Responding to Warren Commission apologist “reviews” of “Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy”
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.
NO ONE HAS REFUTED THE DATA OR MATHEMATICAL PROOF OF CONSPIRACY – AND YOU ARE NOT ABOUT TO TRY. SINCE YOU ARE MATHEMATICALLY INCOMPETENT AND CANNOT PEER-REVIEW THE ANALYSIS, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO THRASH IT. IF YOU WERE CREDIBLE, YOU WOULD LET A PROFESSIONAL PEER-REVIEW. BUT YOU ARE FANTASTICALLY INCREDIBLE. YOU ARE A SHILL WHO HAS BEEN EXPOSED.
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. http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/12th_Issue/51_wits.html
Given P = 0.42 is probability of a witness being correct in stating that shots came from the Knoll, then the probability PM = 0.58 = 1-.42 that the witness was mistaken. The joint probability PA that ALL 51 witnesses were mistaken and there was NOT a Grassy Knoll shooter is 0.58 to the 51st power.
PA = 0.58^51 = 8.6E-13 = 0.000000000000861 or of 1 in 1,161,909,568,739 or 1 in 1.16 trillion.
=== Quote End ===
It’s certainly not a “given” that P is [the] probability of a particular answer being “correct.” The 0.42 figure is nothing more than the probability of a random witness giving the author the answer he’s looking for.
The 0.58^51 figure is the probability of repeating the experiment (asking random witnesses) 51 times and not getting the preferred answer even once. How is this supposed to “prove” anything meaningful? We already knew that – if you ask a lot of people – odds are you’ll eventually get the answer you’re looking for.
Richard Charnin: Mark, even a 7th grader would see right through your ridiculous statement: survey, you charlatan. No one was looking for an answer. The percentage of Warren Commission witnesses who claimed the shots came from the Grassy Knoll was 42%. That is not MY number. It was not the number ANYONE was looking for. It’s just the percentage of Warren Commission witnesses who were in Dealey Plaza and said that shots came from the Grassy Knoll. Mark, you are truly clueless and just making a royal fool of yourself.
DO YOU QUESTION THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE WARREN COMMISSION WITNESSES. DID THEY LIE? DID YOU INTERVIEW THEM? DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT THE 51 WHO SAID GRASSY KNOLL WERE ALL WRONG? WHAT PROBABILITY WOULD YOU PUT ON THAT, SMART GUY? WHAT IS YOUR BEST CASE ESTIMATE? HOW WOULD YOU GO ABOUT DOING THE CALCULATION?
It is reasonable to assume that 42% is the probability as a start (51 of 121 Warren Commission witnesses). What percentage would you use?
The Dealey Plaza witnesses were INDEPENDENT. DO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS? THEY STATED THEIR OBSERVATIONS UNDER OATH AT THE WARREN COMMISSION. THEY DID NOT COLLABORATE AND COME TO AN AGREEMENT ON WHAT TO SAY.
I WAS NOT IN DEALEY PLAZA. NEITHER WERE YOU. YOU READ THE ARTICLE I CITED AND STILL DON’T GET IT. FOR ME TO HAVE TO POINT THIS OUT TO YOU JUST SHOWS THAT YOU KNOW ZILCH ABOUT SURVEYS, LOGIC, PROBABILITY. BUT EVEN WORSE, YOU DO NOT USE COMMON SENSE.
AGAIN, WHAT WOULD BE YOUR BEST ESTIMATE THAT A GIVEN WITNESS WOULD BE MISTAKEN, GIVEN THAT 42% SAID SHOTS CAME FROM THE GRASSY KNOLL? COME ON, MARK, STEP UP, TAKE A STAND.
BUT THANKS FOR YOUR NONSENSICAL “REVIEW”. THIS WAY, READERS CAN SEE JUST WHAT WE ARE UP AGAINST IN THIS NATION: IGNORANCE, MATH PHOBIA AND WORSE.
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
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.
In Mr. Charnin’s learned opinion, random people caught off guard are inherently better at guessing the location of unseen shooter(s) than professional weathermen at guessing tomorrow’s weather. In reality, however, the main difference between polling assassination ear-witnesses and weathermen is that the accuracy of weather predictions is easier to evaluate.
I’d like to congratulate him, however, on having scientifically “proved” all of the statements below.
a) Shots were fired from the front and not from the back
b) Shots were fired from the back and not from the front
c) A total of no more than three shots were fired
“By ‘proving’ everything, he proved nothing,” would be a fitting epitaph on his tombstone.
Richard Charnin: Mark Ulrik, you fail once again. Your epitaph will read: “By not being able to think logically, it was logically determined that he was just another shill.”
You completely misstate my conclusions. I have stated that the vast majority of witnesses (93) said that shots were fired from the front. I did not say that there were no shots from the back. Obviously there were 45 witnesses who said so. There is no conflict. You cannot even read. You continue to expose your ignorance. And yes, more than three shots were fired. The acoustics picked up 6, but only 4 were noted in the HSCA report. I will let you in on a secret: rifles have silencers.
Troll #3: Norman Logsdon “movie lover” (Bedford , Tx USA)
This book is bogus from the on-set. Lee Oswald was not on the street watching the motorcade. The man misidentified as Oswald is Billy Lovejoy and various people have identified him. I don’t need to read anymore to know this book is worthless. Don’t waste your money.
Richard Charnin: Can you read? Where do you think Oswald was when JFK was shot? I bet you believe the Warren Commission. Tell us. Also, I did not say he was on the street. I said he was standing in the Doorway on the first floor entrance to the TSBD. This is confirmed when you look at detailed witness testimonies of others who were standing there – although none say Oswald was there since the WC would not allow the testimony or they were otherwise intimidated. Now read their testimonies and try and refute them. You can’t. Lovelady was in front – on the steps. Oswald was at the Doorway entrance – the top level (first floor). So are you just another Lone nutter who believes the Warren Commission fairy tale? Yes or No?
Oswald told Dallas Police Captain Will Fritz that he was out with Bill Shelley in front of the TSBD. The Fritz notes were not mentioned by the Warren Commission and were hidden from the public until 1997. Ask yourself why.
If Oswald was lying to Fritz, what was his motive? After all, he already had an alibi: he was seen on the second floor 90 seconds after the shooting by TSBD manager Roy Truly and policeman Marrion Baker. He was holding a coke and not out of breath. If Oswald was not on the 6th floor, why would he not be out front watching the motorcade? And how would he know Bill Shelley was out in front unless he saw him there? https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/04/05/10137/
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: https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/08/07/10851/
Then you will WANT to buy the book.
Troll #4: Wisconsin Badger
The author seems to to understand the concept of “garbage in, garbage out”. This is a Psuedo-scientific account. Not worth the time or money.
Richard Charnin: As expected from the cadre of Lone Nutters, a quick worn-out one-liner: GIGO. Ok, Badger, point out just what in the book is Garbage in.
And prove that the data and math are incorrect. BE SPECIFIC. CITE THE PAGE NUMBER AND THE DATA. If you cannot do so – and you surely cannot, it will prove that your review was pure garbage.
Oh, and answer this question while you are at it.
Do you believe the Single Bullet Theory?
If you say YES or refuse to answer, that will totally close the book on your “review”.
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.
SIENZANT IGNORES 120 OF 122 JFK-RELATED WITNESSES.
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: http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKbenavides.htm
“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: https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/08/14/the-jfk-assassination-quiz/ https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/09/20/the-jfk-witness-death-quiz/
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
Richard Charnin: It was inevitable that one of the most notorious Facebook disinformationists would come along and continue to make a fool of himself in full public view as he descends into the pathetic pit of his peers. Note that he did not buy the book and fails to refute any of the facts in it. This charlatan still defends the Warren Commission and the Single Bullet theory. He links to Judyth Baker’s website, calling it my fan base. He insults not only Judyth, who has written the best sellers, “Me and Lee” and “David Ferrie”, but all unbiased, rational reviewers who gave the book 4-5 stars. He claims that I have a serious lack of research and knowledge of the assassination? The troll has a serious lack of integrity and shame.
Positive comments from other reviewers
Philip Stahl (Mathematical Physicist
Richard Charnin’s book Reclaiming Science- The JFK Conspiracy, features an apt title because it entails reclaiming the legitimate content that has hitherto been obfuscated and distorted under the specious science (or what I call pseudo-science) of the Warren Commission Report as well as the apologists like Gerald Posner (‘Case Closed’) and Vince Bugliosi (‘Reclaiming History’). Effectively, Charnin’s book is the perfect antidote to the specious science circulated by a complicit media (Google ‘Operation Mockingbird’ for more information)
Granted, it likely won’t be on any NY Times best sellers’ lists but I found it to be one of the best new books on the JFK assassination to emerge in the past 25 years. Charnin, a former consultant and quantitative programmer for investment banks, has written a mathematical masterpiece which uses Poisson analysis to show a significant number of witness deaths in the wake of the JFK assassination were indeed unnatural
This is important given how the matter of JFK witness deaths represents what many serious researchers regard as one component of the ongoing cover up. It is also important because the issue is rife with disinformation and misinformation from know-nothings.
These are people who believe they’re entitled to just recklessly babble about the assassination from a position of woeful ignorance, like Marilyn Elias. Elias tried to refute witness deaths such as that of Dorothy Kilgallen- in her piece ‘Conspiracy Act’ , in The Southern Poverty Law Center Intelligence Report (Winter, 2013, p. 15). Elias also, in some of the worst yellow journalism, tried to tar the whole witness murders theme by castigating Richard Belzer for being a nasty, anti-government sort because he appeared on a radio program with Alex Jones to promote his new book, ‘Hit List: An In-Depth Investigation Into the Mysterious Deaths of Witnesses to the JFK Assassination’ .
I have read Belzer’s book, along with Charnin’s, and believe it to be one of the most important for newcomers and also more experienced researchers (who’ve done at least 10 yrs. work) to get a handle on the matter of the witness deaths, and why they are not coincidental. Elias, for her part, shows her incompetence by her reliance on hack Gerald Posner who has already been exposed for his irresponsible work (Google “Posnerisms” for specifics)
Re: Kilgallen, as Charnin notes (p. 120): “was the only reporter granted an exclusive interview with Ruby in jail. She openly attacked the cover-up in her New York Journal-American columns on 2/2/64 and 9/3/65.”
Most notably (ibid.): “She reported a meeting between Ruby, Tippit and a Texas oilman, and revealed that Oswald was in too many places at one time, had links to U.S. intelligence and his true story was known to just a few government agents.”
This alone would have put Kilgallen on the architects’ radar, for likely elimination, because of: a) her prominence as a journalist, and b) exposing aspects of the plot the architects (especially LBJ who had many links to Texas oilmen, including H.L. Hunt) didn’t want exposed. Two key aspects were the Oswald double – which I examined before and cited James Douglass sterling work exposing it in his ‘JFK and the Unspeakable’, and the actual intelligence background of Oswald – which destroys the lone nut madman myth that LBJ and Hoover wanted to plant in their illegitimate ‘child’ – the Warren Report.
Thus, one sees there would have been ample reason to eliminate Kilgallen, as much or more as the reasons to eliminate David Ferrie (when the Garrison investigation started) and William Bruce Pitzer, the lab specialist at Bethesda who vowed to expose the actual autopsy photos and chicanery.
But this is where Charnin’s probability analyses (e.g. in Chapters 3, 4) really comes to the fore – in separating the suspicious witness deaths from the natural ones. And note, imho, this could only have been done using a Poisson -type analysis. Much of this harkens back to statistics shown at the end of the excellent movie, Executive Action (1973) which I strongly recommend to any interested person. Those stats cited an actuary’s finding reported in the London Sunday Times which calculated the odds of 18 material witness deaths within three years of the assassination at 100.000 trillion to 1. In other words, 100,000 trillion to 1 against being coincidence!
As Charnin points out (p. 25):
“The HSCA statistician dismissed the odds as being invalid, claiming the universe of witnesses was unknowable.”
But, of course, this is nonsense since as Charnin later notes 1400 material witnesses are listed in ‘Who’s Who in the JFK Assassination’.
Charnin also correctly observes (ibid.)
“The (London) actuary’s probability was actually very conservative. At least 42 JFK-related witnesses died unnaturally in the three years following the assassination. Using the 0.000220 weighted JFK -witness mortality rate the probability is E-53 (1/ Trillion ^4). ”
For those more accustomed to standard (scientific) notation this would be: 10^ -53 or, alternatively, 1 in 10^53 odds.
Linked to the issue of witness deaths is how they could have been accomplished with so many seeming objective observers being none the wiser. This Charnin takes up in Chapter 6 on ‘Motives and Techniques’. We learn, for example, of “a special type of poison that induces a heart attack and leaves no trace unless an autopsy is conducted.” This was surely the type used to eliminate David Ferrie before he could testify before Jim Garrison’s investigation. I lived in New Orleans at the time, in Feb. 1967 (attending Loyola University) and no one of my acquaintance bought that Ferrie just killed himself. It didn’t add up.
Charnin’s other chapters are equally compelling including to do with the Warren Commission itself (p. 17), Dealey Plaza (p. 55), Acoustics (69), the Zapruder Film ( 79) , Wounds (83), the Patsy (87), Disinformation (105) and his JFK Calc Spreadsheet (p. 135). The latter has now been enhanced to include Dealey Plaza witnesses’ reference to the origin of the shots.
There are also 38 pages comprising nine appendices- ending with a quiz on the assassination. (Something every would – be bloviator or opinion provider needs to take – to prove he is worthy of making comments!)
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.
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.
I think you’re projecting with the title of your review, Mike.
Charlie, Well said sir
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.
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.