Elections proved fraud  in an audit to check voting machines. It was not an official recount and will not change the election outcome. A CBOE employee recounting  an early voting machine corrected the tally to square with the electoral result, even though the hand-count was off by 70 votes in favor of Clinton.

Effects of Election Fraud on the Delegate count

Officially, HRC has 8,653,327 votes (58.6%), Bernie has 6,115,550 (41.4%). Applying the approximate 6.6% exit poll discrepancy (972,168 of 14,768,877 total votes), HRC has 8,167,189 votes and Bernie 6,601,688 (55.3-44.7%). Clinton leads by 306 delegates (1119-813). Applying Clinton’s adjusted 55.3% share of the current 1932 delegates, she leads by just 204 (1068-864). Super delegates are excluded. Clinton’s votes appear to have been padded in the RED states to increase her delegate count.

Primary Votes/Exit Polls


View the spreadsheet:

Exit Poll CNN Clinton Sanders Margin
NC 53.8% 41.7% 12.1%
FL 63.7% 35.9% 27.8%
IL 48.4% 50.7% -2.3%
MO 47.4% 51.1% -3.7%
OH 51.4% 47.6% 3.8%


Recorded Clinton Sanders Margin Discrepancy
NC 54.6% 40.8% 13.8% 1.7%
FL 64.5% 33.3% 31.2% 3.4%
IL 50.5% 48.7% 1.7% 4.0%
MO 49.6% 49.4% 0.2% 3.9%
OH 56.5% 42.7% 13.8% 10.0%


2-party exit poll Clinton Sanders Sampled MoE
NC 56.3% 43.7% 1744 3.03%
FL 64.0% 36.0% 1632 3.03%
IL 48.8% 51.2% 1341 3.48%
MO 48.1% 51.9% 831 4.42%
OH 51.9% 48.1% 1670 3.12%


Probability Analysis Probability of discrepancy: 1 in Probability of Discrepancy Sanders  Win Prob
NC 4 28.0% 0.0%
FL 22 4.6% 0.0%
IL 8 13.2% 74.3%
MO 4 22.5% 79.8%
OH 976 0.1% 11.4%

Discrepancies in eight of nine exit polls favored Clinton in the reported vote.  The average margin discrepancy  was 8.5%, The 4.25% vote share discrepancy is far beyond the  9-poll margin of error (approximately 2%)

Cumulative Vote Shares (based on precinct votes) is a likely indicator of fraud.

The tables below were created by Theodore de Macedo Soares (
CNN is the source of the state exit polls which were downloaded shortly after closing.
The NY Times is the source of the reported vote counts.

Inline image


Posted by on March 16, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized


Tags: ,

NH Democratic Primary: another Clinton Miracle?

Richard Charnin
Feb.9, 2016

NH Primary Win Probabilities

It was a Sanders landslide: 60.0-38.4%

In the final 6 polls Sanders led by 54.5-41.2%. He has an average 99.8% win probability. Combining the polls (2871 sample, MoE = 0.92%) Sanders has a 100% win probability.

In the 2008 NH primary, Obama led the final 7 polls by 38.3-30.0%. His win probability was virtually  100%. Clinton won by 39.0-36.4%, a 10.9% margin shift.

View the polls and probability calculations here.

Leave a comment

Posted by on February 9, 2016 in 2016 election, Uncategorized


Tags: , , , ,

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

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

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

Look inside the book:
Reclaiming Science:The JFK Conspiracy

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

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

Richard Charnin
You have made general statements but have avoided specific rebuttals of the evidence in the book. Now I will specifically rebut your very weak non-review.

Seems that you are stuck in a 1973 time warp…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Richard Charnin
Mark, even a 7th grader would see right through your ridiculous statement:
“The 0.58^51 figure is the probability of repeating the experiment (asking random witnesses) 51 times and not getting the preferred answer even once. How is this supposed to “prove” anything meaningful? We already knew that – if you ask a lot of people – odds are you’ll eventually get the answer you’re looking for.”

Mark, it’s a survey, you charlatan. No one was looking for an answer. The percentage of Warren Commission witnesses who claimed the shots came from the Grassy Knoll was 42%. That is not MY number. It was not the number ANYONE was looking for. It’s just the percentage of Warren Commission witnesses who were in Dealey Plaza and said that shots came from the Grassy Knoll.
You are truly clueless and just making a royal fool of yourself.


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





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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You completely misstate my conclusions. I have stated that the vast majority of witnesses (93) said that shots were fired from the front. I did not say that there were no shots from the back. Obviously there were 45 witnesses who said so. The odds are 100%. There is no conflict. You cannot even read. You continue to expose your ignorance. And yes, more than three shots were fired. The acoustics picked up 6, but only 4 were noted in the HSCA report. I will let you in on a secret: rifles have silencers.
Troll #3: Norman Logsdon “movie lover” (Bedford , Tx USA)
This book is bogus from the on-set. Lee Oswald was not on the street watching the motorcade. The man misidentified as Oswald is Billy Lovejoy and various people have identified him. I don’t need to read anymore to know this book is worthless. Don’t waste your money.

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

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

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

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

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

Read the testimony of the witnesses on my blog:

Then you will WANT to buy the book.

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

Richard Charnin
As expected from the cadre of Lone Nutters, a quick worn-out one-liner: GIGO

Ok, Badger, point out just what in the book is Garbage in.
And prove that the data and math are incorrect.
If you cannot do so – and you surely cannot, it will prove that your review was pure garbage.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Troll #7: Steve Roe 

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

Richard Charnin

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


Positive comments from other reviewers

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Kilgallen, as Charnin notes (p. 120):

“was the only reporter granted an exclusive interview with Ruby in jail. She openly attacked the cover-up in her New York Journal-American columns on 2/2/64 and 9/3/65.”

Most notably (ibid.):

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

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

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

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

As Charnin points out (p. 25):

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

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

Charnin also correctly observes (ibid.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

J. Maringelli
Charlie, Well said sir

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

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

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

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

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

Leave a comment

Posted by on January 1, 2015 in JFK


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

Nate Silver and Election Fraud

Richard Charnin
Nov. 17, 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

Once again, Nate Silver misdirects his readers in reviewing the 2014 elections. He claims that the polls were biased to the Democrats. He never considers that the polls were close to the true vote but that the vote counts were rigged.

Nate Silver never discusses Election Fraud, even though it has been proven systemic. I pointed this a few years ago in a reply to his post on why we should not believe exit polls. His knowledge of exit polls was (and apparently still is) non-existent.

As usual Nate cites polling “bias”. But not a word about the fact that early pre-election polls include all registered voters (RVs). As we move toward Election Day, the polls are transformed to the subset of Likely Voters (LVs) – with the effect of reducing projected Democratic turnout and vote share.

The true bias is that pollsters skew the projections in order to match the expected fraudulent recorded vote. Nate Silver never considers that the RV polls are usually close to the truth – but that the LV polls are biased against the Democrats. So it’s just the opposite from Nate’s view. He believes the official vote counts are accurate, but researchers who analyze the historical record see a consistent 4-5% “red shift” to the GOP. It is absolute proof that the recorded vote counts are fraudulent and biased for the Republicans.

Nate never discusses the fact that exit polls are always forced to match the bogus recorded vote. The pollsters admit that it is standard operating procedure. Their rationale is that the polls must always be wrong since they deviate so greatly from the recorded vote. Of course we never get to see the unadjusted exit polls until years later, if then. The 1988-2008 unadjusted presidential state and national exit polls showed that the Democrats won by an average of 52-42%. But the recorded vote had them winning by just 48-46%
I just posted the True Vote model for the Wisconsin and Florida governor races. Both races were stolen in 2014- just like they were in 2010 and the 2012 Walker recall. .

In the 2010 Florida Governor election, the unadjusted exit poll and the True Vote Model indicated that Sink won by 5%, yet Scott won the recorded vote by 1%. In 2014, Scott won again. The 2-party vote shares were identical! Scott had 50.59% in 2010 and 50.58% in 2014! A coincidence? Hardly.The Florida 2014 Exit Poll indicates a 31-35-33 Dem-Rep-Ind split (over-weighted for Republicans) with 91% of Dems voting for Crist, 88% of Repubs voting for Scott. Crist won Independents by 46-44%. When we change the split to a more plausible 34-33-33, Crist is the winner by 49.4-45.6%.

In the 2014 Wisconsin Governor election, a True Vote analysis indicates that Walker stole the election, just like the recall in 2012. View the True Vote analysis:

The easiest way to understand that our elections are fraudulent is to look at the 2004 presidential election. According to the adjusted 2004 National Exit Poll (as posted on major media sites), there were 52.6 million returning Bush 2000 voters (43% of the 2004 electorate) and 37% returning Gore voters. Recall that Gore won the popular vote by 540,000. Gore won the unadjusted exit polls by 50-45% (he actually won the True Vote by 3-5 million).

But Bush had only 50.5 million recorded votes in 2000. Approximately 2 million died and one million did not return. Therefore, there were at least 5 million (52.6-47.5) phantom Bush voters. The exit pollsters had to adjust the unadjusted, pristine National Exit poll which showed Kerry a 52-47% winner to make Bush a 51-48% winner. Bush needed an impossible 110% turnout of living Bush 2000 voters to match the recorded vote.

And finally, here is the ultimate proof of systemic election fraud. In the 274 state presidential unadjusted exit polls from 1988-2008, the Democrats won the polls by 52-42%, exactly matching my True Vote Model. But they won the recorded vote by just 48-46%. Of the 274 exit polls 135 exceeded the margin of error, 131 in favor of the Republican. The probability P of that discrepancy is E-116 or
P= 0.0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 000001.

1988-2008 Unadjusted State and National Exit Poll Database

Take anything from Nate Silver with a BIG GRAIN OF SALT. He never mentions PROVEN ELECTION FRAUD . And don’t forget that he had the gall to rank famous pollster Zogby dead last in his evaluation of pollsters a number of years back while ranking dedicated GOP pollsters at the top.

I have written several open-letter posts for Nate. He has not responded to any.

1. An Open Letter to Nate Silver
2. An Open Letter to Nate Silver (Part 2)
3.Twenty-five Questions for Nate Silver
4.A Reply to Nate Silver’s “Ten Reasons Why You Should Ignore Exit Polls”
5. Zogby vs. Silver: 1996-2008 True vs. Recorded Vote Pollster Rankings

The bottom line: Nate works for the major corporate media which is not interested in divulging why pre-election and exit pollsters adjust the polls to match fraudulent vote counts. They will never plead guilty.

This is a summary of my track record in forecasting the 1988-2012 presidential elections, unadjusted exit polls and True Vote Models.

Leave a comment

Posted by on November 17, 2014 in Election Myths, Media, Rebuttals


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

Richard Charnin's Blog

JFK Conspiracy and Systemic Election Fraud Analysis