Billy Lovelady and Buell Frazier both testified that Lovelady was standing on the STEPS at the Texas School Book Depository. But Doorman (Oswald) was standing on the TOP level. Therefore Lovelady could not be Doorman. Q.E.D.
WARREN COMMISSION
Mr. LOVELADY – That’s on the second floor; so, I started going to the domino room where I generally went in to set down and eat and nobody was there and I happened to look on the outside and Mr. Shelley was standing outside with Miss Sarah Stanton, I believe her name is, and I said, “Well, I’ll go out there and talk with them, sit down and eat my lunch out there, set on the STEPS, so I went out there”.
Mr. BALL – You ate your lunch on the STEPS? (Ball is perplexed)
Mr. LOVELADY – YES, SIR.
Mr. BALL – Who was with you?
Mr. LOVELADY – Bill Shelley and Sarah Stanton, and right BEHIND ME me… (did Ball cut him off?)
Mr. BALL – What was that last name?
Mr. LOVELADY – Stanton.
Mr. BALL – What is the first name?
Mr. LOVELADY – Bill Shelley.
Mr. BALL – And Stanton’s first name?
Mr. LOVELADY – Miss Sarah Stanton.
Mr. BALL – Did you stay on the STEPS? (was Ball trying to get Lovelady to say he was on the TOP level?)
Mr. LOVELADY – Yes. (BNL said he stayed on the STEPS)
Mr. BALL – Were you there when the President’s motorcade went by?
Mr. LOVELADY – Right. (Once again, Lovelady does not change his location – he stayed on the STEPS).
Mr. BALL – We have got a picture taken the day of the parade and it shows the President’s car going by. Now, take a look at that picture. Can you see your picture any place there?
Mr. FRAZIER – No, sir; I don’t, because I was back up in this more or less black area here.
Mr. BALL – I see.
Mr. FRAZIER – Because Billy, like I say, is TWO or THREE STEPS down in FRONT of me. (why would he say this if it were not true?)
Mr. BALL – Do you recognize this fellow?
Mr. FRAZIER – That is Billy, that is Billy Lovelady.
Mr. BALL – Billy? (Ball must be concerned with Frazier’s answer. He does not want him to say Lovelady is on the STEPS, so he uses guile to twist the testimony).
Mr. FRAZIER – Right
Mr. BALL – Let’s take a marker and make an arrow down that way. That mark is Billy Lovelady?
Mr. FRAZIER – Right.
Mr. BALL – That is where you told us you were standing a moment ago.
Mr. FRAZIER – Right.
Mr. BALL – In FRONT of you to the right over to the wall?
Mr. FRAZIER – Yes. (Frazier once again says that Lovelady was standing BELOW him on the STEPS, but then UNWITTINGLY CONTRADICTS himself by pointing to Doorman who was on the TOP Level).
Mr. BALL – Is this a Commission exhibit?
We will make this a Commission Exhibit No. 369.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 369 for identification.)
FRAZIER AT THE CLAY SHAW/GARRISON TRIAL 2/13/69: http://www.jfk-online.com/fraziershaw.html
MR. ALCOCK: Can you see the spot where you were situated when the presidential motorcade came by?
FRAZIER: Yes,sir, I can.
MR. ALCOCK: Will you take this symbol and place it at that location where you were standing?
MR. ALCOCK: Mr.Frazier, do you recall who you were with during the presidential motorcade?
FRAZIER: Yes, sir, I can. When I was standing there at the TOP of the stairs, I was standing there by a heavyset lady who worked up in our office, her name is Sara, I forget her last name, but she was standing right there BESIDE me when we watched the motorcade.
MR. ALCOCK: Do you recall anyone else who may have been with you?
FRAZIER: Right down in FRONT of me at the BOTTOM OF THE STEPS my foreman Bill Shelley and BILLY LOVELADY were standing there.
1986 OSWALD MOCK TRIAL
GERRY SPENCE: “You recall that 23 years later that BNL was standing in FRONT of you. About 4 STEPS in FRONT of you. Is that correct?”
FRAZIER: Yes it is.. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/08/07/10851/
Online trolls who try to discredit my election fraud analysis say that I am a JFK Conspiracy nut. I must be doing something right. For those who are interested, this is a quick JFK conspiracy course.
It takes just ONE of the following to prove that the Warren Commission was a Hoax and Oswald was framed….
One witness killed to prevent him or her from talking.
One witness killed to keep others from talking.
One bullet more than the three the WC claimed were fired.
One brain of JFK to be missing.
One eyewitness who definitely heard shots from the Grassy Knoll.
One eyewitness who definitely saw a shooter at the Grassy Knoll.
One person to order that Dallas police stand-down.
One person with fake Secret Service credentials at the Grassy Knoll.
One journalist to lie about JFK’s head movement.
One government agency to withhold evidence from investigators.
One person with the power to control the investigation.
One photo of Oswald in front of the TSBD at 12:30 to be tampered with.
One Zapruder frame to be switched or deleted to hide the limo full stop.
One conspirator on his death bed (EH Hunt) to claim Johnson was responsible for the “Big Event”.
One Parkland doctor describing entrance wounds in the neck and 5.5 inches below the collar in the back.
One of 44 Parkland and autopsy witnesses describing a massive exit wound in the back of the skull.
One fingerprint of LBJ hit man Mac Wallace on the TSBD 6th fl.
One cop (Roger Craig) to identify a 7.65 Mauser on the 6th fl.
One cop (Baker) seeing Oswald on the 2nd floor with a coke just 90 seconds after the shots were fired.
One Oswald note to the Dallas FBI (Hosty) destroyed because it may have revealed a plot to kill JFK.
One set of Dr. Humes original autopsy notes description of JFK’s wounds.
One autopsy photo tampered with to hide JFK’s exit wound.
One meeting on Nov. 21 in Dallas attended by Hoover, Johnson, Hunt, Murchison, Nixon, etc.
One photo of Poppy Bush standing in front of the TSBD.
One photo of Gen. Landsdale walking near the three tramps.
One witness (Carolyn Arnold) claiming Oswald was on the first floor of the TSBD at 12:25pm.
One WC member (Ford) to admit he raised the location of JFK’s back wound 5.5 inches.
One HSCA chairman (Sprague) fired for wanting to subpoena the CIA.
One HSCA chairman (Blakey) to admit a CIA cover up years later.
One WC lawyer (Specter) forced to create the physically impossible Single Bullet Theory.
One paraffin test to show that Oswald did not fire a rifle on Nov. 22.
One mob-connected friend (Ruby) of the Dallas police to silence Oswald.
One Dallas police chief (Fritz) to fail to record Oswald’s interrogation.
One Sheriff (Craig) to hear that Tippit was shot at 1:06pm on the radio.
One tampered photo of Oswald’s face superimposed on another body.
One Johnson mistress to claim LBJ said JFK would be taken care of.
One retired Police chief to say: “We don’t have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody’s yet been able to put him in that building with a gun in his hand”.
One eyewitness (Sylvia Odio) to testify that she and her sister identified Oswald as one of three men who came to her Dallas home on Sept. 25 .
One JFK limo with a bullet entry hole in the windshield.
One Oswald girl friend (Judyth Baker) hired by leading cancer expert Dr. Alton Ochsner to document working with Oswald (“Me and Lee”) and David Ferrie (“David Ferrie”) in New Orleans on a secret project to kill Castro.
Regarding Oswald in the Doorway, a poster wrote: “This was put to bed in 1978 and is irrelevant except to make conspiracy people look foolish”.
Another poster commented: Lovelady was Doorman because “it looks like him”. I asked him to prove it but he kept repeating “it looks like him”. I showed him links to my posts which provide powerful evidence that Oswald was Doorman. It was like debating a wall, but it is instructive to see how disinformationists and trolls operate. Show them proof and they just ignore it – and keep repeating their nonsensical one-liners. View the thread here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/864733820211085/permalink/1105414642809667/
This was my reply to the first poster.
It was also decided by the HSCA in 1978 that the Mafia did it, and that the CIA and FBI were not involved, and that Oswald was a shooter in the TSBD, and that it was just a coincidence that the other shooter was independent of Oswald, and there was no definable witness universe and therefore it was impossible to calculate witness death probabilities, and that the London Times actuary was wrong and that…
the Oswald backyard photos were not fakes, and Oswald shot Tippit and shot at Walker, and that Oswald was a lone nut, not a CIA asset or FBI informer, and that Hoover, LBJ and the Warren Commission were honest in their search for the truth, and that the Zapruder film was not altered, and the magic bullet theory was credible, and that Clay Shaw was not CIA, and that just 4 bullets were fired based on acoustics and that…
THE MAJORITY OF DEALEY PLAZA WITNESSES STATED THAT THE SHOTS CAME FROM THE TSBD, and that the CIA did not have to respond to a subpoena from HSCA investigator Richard Sprague, and that’s why they hired Blakey who would not investigate the CIA and who stated that the mob did it, and that there was no coverup, and that the photos of JFK head wounds were not altered and that…THE WC SINGLE BULLET THEORY MADE SENSE…and that OSWALD WAS NOT IN THE DOORWAY…
(A) OSWALD DEFENDERS SAY HE DID NOT WANT TO VIEW THE MOTORCADE AND WAS SEEN IN THE 2ND FLOOR LUNCHROOM CALMLY HOLDING A COKE 75 SECONDS AFTER THE SHOOTING … WHILE (B) LONE NUTTERS BELIEVE THE WC CLAIM THAT HE RAN DOWN TO THE LUNCHROOM FROM THE 6TH FLOOR IN 75 SECONDS..
AND YES, THIS WAS ALL DECIDED IN 1978, SO IT MUST ALL BE TRUE…
According to the poster’s logic, anyone who does not believe the above must be a CT and looks foolish. Such twisted logic from one who is not a Lone Nutter. Lone Nutters believe the impossible SBT and that Oswald was on the 6th floor shooting JFK and cannot be Doorman, and that he outdid Superman by hiding the rifle and ran down four flights to the lunchroom in a little over a minute, and that he was not seen by Victoria Adams (the girl on the stairs).
Strangely, posters who are not Lone Nutters also believe that Oswald was confronted by Roy Truly and Officer Baker drinking a coke on the 2nd floor – and he was not out of breath. But Baker and Truly did not mention seeing Oswald in their original testimony in which they reported seeing someone on the third or fourth floor who did not resemble Oswald. That was easy.
3. The three tramps were not Harrelson, Holt and Rogers.
But they were identified by Lois Gibson, who works for the Houston Police Department and is probably the most respected forensic artist and facial expert in the world. She has just been awarded with a notation in the Guinness Book of World Records for the highest crime solving rate based on composite sketches. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFkA9-xksdk.
6. The Weigman photo proves that Lovelady was standing at the Doorway.
But it does not show Lovelady at 12:30. The Altgens 6 photo was taken at the precise second that JFK was shot. It shows Lovelady standing on the steps. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2014/08/07/10851/
10. The HSCA determined that the London Times actuary’s 1 in 100,000 trillion probability that 18 material witnesses would die (13 unnaturally) within three years of the assassination was invalid. The HSCA claimed the witness universe was “unknowable”.
But the HSCA did not consider a) unnatural deaths, b) 552 Warren Commission witnesses, of whom at least 30 died suspiciously, c) 7 FBI officials were due to testify at HSCA and died suspiciously within a 6 month period, d) and at least 100 others. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/07/01/jfk-mysterious-witness-deaths-london-sunday-times-and-hsca-cover-up/
15. Fingerprint expert Nathan Darby was proven wrong after claiming that fingerprints taken from the 6th floor of the TSBD were those of hitman Mac Wallace.
But “Wallace’s police ‘ten-print’ from his 1951 arrest, used in Mr. Darby’s comparison, was taken 12 years before the murder of JFK and even Mr Darby himself observed differences in the two prints that had arisen during the intervening time (e.g., he recorded what appeared to be an injury to the skin that was not present in the 1951 print but disrupted the 1963 print). He still felt confident enough to swear an affidavit stating that he had found 14 matching points, the threshold for admissibility in Texan courts. By all accounts, he later revisited the prints out of personal interest and found a 32-point match”. http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/free/lobster68/lob68-mac-wallace.pdf
16. Oswald’s palm prints were found on the Carcano http://michaelgriffith1.tripod.com/faulty.htm
But Dallas police officials said during public interviews that Oswald’s prints had NOT been found on the weapon. When the FBI’s Latona examined the Carcano on November 23, he did not find Oswald’s prints on the weapon. Moreover, Latona said the rifle’s barrel did NOT look as though it had even been processed for prints. There is evidence that suggests the palm print was obtained from Oswald’s dead body at the morgue, or later at the funeral home So suspicious was the palm print that even the WC privately had doubts about the manner in which it was obtained (Garrison 113; Marrs 445; cf. Lane 153-158)
17. Oswald purchased the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle by mail-order under the alias “Alek Hidell”.
But this video proves that Oswald never ordered the rifle.
Why would he order a sub-par rifle from Klein’s Sporting Goods in Chicago using an alias when he could have purchased a superior rifle anonymously anywhere in Texas?
http://michaelgriffith1.tripod.com/faulty.htm
– Oswald was at work when he is said to have purchased the money order. So who bought the money order? If Oswald didn’t buy it, why does the handwriting seem to be his? There are forgers who can copy a person’s handwriting so well that it is difficult if not impossible to detect the fakery. The original order form and envelope were destroyed, so the FBI had to rely on microfilm copies of this evidence.
– Nobody at Oswald’s post office reported giving him a hefty package such as the kind in which a rifle would be shipped. None of the postal workers reported ever giving Oswald ANY kind of a package. Oddly, the FBI apparently made no effort to establish that Oswald picked up the rifle from the post office, or that he had ever received a package of any kind there.
– Postal regulations required that only those persons named on the post office box registration form could receive items of mail from the box, yet there is no evidence that Oswald listed the name of Hidell on the form (Smith 290-291). In a report dated 3 June 1964, the FBI stated, “Our investigation has revealed that Oswald did NOT indicate on his application that others, including an ‘A. Hidell,’ would receive mail through the box in question”.
– There is a discrepancy in size between the weapon ordered by “A. Hidell” and the rifle that Oswald allegedly left behind on the sixth floor of the TSBD. “A. Hidell” ordered item C20-T750 from an advertisement placed by Klein’s Sporting Goods in the February 1963 issue of AMERICAN RIFLEMAN. The rifle that was listed as item C20-T750 is 36 inches long. The Mannlicher-Carcano that Oswald supposedly abandoned on the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building is 40.2 inches long.
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.
“One need not start with the belief that witnesses are reliable at all. Provided there are several independent witnesses, determining a witness’ reliability is simply a matter of seeing how their recollections fit with the rest of the evidence. Subjective techniques for assessing witness accuracy and trustworthiness are fraught with uncertainty.
It is very important to distinguish between the fallibility of a single witness and that of a group of witnesses who independently report observing the same fact. If the witnesses are independent, they will either independently agree on a fact because they observed it or they will be independently mistaken. Where there is more than one way to be mistaken, independent errors will be distributed over the range of all incorrect possibilities.
Dishonesty is an inherently random factor unless there is collusion between witnesses.The testimony of the independently mistaken or dishonest witnesses will necessarily fail to converge on a common explanation. Conversely, the convergence of consistent witness evidence on a particular detail can have only one of two rational explanations: either they all shared a common observation or they are not independent.
This use of corroboration as a technique for assessing reliability does not require subjective assessment of the witness’ demeanour or appearance of trustworthiness. It is not the witness recollection per se that is important. It is the fact that the same witness recollection is produced by multiple independent sources that is key. Juries intuitively understand this and, generally, do not need to have the probabilities quantified. They apply common sense to conclude how unlikely it is that multiple witnesses will independently have with the same recollection of something that they did not actually observe. The mathematics of probability supports our common sense.”
Mark, where is your COMMON SENSE? You have posted this garbage before on my blog, and you have been soundly refuted. Now you come back for more with an agenda to discourage readers from buying my book. I’ve got news for you. It won’t work. Rational viewers, unlike you, are suckers for the truth.
Now Mark, I will destroy your bogus “argument”. Heck, you don’t even understand the problem. Even if there was just a 0.10 probability of a witness being correct, the probability is P = 0.9^51= .004 that ALL 51 witnesses would be mistaken. In fact, since 93 witnesses (WC and others) actually stated that shots came from the Grassy Knoll, the probability would be P= 0.9^93= 0.00005 or 1 in 18,000!
There goes your premise, blown to smithereens. Mark, you just flunked math. Actually 93 said Grassy Knoll and 45 TSBD, so the odds are much lower that ALL 93 would be wrong! ONE in TRILLIONS. Get it now?
Mark, you never learn from your mistakes, do you? You just Keep repeating the same old garbage, revealing yourself as just another Lone Nutter with an agenda to discredit my work. But I give you credit for at least trying to refute the math when you know nothing. That takes balls. Unfortunately, your lack of mathematical training is exposed along with your agenda. Just what are your math credentials, anyway?
.
In reply to your post on Nov 30, 2014 8:22:47 AM PST Mark Ulrik Ah, there is nothing like soft spoken academics and their guarded language 🙂
Allow me an analogy. Let’s say I walked into a weatherman’s convention and asked 100 weathermen about tomorrow’s weather. 42 tell me they think it’s going to rain. Does this absolutely prove that it’s going to rain tomorrow? According to Mr. Charnin, it does, because how can those 42 weathermen ALL be wrong? I’m not kidding; this is PRECISELY his argument! Note that the same logic can be used to “prove” the opposite (because how can the 58 that don’t predict rain ALL be wrong?). The contradiction should be obvious to most 7th graders, perhaps even to Charnin.
Charnin will try to claim that the Dealey Plaza witnesses were better equipped to estimate the source(s) of the gunshots than weathermen to predict tomorrow’s weather, but that won’t salvage his argument by a long shot (sorry). If witness impressions really were so accurate, then why would virtually all of them be wrong? The witnesses who thought the shots came from the knoll (area) didn’t hear any shots from the TSDB (area) and vice versa. How does Charnin explain this inconsistency? To admit that gunshots can be confusing to the human ear (or that the acoustical environment of the Plaza was particularly confusing) would be the same as admitting that he has no argument at all.
It should be stressed that only the “TSBD” witnesses include ones that actually SAW a gunman and/or rifle (in the 6th floor window). The TSBD also happens to be the only shooter location supported by credible physical evidence.
Richard Charnin: Mark Ulrik, you have just proved once again that you completely lack the ability to think logically.
Of course, weather forecasters can err because they are predicting a future event. Any or all predictions can turn out wrong since weather forecasting is an inexact science.
I cannot believe that I must explain to you the difference between a forecast and a survey of witness observations. The Dealey Plaza witnesses voiced their observations on what they saw or heard. They were not predicting anything! You truly have no clue.
Ninety-three observers cannot all be wrong in saying shots came from the knoll area.
It is statistically impossible. You probably still don’t get the difference between weather forecasting and a witness survey. Do you know what the definition of a witness is?
Keep it up. You are promoting my book by confirming what i wrote about lone nutter charlatans just like you.
Mark Ulrik In Mr. Charnin’s learned opinion, random people caught off guard are inherently better at guessing the location of unseen shooter(s) than professional weathermen at guessing tomorrow’s weather. In reality, however, the main difference between polling assassination ear-witnesses and weathermen is that the accuracy of weather predictions is easier to evaluate.
I’d like to congratulate him, however, on having scientifically “proved” all of the statements below.
a) Shots were fired from the front and not from the back b) Shots were fired from the back and not from the front c) A total of no more than three shots were fired
“By ‘proving’ everything, he proved nothing,” would be a fitting epitaph on his tombstone.
Richard Charnin: Mark Ulrik, you fail once again. Your epitaph will read: “By not being able to think logically, it was logically determined that he was just another shill.”
You completely misstate my conclusions. I have stated that the vast majority of witnesses (93) said that shots were fired from the front. I did not say that there were no shots from the back. Obviously there were 45 witnesses who said so. There is no conflict. You cannot even read. You continue to expose your ignorance. And yes, more than three shots were fired. The acoustics picked up 6, but only 4 were noted in the HSCA report. I will let you in on a secret: rifles have silencers.
———————————————– Troll #3: Norman Logsdon “movie lover” (Bedford , Tx USA) This book is bogus from the on-set. Lee Oswald was not on the street watching the motorcade. The man misidentified as Oswald is Billy Lovejoy and various people have identified him. I don’t need to read anymore to know this book is worthless. Don’t waste your money.
Richard Charnin: Can you read? Where do you think Oswald was when JFK was shot? I bet you believe the Warren Commission. Tell us. Also, I did not say he was on the street. I said he was standing in the Doorway on the first floor entrance to the TSBD. This is confirmed when you look at detailed witness testimonies of others who were standing there – although none say Oswald was there since the WC would not allow the testimony or they were otherwise intimidated. Now read their testimonies and try and refute them. You can’t. Lovelady was in front – on the steps. Oswald was at the Doorway entrance – the top level (first floor). So are you just another Lone nutter who believes the Warren Commission fairy tale? Yes or No?
Oswald told Dallas Police Captain Will Fritz that he was out with Bill Shelley in front of the TSBD. The Fritz notes were not mentioned by the Warren Commission and were hidden from the public until 1997. Ask yourself why.
If Oswald was lying to Fritz, what was his motive? After all, he already had an alibi: he was seen on the second floor 90 seconds after the shooting by TSBD manager Roy Truly and policeman Marrion Baker. He was holding a coke and not out of breath. If Oswald was not on the 6th floor, why would he not be out front watching the motorcade? And how would he know Bill Shelley was out in front unless he saw him there? 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.
———————————————– Troll #4: Wisconsin Badger
The author seems to to understand the concept of “garbage in, garbage out”. This is a Psuedo-scientific account. Not worth the time or money.
Richard Charnin: As expected from the cadre of Lone Nutters, a quick worn-out one-liner: GIGO. Ok, Badger, point out just what in the book is Garbage in.
And prove that the data and math are incorrect. BE SPECIFIC. CITE THE PAGE NUMBER AND THE DATA. If you cannot do so – and you surely cannot, it will prove that your review was pure garbage.
Oh, and answer this question while you are at it.
Do you believe the Single Bullet Theory?
If you say YES or refuse to answer, that will totally close the book on your “review”.
Wisconsin Badger I think it is hilarious that the author comes and starts arguments with his readers about their opinion of his book. A review is an opinion. My opinion is that this book is awful. The author is so deep down the rabbit hole that he comes off as a crank. The math is jejune.
Richard Charnin: Badger, your “opinion” is nothing more than a “hit job” to reduce my average rating and discourage potential buyers. It is not based on substance. In fact, I’m sure you didn’t read the book.
Your agenda is exposed. I bet you’re one of the Lone Nutters I run into online.
You refused to answer whether or not you believe the SBT. You have not cited a single factual error in the book. Thanks for your inane comment. You proved my case: Lone Nutters like you are FOS. You confirmed the chapter on disinformationists.
———————————————– Troll #5: John G. Jazwiec (Chicago IL) This review is from: Reclaiming Science: the JFK Conspiracy (Kindle Edition)
Reclaiming $5.95. I can sum up the entire book in a paragraph. This is not to say the author is wrong. It’s only to say that it is redundant, defensive and didn’t have enough new material to warrant a book costing $5.95.
“Actuary science makes the untimely deaths of known material subjects a statistical impossibility. For those to claim that the sample size was biased due to their connections … don’t realize they are damning themselves by implying the very conspiracy they are so intent on rejecting”
What was supposed to be a book, is really only a persuasive mathematical and logical theorem.
Richard Charnin: There is a lot more in the book than that and you know it. But the mathematical proof alone is worth $5.95 because you never saw it anywhere else, did you? Well, you accomplished your goal: one star brings down the average rating. You must have done the math on that, right?
———————————————– Troll #6: Henry Sienzant Anyone who thinks Richard Charnin has established anything needs to consider that his list has a selection bias at work. It’s akin to looking at an obituary page of the NY Times and asking “what are the odds that these people on this page would all die within a day or two of each other?” The odds, calculated beforehand, are miniscule. The odds, calculated after the fact, are 100%, because we already know all of them are dead.
In addition, many of the names on the list have little to no direct link to the assassination. For example, Eddie Benavides is on Charnin’s list, but his only connection to the assassination is that he’s the brother of a witness to another shooting in Dallas – that of a police officer in another part of Dallas on the day of the assassination. By including the dead brother of one witness (but not the living siblings and other close relatives this witness and all the other witnesses), Charnin increases the number of dead in his universe by one and the number of living in his universe by one as well. But he should be counting all the living relatives of all the witnesses, if he’s counting the dead relative. This also establishes his numbers are fudged by a pre-selection bias that exposes his calculations as nonsense.
Another example is New Orleans Mayor Delessops Morrison, who is on Charnin’s list. Morrison is on the list exactly why? His only connection to the assassination is that he was the mayor of the city Oswald lived in for a portion of 1963. He has NO other association with the assassination. Throwing Morrison onto the list is done only to inflate the list of dead, and make the odds more astounding. It again shows the selection bias at work.
Another example: It’s like asking what are the odds the Patriots would win the Super Bowl 49 by the score of 28-24? Before the fact, the odds were astronomically against that particular score, after the fact it’s 100%.
One look no further than this discussion on Amazon with the author to see the logical errors of Charnin exposed:
Richard Charnin: Caution, Henry Sienzant is a Lone Nutter who has zero knowledge of rational analysis, much less mathematics. I have totally exposed him dozens of times during the past two years on the Amazon JFK Forum. Consider his asinine statement:
“It’s akin to looking at an obituary page of the NY Times and asking “what are the odds that these people on this page would all die within a day or two of each other?” The odds, calculated beforehand, are miniscule. The odds, calculated after the fact, are 100%, because we already know all of them are dead.”
My analysis has been lauded by Jim Marrs, in his classic work “Crossfire”, and Mathematician/Physicist Philip Stahl who gave the book a 5 star review on Amazon.
Yes, go to the Amazon Discussion Forum and see for yourself why Henry Sienzant is a total fraud who makes a fool of himself over and over again.
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.”
Richard Charnin: It was inevitable that one of the most notorious Facebook disinformationists would come along and continue to make a fool of himself in full public view as he descends into the pathetic pit of his peers. Note that he did not buy the book and fails to refute any of the facts in it. This charlatan still defends the Warren Commission and the Single Bullet theory. He links to Judyth Baker’s website, calling it my fan base. He insults not only Judyth, who has written the best sellers, “Me and Lee” and “David Ferrie”, but all unbiased, rational reviewers who gave the book 4-5 stars. He claims that I have a serious lack of research and knowledge of the assassination? The troll has a serious lack of integrity and shame.
—————————————————————–
Positive comments from other reviewers
Philip Stahl (Mathematical Physicist
Richard Charnin’s book Reclaiming Science- The JFK Conspiracy, features an apt title because it entails reclaiming the legitimate content that has hitherto been obfuscated and distorted under the specious science (or what I call pseudo-science) of the Warren Commission Report as well as the apologists like Gerald Posner (‘Case Closed’) and Vince Bugliosi (‘Reclaiming History’). Effectively, Charnin’s book is the perfect antidote to the specious science circulated by a complicit media (Google ‘Operation Mockingbird’ for more information)
Granted, it likely won’t be on any NY Times best sellers’ lists but I found it to be one of the best new books on the JFK assassination to emerge in the past 25 years. Charnin, a former consultant and quantitative programmer for investment banks, has written a mathematical masterpiece which uses Poisson analysis to show a significant number of witness deaths in the wake of the JFK assassination were indeed unnatural
This is important given how the matter of JFK witness deaths represents what many serious researchers regard as one component of the ongoing cover up. It is also important because the issue is rife with disinformation and misinformation from know-nothings.
These are people who believe they’re entitled to just recklessly babble about the assassination from a position of woeful ignorance, like Marilyn Elias. Elias tried to refute witness deaths such as that of Dorothy Kilgallen- in her piece ‘Conspiracy Act’ , in The Southern Poverty Law Center Intelligence Report (Winter, 2013, p. 15). Elias also, in some of the worst yellow journalism, tried to tar the whole witness murders theme by castigating Richard Belzer for being a nasty, anti-government sort because he appeared on a radio program with Alex Jones to promote his new book, ‘Hit List: An In-Depth Investigation Into the Mysterious Deaths of Witnesses to the JFK Assassination’ .
I have read Belzer’s book, along with Charnin’s, and believe it to be one of the most important for newcomers and also more experienced researchers (who’ve done at least 10 yrs. work) to get a handle on the matter of the witness deaths, and why they are not coincidental. Elias, for her part, shows her incompetence by her reliance on hack Gerald Posner who has already been exposed for his irresponsible work (Google “Posnerisms” for specifics)
Re: Kilgallen, as Charnin notes (p. 120): “was the only reporter granted an exclusive interview with Ruby in jail. She openly attacked the cover-up in her New York Journal-American columns on 2/2/64 and 9/3/65.”
Most notably (ibid.): “She reported a meeting between Ruby, Tippit and a Texas oilman, and revealed that Oswald was in too many places at one time, had links to U.S. intelligence and his true story was known to just a few government agents.”
This alone would have put Kilgallen on the architects’ radar, for likely elimination, because of: a) her prominence as a journalist, and b) exposing aspects of the plot the architects (especially LBJ who had many links to Texas oilmen, including H.L. Hunt) didn’t want exposed. Two key aspects were the Oswald double – which I examined before and cited James Douglass sterling work exposing it in his ‘JFK and the Unspeakable’, and the actual intelligence background of Oswald – which destroys the lone nut madman myth that LBJ and Hoover wanted to plant in their illegitimate ‘child’ – the Warren Report.
Thus, one sees there would have been ample reason to eliminate Kilgallen, as much or more as the reasons to eliminate David Ferrie (when the Garrison investigation started) and William Bruce Pitzer, the lab specialist at Bethesda who vowed to expose the actual autopsy photos and chicanery.
But this is where Charnin’s probability analyses (e.g. in Chapters 3, 4) really comes to the fore – in separating the suspicious witness deaths from the natural ones. And note, imho, this could only have been done using a Poisson -type analysis. Much of this harkens back to statistics shown at the end of the excellent movie, Executive Action (1973) which I strongly recommend to any interested person. Those stats cited an actuary’s finding reported in the London Sunday Times which calculated the odds of 18 material witness deaths within three years of the assassination at 100.000 trillion to 1. In other words, 100,000 trillion to 1 against being coincidence!
As Charnin points out (p. 25):
“The HSCA statistician dismissed the odds as being invalid, claiming the universe of witnesses was unknowable.”
But, of course, this is nonsense since as Charnin later notes 1400 material witnesses are listed in ‘Who’s Who in the JFK Assassination’.
Charnin also correctly observes (ibid.)
“The (London) actuary’s probability was actually very conservative. At least 42 JFK-related witnesses died unnaturally in the three years following the assassination. Using the 0.000220 weighted JFK -witness mortality rate the probability is E-53 (1/ Trillion ^4). ”
For those more accustomed to standard (scientific) notation this would be: 10^ -53 or, alternatively, 1 in 10^53 odds.
Linked to the issue of witness deaths is how they could have been accomplished with so many seeming objective observers being none the wiser. This Charnin takes up in Chapter 6 on ‘Motives and Techniques’. We learn, for example, of “a special type of poison that induces a heart attack and leaves no trace unless an autopsy is conducted.” This was surely the type used to eliminate David Ferrie before he could testify before Jim Garrison’s investigation. I lived in New Orleans at the time, in Feb. 1967 (attending Loyola University) and no one of my acquaintance bought that Ferrie just killed himself. It didn’t add up.
Charnin’s other chapters are equally compelling including to do with the Warren Commission itself (p. 17), Dealey Plaza (p. 55), Acoustics (69), the Zapruder Film ( 79) , Wounds (83), the Patsy (87), Disinformation (105) and his JFK Calc Spreadsheet (p. 135). The latter has now been enhanced to include Dealey Plaza witnesses’ reference to the origin of the shots.
There are also 38 pages comprising nine appendices- ending with a quiz on the assassination. (Something every would – be bloviator or opinion provider needs to take – to prove he is worthy of making comments!)
Sam Clemens
Richard, thanks for your rebuttal of this insipid, vapid criticism..undoubtedly by a gov’t shill….or intellectual cretin. Anyone with any intelligence and integrity (and no occult agenda) must concede that the WC conclusions were politically motivated and baloney.
As a matter of fact, the HSCA work, pushed toward the same goal of cover-up, was hamstrung almost from the start, but toward the end did allow some “light into the shadows” of this case, and revealed that, yes, there had been at least four shots and that there was probably a conspiracy. The Committee was very guarded in its use of language, but the reality of four shots is prima facie evidence of a conspiracy.
A less guarded and more honest and competent position would recognize–and admit–the existence of several VOLLEYS of shots, comprising something like ten shots and the absolute certainly of a conspiracy to remove a sitting American president…one which might not even include the suspect Oswald.
Martin J Eichler
Typical attack by an uniformed uneducated person who believes in the lone nut fallacy and has a closed mind. And speaking of tools, yes you are one Davinroy.
J. Maringelli
Unfortunately what has clouded and slowed down the exposure of Government guilt in this heinous crime are the people who work for the Government such as Mike Davinroy. The problem with Mike’s “Analysis” is that numbers don’t lie. He and people like him try and confuse the issue for people that have never researched all the true facts in this case. And the proof that the Government Rogue CIA and FBI elements from yesteryear and their children did this crime is overwhelming. All one has to do is look at the thousands of pieces of evidence. Richard Charnin does an amazing job at showing proof from a mathematical viewpoint. Numbers don’t lie but Government Shills do.
CharlieBooksNYC
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
Charlie…
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.
Having just started reading Richard Charnin’s new book, Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy, I can say I am already delighted on seeing the depth of the analyses to come, and the focus on science, making the book a nice complement to Prof. James Fetzer’s Assassination Science. Because science is what we need here to counter the flood of disinformation that first arrived with the Warren Commission Report – not to mention the efforts of all its apologists to defend it.
“Reclaiming Science” is an apt title because it entails reclaiming the content that has hitherto been obfuscated and distorted under the specious science (or what I call pseudo-science) of the Warren Report as well as the apologists like Gerald Posner (‘Case Closed’) and Vince Bugliosi (‘Reclaiming History’) who have sought to reinforce that pseudo-science. I showed much of that in my FAQ (Part 5) addressing the bullets and wounds back in November of last year, e.g.
—————————————————————————————————–
A major section of the Skeptics Society pamphlet I referenced yesterday is headed ‘Top 10 Ways to Test Conspiracy Theories’ – which like the dime store psychology content (on p.4), ends up as just useless The authors could as well ask readers to use tea leaves.
4) The conspiracy involves large numbers of people who would all need to keep quiet about their secrets.
Dispensed easily, along the lines of dispensing (3). Again, who is to say what constitutes “large numbers of people” ? If 75 was enough to make Iran –Contra work to the extent it did was that too much? Hardly! Was 94-95 too much to make the Kennedy assassination work – as it has for over 50 years now – thanks to the many useful idiots in the media and beyond who make up rationalizations to try to explain it away?
As for keeping secrets, killing witnesses is an excellent way to achieve that end which is why Richard Charnin’s book (analyzing JFK witness deaths) and website material is so important to disabuse those who opt to don the pseudo-skeptic robe. In other words, learn before bloviating about what limits you believe attend to the claim!
—————————————————————————————————–
I asked Stahl if he would comment on a post I had written in response to a blog post by quantum physicist Scott Aaronson. He posted the following four articles:
“How do we know that our own rational rejections of conspiracy theories are not themselves infected with beliefs so strong that they are, in effect, conspiracy theories too?” – Matt Ridley in ‘Maybe We’re All Conspiracy Theorists’, The Wall Street Journal, Sept. 10-11, 2011
Scott Aaronson seems to believe that because he’s a quantum physicist that he’s also knowledgeable enough to make intelligent comments – in his blog – on the JFK assassination. He isn’t. He comes across as yet another overconfident, under-informed proxy “expert” (using his quantum physics bona fides) but who probably couldn’t tell Oswald’s OS-351- 164 file from his 201- 289 248 CI/SIG file or his 74-500 file. All as reported in the Appendices of Military Science professor John Newman’s book, ‘Oswald and the CIA’ – from freedom of information act documents.
But this is the typical BS that serious assassination researchers have to put up with – because these semi-educated (on the assassination) critics only serve to clutter the blogosphere with yet more disinformation and ignorance when some of us are attempting to educate our countrymen as to what really went down – based on actual documents released on the basis of the JFK Records Act – not half-assed speculations or conjectures.
I now examine Scott Aaronson’s “20 Reasons” to assert Lee Oswald was the lone gunman in the JFK assassination, based on what he calls “general principles” but which I call out as slacker principles: do as little as possible- avoid any details, attend to the worst possible “investigators” (Gerald Posner), and in general let ignorance trump facts at every turn. Basically, Aaronson brings to bear a smug laziness that he’d never use if he wanted to publish a paper, say in the Physical Review (one of its fine journals). He does this because he treats JFK assassination research akin to a kiddie hobby or pastime.
1. Conspiracy theorizing represents a known bug in the human nervous system. Given that, I think our prior should be overwhelmingly against anything that even looks like a conspiracy theory”.
This is not a reason but an assertion, that needs to be proven, demonstrated. Aaronson really ought to know better than to trot such bollocks out for public consumption, as if he’s even an expert in the human nervous system. Where has this been published? (He puts out a link to a cartoon -as if any intelligent person would accept that) In what peer-reviewed journal of neurobiology? Further, the fact this is psycho-babble is patently clear by the fact he puts all possible conspiracy examples under the same umbrella – from faked lunar landings to Joe Klein’s example (in the recent TIME – see Part I) of the feds buying up ammo to raise the prices so gun owners can’t afford it – to the JFK assassination. In this way, he demeans the event and insults the people who’ve done serious research including Peter Dale Scott, James Douglass (‘JFK and the Unspeakable’), Mark Lane and many others. In this way he actually insults the memory of the 35th President.
—————————————————————————————————–
We now continue as I rebut more of quantum physicist Scott Aaronson’s 20 specious reasons that Oswald was the lone gunman in the JFK assassination:
5. A half-century of investigation has failed to link any individual besides Oswald to the crime.
True, but that is because it wasn’t one “individual”. All the evidence amassed so far from the existing files (especially Oswald’s CI/SIG files, the Staff D connection) shows the hit was an executive action masterminded by the CIA probably in collusion with NSA assets. That no individual has been identified isn’t surprising at all to any who have examined the detailed documents in depth – as Peter Dale Scott has published in his most recent book, cited in Part One.
The original plan, gleaned from multiple documents- interviews, was to kill Kennedy, link Oswald to Castro, and use this as a pretext to invade Cuba. Note the parallels here to the October, 1962 Missile crisis- when the Joint Chiefs tried to get Kennedy to invade Cuba on the basis of the Soviet missiles there. JFK refused, and in so doing put another nail in his coffin, while his enemies looked for other ways to achieve their goal- ending up at assassination of Kennedy – by a Castro dupe. Or so the CIA hoped people would believe. Former CIA accountant James Wilcott, however, noted the phony link to Castro could not be established firmly enough to hold and hence the need to brand Oswald as the lone assassin.
In other words, the CIA aimed for a ‘trifecta’ – blaming the USSR as an accomplice, invading Cuba and killing Kennedy, but they ended up with only one of the three – but to be sure a huge one – as it’s distorted this nation’s history ever since. (Along with shattering all confidence and trust in gov’t – given the government still hold to the phony Warrenite story.)
—————————————————————————————————–
We now pick up at Aaronson reason No. 16, as we try to wade through more of his codswallop:
16. JFK was not a liberal Messiah. He moved slowly on civil rights for fear of a conservative backlash, invested heavily in building nukes, signed off on the botched plans to kill Fidel Castro, and helped lay the groundwork for the US’s later involvement in Vietnam.
This one shows glaringly how out of touch Aaronson is with JFK and the politics of the time. It also shows him to be either a know-nothing or troll regarding JFK. As James Douglass has clearly shown (Chapters 1-3, in JFK and the Unspeakable’) the Cold warrior shtick was purely a political ruse to ward off Nixon‘s expected attacks – and it worked! JFK was elected, not Tricky Dick. JFK was, in fact, perhaps the most liberal president of the past 50 plus years. Aside from creating the Peace Corps (which I served in for four years) he also created the Alliance for Progress to deliver low interest loans to South American nations – for which he was pilloried by the financial press. In case Aaronson forgot, he also signed the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in August, 1963 which had all the right winger military types going nutso – including when anti-missile systems were banned as well.
—————————————————————————————————– “Beware Conspiracy Theorists?” No – Beware Those Who Are Part of the Unspeakable!
Media personality Michael Smerconish in his Op-ed in today’s Denver Post, advises one and all (based on his header) to ”Beware Conspiracy Theorists”. We are supposed to be the bane of national existence, sowing paranoia with our every blog post, and hey – we are little different from the generic nuts who fret over UN helicopters and FEMA concentration camps. In this way, lumped in with whackjobs, all manner of conspiracies are instantly consigned to the dumpster of history.
Nevertheless, it appears those like Michael Smerconish are quite happy to go on killing hope for change in the world multiple times over, as they seek to dissuade the citizen from examining the facts of the conspiracy behind the Kennedy assassination.
Smerconish begins his sarcastic attack by singling out Jesse Ventura’s book: They Killed Our President: 63 Reasons to Believe There Was A Conspiracy to Assassinate JFK. So Smerconish gets Ventura in an interview and asks the question: “Who is ‘they’?” Ventura, honest as he is, responds that he doesn’t know. The ‘they’ employed was generic, and could apply to any of the conceivable forces – or all – that had it in for Kennedy, but especially his national security state. Besides, Ventura could have told Smerconish if he really knew who ‘they’ were he likely wouldn’t be alive to say so! As per Richard Charnin’s excellent graphical proof of conspiracy based on the death of witnesses at the times of the two main investigations. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/10/14/jfk-witness-deaths-graphical-proof-of-a-conspiracy/
—————————————————————————————————– Frequently Asked Questions on the JFK Assassination:(Pt.7): The HSCA Investigation
Why was the House Select Committee on Assassinations launched and who headed it? What general standards did they apply? Why indeed would such severe impediments be imposed to prevent an honest and forthright investigation as Richard Sprague wanted?
The obvious reason is that there was way too much at stake for the ones that killed Kennedy – a clandestine branch of our own government, embedded in the CIA. Most likely run out of CIA Staff D and the ZR/Rifle program – then mutated into Executive Action against Kennedy. People can toss up hands and put fingers in ears and sing “lalalala’ all they want but there it is! Why else forge such consistent impediments against an open investigation? The only reason would be to protect the interests, people that did it – and who up to now have gotten away with it, including the murder of dozens of key witnesses any time a trail was revived for an investigation. Don’t believe me? Then look at Richard Charnin’s stats of witnesses killed around and at the time of the HSCA investigation. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/10/01/jfk-witness-deaths-7-fbi-officials-due-to-testify-at-hsca/
—————————————————————————————————– Even Liberals Can Be Victims of Conspiracy Phobia
It’s really distressing to the critical thinker to behold the extent to which crappola continues to be spouted on the JFK assassination, particularly the media’s consistent disparaging of the whole notion of conspiracy. And while most Europeans think we’re idiots for believing that one lone nut killed Kennedy, in America that meme is just fine and dandy. After all, it keeps the hoi polloi in their comfort zones so they can tweet, play fantasy football, and watch ‘Survivor’ without being bothered.
Guest Walter Mears, a former AP reporter, and evidently on the verge of Alzheimers is no better, trying to peddle the baloney that “Oswald was the perfect guy for conspiracy theories” then reciting all kinds of idiocy such as “he defects to Russia, went to Mexico City, kicked out of the Marines, etc.” failing to distinguish actual actions from those that emerged from the false defector program I described 3 blogs ago. Mears goes off the beam, trying to be sardonic or sarcastic, as when he blabs: “I covered Washington well enough to know that if you have a conspiracy and three people are involved, one of them is going to blow the whistle.”
To which all the guests laughed like idiots, unable to grasp how many witnesses were taken out one by one, not only at the time of the Warren Commission, but at the Garrison Investigation and the House Select Committee on Assassinations (1978-79). Indeed, author Richard Charnin has proven – to a mathematical certainty, these witnesses could not have been offed by “coincidence” or some other claptrap. https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2013/10/14/jfk-witness-deaths-graphical-proof-of-a-conspiracy/
Interestingly, Mears did get the key part of the JFK conspiracy right when he blurted: “And if two are involved, it will keep if one of them dies”. But in the JFK “Witness Death project” – likely carried out by CIA contract hit men (such as killed William Bruce Pitzer), it obviously will also “keep” if dozens are killed – one by one as they are called to testify before any given investigation. (See Charnin’s link and proof) Mears actually nailed the reason for the lack of evidence he claimed not to see, but was too dumb to understand how or why. After all, even a broken clock is right twice a day!
Even Kornacki, an otherwise intelligent MSNBC host on most issues, fell down here, displaying more ignorance and historical cluelessness than insight. He made the embarrassing remark: “Yeah, that’s the other part here. We talk about the government as this sort of bumbling, bureaucratic mess. To pull off something as wide scale as in the Oliver Stone movie (‘JFK’) you try to reconcile that with the government we know.”
—————————————————————————————————– The Southern Poverty Law Center: Still In Over Its Head On the JFK Assassination
But I could go through the whole list of those killed and make similar points. What has the SPLC got to show for it? Only its naïve acceptance of assorted “official” stories which do not jibe with Richard Charnin’s demonstrated statistics. These, when the false filters are removed, show there were at least 96 unnatural deaths (80 homicides, 5 suicides, 8 accidents, 3 unknown).
Charnin notes on his link: “There are 122 suspicious deaths listed in JFK Calc. Seventy-eight (78) were officially ruled unnatural (34 homicides, 16 suicides, 24 accidents, 4 unknown). Forty-four (44) were ruled natural (heart attacks, cancers, other). But since many accidents, suicides and natural deaths were likely homicides, the number of unnatural deaths was adjusted to 96 (including 80 homicides).”
These adjustments would have taken into account aberrations such as I noted in the case of Pitzer and Ferrie. The attempted SPLC rebuttal (to Richard Belzer) then goes on to state: “In addition, the story pointed out that a large number of people who did testify have had normal life spans”
Of course they did, because their testimonies did not detract from or contradict the false Warrenite narrative of one lone nut! So there’d have been no reason to deal with any of these “witnesses” – many of whom (e.g. Julia Anne Mercer, Jean Hill et al) later admitted that they surrendered to pressure put on them by so-called “authorities”, including the FBI and Secret Service. The ones that had to be dealt with were mainly the material witnesses whose testimonies would have rocked the boat and exposed the Commission for the fraud it was!
Lastly, the SPLC has continued its manifest blindness to Operation Mockingbird assets with this twaddle:“just as many reporters who were skeptical of the Warren commission account were not murdered.”
Again, the contrarian reporters would only have been murdered if they were material witnesses, like Dorothy Kilgallen. There’d be no need at all to go after mere skeptics because anything they wrote could be easily neutralized (or simply ignored for publication) by the entrenched Mockingbird CIA assets. How difficult can this stuff be to grasp? Evidently, it’s like fractal calculus for the good folks at the Southern Poverty Law Center, who one would have thought would have their hands full with racial animus and hate groups without taking on the Kennedy assassination.
The SPLC piece by Elias – as well as the recent follow-up, also illustrates another irritating aspect of the Left’s conspiracy phobia: running from anything that smacks of “anti-government” sentiment, despite the fact we have reams of documents, files to support the need for a critical wariness of anything government claims (as Edward Snowden’s files have disclosed).
—————————————————————————————————– Rachel Maddow Again LIES About Lee Harvey Oswald and His Rifle
Rachel Maddow appears to be a compulsive liar, at least where Lee Harvey Oswald is concerned. But this ought not be too surprising, given that non-serious, superficial researchers and talking heads (who may only deal with the assassination once or twice a year) are often bound to insert their feet into their foolish mouths. And so Rachel did it again last night, as she did back in March last year,
This was in conjunction with a segment last night on a gun reform law (S. 3714) that JFK had proposed: “to exclude from importation or re-importation into the United States arms or ammunition originally manufactured for military purposes.”
In this context she specifically mentioned the Italian made 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano, and showed an ad for it in the “American Rifleman” magazine along with photostat copies of receipts proving Lee Oswald purchased it. She then added, emulating a Neoliberal know-nothing: “Lee Harvey Oswald bought the gun in March, 1963. He killed President Kennedy with it that November.”
Interested people may also wish to process that, in 1995, after President Clinton ordered release of most of the pertinent files to do with the JFK case (as requested by the Assassinations Archives Review Board) the FBI immediately filed an appeal to prevent the release of any files. One is therefore left to wonder why now, they would be so eager to cooperate – since obviously they’d have had to supply Farid with his source photos for analysis.
In Farid’s case, one is left to wonder what exact photo he has proven genuine- since there were four in all. One of those featured small irregularities including that the telescopic scope was absent, because a technician had accidentally retouched it. WHY has Farid not picked it up with this elite software, when it was openly admitted by the management of LIFE magazine? Or, was Farid not given the retouched photo? If not, why not? Perhaps to prevent him from saying that ONE photo at least was a fake?
Then there is the “Oswald ghost” photo recovered at Dallas PD headquarters some time after the assassination. It is shown above, next to another backyard photo. As one can discern, the “ghost” is a cutout into which another image can be pasted-superposed. The cutout image, many of us conclude, was obtained using a Dallas cop stand –in, which photo was also found in Dallas Police files, along with the ghost image. That photo is also shown (Fig. 2). As noted by researcher Jim Marrs (Crossfire, p. 452) photo specialist Robert Hester was called on 22 November, 1963 to help process assassination -related photos for the FBI and Dallas police. Hester reported (and his wife Patricia confirmed) that he saw an FBI agent with a color transparency of one of the backyard photos with NO figure in the picture. This has to be the same Fig. 2. Was the FBI in on the manipulation of images and photos? We don’t know, but given Farid’s connection to the FBI in funding his lab, can we really trust his work? Can we trust he analyzed the actual source photo? And if so – which?
—————————————————————————————————–
Lastly, for what it’s worth, I reiterate Harrison Livingstone‘s remark that “only an idiot” would accept or believe that the truth or falsity of conspiracy rests exclusively on the acoustic record. (Harrison Edward Livingstone: 1995, Killing Kennedy and the Hoax of the Century, Carroll & Graf Publishers) There is simply too much supplemental supporting evidence, i.e. including from the ballistics, the additional films taken that day, e.g. Nix film, and the actual autopsy photos, as well as skull radiographs and the negative test results from the purported Oswald weapon by a team of sharpshooters appointed by the Warren Commission. Not to mention the inordinately improbable deaths of witnesses, see:https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2011/04/08/a-probability-analysis-of-witness-deaths-within-one-year-of-the-jfk-assassination/
Warren Commission defenders and the Corporate Media avoid the evidence and continue to promote the bogus Single Bullet Theory, claiming that Oswald was the lone shooter, despite overwhelming evidence that he was not on the 6th floor of the Texas Book Depository. In fact, he was photographed standing on the first floor watching the motorcade.
The mainstream media has lost all credibility and must be considered complicit in the ongoing 50 year cover-up.
The 1973 film Executive Action disclosed that an actuary engaged by the London Sunday Times calculated a one in 100,000 trillion probability of eighteen material JFK-related witness deaths in the three years following the assassination. The calculation was mathematical proof of a conspiracy. After all, a professional actuary who has passed difficult mathematical exams would be expected to come up with a good estimate of the odds; that is what he does for a living.
In 1978 the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) dismissed the actuary’s odds, stating the odds were invalid because the universe of witnesses was “unknowable”. But there were 552 Warren Commission witnesses and approximately five hundred others who were sought to testify at the Garrison trial, Church senate hearings and the HSCA. The HSCA did not consider unnatural deaths which comprised the majority of suspicious deaths; it noted just 21 suspicious deaths. But when there were at least 122 by 1978. The actuary’s identity and methodology was never revealed.
In 1989 Jim Marrs published Crossfire in which he listed 103 convenient JFK-related deaths. Along with Jim Garrison’s On the Trail of the Assassins, Crossfire was the basis for Oliver Stone’s historic JFK. In 2003, using Marrs’ list, I calculated the probability of at least 15 unnatural witness deaths in the first year, essentially confirming the actuary’s calculation. My analysis is referenced in Marrs’ updated 2013 edition of Crossfire.
In 2014, I wrote Reclaiming Science: the JFK Conspiracy. It is a comprehensive statistical and reference analysis of unnatural JFK-related deaths, Dealey Plaza eyewitness observations, medical, acoustic and photographic evidence. Reclaiming Science challenges the corporate media to let scientific and JFK experts present the facts and debate Warren Commission apologists in full public view.
10. Carolyn Arnold, a TSBD secretary, saw Oswald on the FIRST floor at 12:25pm. She was not interviewed by the Warren Commission. Oswald told Will Fritz he was out with Bill Shelley in front (the FIRST floor entrance) at 12:30. Oswald was seen by policeman Baker and TSBD manager Truly at 12:31pm holding a coke on the SECOND floor.(3), THIS IS ABSOLUTE PROOF THAT OSWALD COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ON THE 6TH FLOOR AT 12:30. http://22november1963.org.uk/carolyn-arnold-witness-oswald
An actuary engaged by the London Sunday Times calculated 100,000 trillion to one odds against 18 JFK material witnesses dying in the three year period ending in Feb. 1967. The odds were displayed in the 1972 film Executive Action
“In the three-year period which followed the murder of President Kennedy and Lee Harvey Oswald, 18 material witnesses died – six by gunfire, three in motor accidents, two by suicide, one from a cut throat, one from a karate chop to the neck, three from heart attacks and two from natural causes”.
The calculation has been the source of much controversy. Assuming the data and calculation methodology were essentially correct, then it was clear proof of a conspiracy and refuted the Warren Commission conclusion that Oswald was the lone assassin. Penn Jones was the first independent researcher to investigate unnatural deaths: https://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=IB5JGfxIxFk&feature=endscreen
The Poisson Probability Function
The actuary’s odds are matched assuming N=454 witnesses (the CIA claimed 418 testified in person at the Warren Commission). A total of 552 testified (including depositions). There were n=13 unnatural deaths among the 18 material witnesses. We will ignore the five suspicious natural deaths.
The expected number E of unnatural deaths is based on N=454,T=3 years, R=0.000209 the weighted unnatural death rate: E = N*T*R= 0.285 = 454*3*0.000209 P = Poisson (13, E, false)
P = 9.83E-18 = 1 in 100,000 trillion
There were at least 10 unnatural deaths among the 418 witnesses who testified in person at the Warren Commission in the three years ending Feb. 1967. The probability is:P= 2.4E-15 = 1 in 400 trillion
There were 20 unnatural deaths among the 552 total witnesses in the 15 years from 1964-78. The probability is:P= 6.35E-16 = 1 in 1500 trillion
In 1978, the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) investigated the allegation (based on the actuary) that a statistically improbable number of individuals with some direct or peripheral association with the Kennedy assassination died as a result of that assassination, thereby raising the specter of conspiracy.
The HSCA declared that the actuary’s calculation was invalid, claiming that the universe (number of witnesses) was unknowable. Warren Commission defenders (Bugliosi, McAdams, Posner, etc.) have questioned the relevance of witness connections to the assassination. The HSCA made a number of errors in coming to that conclusion, It did not cite the
1. suspicious deaths of anti-Castro, CIA, mafia, Dallas police
2. unnatural witness deaths, the key statistic in the analysis
3. known universe of 552 Warren Commission witnesses
4. 500+ called to testify by Garrison, Church and HSCA
5. identity of the actuary
6. methodology used by the actuary
7. 100+ suspicious deaths
8. deaths of Oswald, Ruby, DeMorenschildt, Ferrie, Craig etc.
9. 7 FBI officials due to testify at HSCA died in a 6 month period in 1977.
In order to calculate the probability of a given number of unnatural deaths in a given group, we must first determine the expected number (E) of unnatural deaths.
E= N*T*R, where N is the size of the witness universe, T the time period under study in years, and R the average unnatural mortality rate.
Let H = the number of homicides, A = accidental deaths, S = suicides.
The actuary’s 13 unnatural deaths consist of:
H=8 homicides, A=3 accidents and S=2 suicides.
The corresponding average mortality rates for the period from 1964-66:
HR= 0.000061, AR= 0.000658, SR = 0.000128
The total unnatural rate (unweighted):
RT = HR+ AR+ SR = 0.000847
The total number ET of expected unnatural deaths:
ET = 1.15 = 454*3*0.000847
Only one unnatural death would be expected! But there were 13.
The weighted average mortality rate R is:
R = (H*HR + A*AR + S*SR)/ (H+A+S)
The average weighted unnatural rate:
R = .000209 = (8*0.000061+ 3*0.000658+ 2*0.000128)/13
The expected number E of unnatural deaths is based on the weighted rate:
E = 0.285 = 454*3*0.000209
The Poisson Probability Function
The Poisson function calculates the probability of 13 unnatural deaths in three years assuming 454 witnesses to match the actuary’s odds. P = Poisson (13, 0.285, false)
P = 9.83E-18 = 1 in 100,000 trillion
If the 3 accidents and 2 suicides were actually homicides, then applying the 0.000061 average homicide rate, we have 13 homicides among 454 witnesses over three years.
E= 0.083= 454*3*0.000061 P= Poisson (13, 0.083, false)
P = 1.33E-24= 1 in 750 million trillion
Data Source
The reference Who’s Who in the JFK Assassination contains information on 1400+ JFK-related suspects, victims, witnesses,Law Enforcement officials and investigators. Approximately 100 died suspiciously in 1964-78 and are listed in the JFK Calc spreadsheet database.
HSCA Testimony
The chief of research of the HSCA, Jacqueline Hess, testified: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo2/jfk4/hess.htm Our final conclusion on the issue is that the available evidence does not establish anything about the nature of these deaths which would indicate that the deaths were in some manner, either direct or peripheral, caused by the assassination of President Kennedy or by any aspect of the subsequent investigation.
One, to compute valid actuarial statistics, one must be able to determine to a reasonable degree of specificity, the universe of individuals to which the specific group is being compared. In other words, we would have to determine the total number of individuals who exist in each of the categories into which those individuals who have mysteriously died, fall. This means that we would need to establish the number of individuals who in any manner could be considered witnesses to the assassination of President Kennedy and Lee Harvey Oswald, the number of individuals who had any contact with Oswald or Ruby or with Ruby’s nightclubs, the number of individuals who professed to have material knowledge of the case or of the major figures in the case, all news reporters who had expressed interest, taken interviews or investigated the case, and all Members of Congress who sought to introduce legislation concerning the investigation of the case. This, as you can imagine, would have been an impossible task.
This was an incorrect statement. The universe of witnesses could be the four investigations in which at least 67 died suspiciously from 1964-78.
Two, in addition, for each of the individuals identified in the groups I have just listed, we would have to establish age, sex, race, occupation, geographical location, and any other extraordinary factors which have to be taken into consideration in order to compute mortality rates. Again, this was judged to be an impossible job.
Another incorrect statement. Natural mortality rates (heart attack, cancer, etc.) are age adjusted. Unnatural death rates are not age-related.
Three, we would need to determine the number of individuals in these categories who have, in fact, died and the number of individuals who, according to actuarial mortality rates, should have died.We had thus established the impossibility of attempting establish through the application of actuarial principles, any meaningful implications about the existence or absence of a conspiracy. Despite the fact that an inference of conspiracy, as here postulated by the critics, did not exist, we nevertheless decided not to dismiss the cited deaths out of hand, but rather, to look more closely at the nature of certain specific deaths to determine whether or not they could individually be considered mysterious or in some other manner a reflection of some sort of conspiracy.
Impossible to determine an approximate number of JFK-related individuals who died suspiciously? That is a canard. All the HSCA had to do was view the list of those called to testify in four JFK investigations – including the HSCA. It ignored 100+ deaths, including 7 top FBI officials who died suspiciously within 6 months in 1977, De Morenschildt and others who were due to testify at HSCA. Note: Hess noted 23 names, including two key Mafia figures (Sam Giancana and John Roselli). But the two were not included in the detailed report requested by the HSCA interrogator. Strange. http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/jfkdeaths.htm
Mr. EDGAR – Will you provide for the record a detailed listing of the 21 names and the evidence you have found relating to their deaths?
Ms. HESS – Yes. Do you want me to read them for the record?
Mr. EDGAR – It might be helpful.
Ms. HESS – Edward Benavides, Albert Guy Bogard, Hale Boggs, Lee Bowers, Jr., Bill Chesher, Nicholas J. Chetta, David Goldstein, Thomas Hale Howard, William Hunter, Clyde Johnson, Dorothy Kilgallen, Thomas Henry Killam, Jim Koethe, FNU Levens, Nancy Jane Mooney, Teresa Norton, Earlene Roberts, Harold Russell, Marilyn April Walle, a.k.a. Betty McDonald, William W. Whaley, James R. Worrell, Sam Giancana, John Roselli.
Mr. EDGAR – Thank you. I think it very helpful for the record that those names be included. Can you indicate why Mr. DeMohrenschildt’s name was not included?
Ms. HESS – His was one of those which deemed further investigation and became part of a great investigative effort.
Actuary – 18 material witness deaths
M=homicide, A=accident, S=suicide, H=heart attack, O=other
W = testified at WC
Note:* No anti-Castro; CIA; Mafia; Dallas police in HSCA list of 21 deaths
S 6402 BETTY MACDONALD W
M 6403 HANK KILLAM
H 6403 BILL CHESHER
M 6404 BILL HUNTER
M 6405 GARY UNDERHILL * CIA/Life magazine, predicted his death
M 6409 JIM KOETHE
H 6503 TOM HOWARD
M 6507 HAROLD RUSSEL W
A 6512 WILLIAM WHALEY W
H 6601 EARLENE ROBERTS W
S 6602 ALBERT BOGARD W
O 6606 FRANK MARTIN W * Dallas Policeman (sudden cancer)
A 6608 LEE BOWERS W
M 6610 WILLIAM PITZER * Navy autopsy photographer, near retirement
A 6611 JAMES WORRELL W
O 6701 JACK RUBY W * Connected to Dallas PD, mob (sudden cancer)
M 6702 DAVID FERRIE * CIA, knew Oswald
M 6702 ELADIO DEL VALLE * anti-Castro, knew Ferrie
Convenient deaths spiked in 1964 (Warren Commission) and 1977 (House Select Committee).
London Times actuary
ZERO (E-17) probability (1 in 100,000 trillion) of 18 witness deaths by Feb. 1967
13 unnatural deaths (8 homicides,3 accidents,2 suicides)
454 approximate number of witnesses used for calculation
552 Warren Commission witnesses (1964-78)
Ballistics
1 shooter according to the Warren Commission
3 shots according to the Warren Commission
4 DPD officials identified a 7.65 Mauser on the 6th floor of the TSBD
6 shots fired based on HSCA acoustic analysis of dictabelt recording
Magic Bullet
2 FBI agents attending autopsy said there was no bullet exit from the back wound
5 Ford raised the back wound 5 inches to accommodate the Single Bullet Theory
7 wounds supposedly caused by the Magic Bullet
Official ruled vs. Expected Unnatural Deaths
1400 estimated witnesses (1964-78):
34 homicides; 2 expected
16 suicides; 3 expected > 13 homicides
24 accidental; 10 expected > 14 homicides
25 heart attacks; 10 expected > 15 homicides
14 other illness; 6 expected > 8 homicides ZERO probability of 84 estimated homicides = 34+ 13+ 14+ 15+ 8
Oswald in the Doorway at 12:30
5 TSBD employees testified they were standing in the doorway
6 figures in Altgens6 standing in the doorway
Tippit shooting
10 witnesses saw or heard shots at 1:06PM. The WC said 1:16.
24 MPH required for Oswald to walk 0.8 miles to the scene in two minutes.
Wounds
22 Parkland Hospital witnesses said there was an entrance wound in the throat
22 Parkland witnesses said there was an exit wound in the right rear of the head
22 Autopsy witnesses said there was an exit wound in the right rear of the head ZERO probability they were all mistaken.
Suspicious deaths (JFK Calc spreadsheet)
7 FBI officials due to testify at HSCA in 6 months (1977)
13 JFK-related witnesses predicted they would be murdered
20 Jack Ruby contacts
20 of 500 Dealey Plaza witnesses
21 reported by HSCA statistician (there were at least 80 more)
30 Warren Commission witnesses (1964-78) 51 of 122 deaths occurred in the Dallas area (ZERO probability)
67 of 122 witnesses were sought in 4 investigations
Simkin JFK Index (Spartacus Educational)
656 JFK-related individuals
70 official unnatural and suspicious deaths (ZERO probability)
22 homicides. Probability 5.9E-24 (1 in a trillion trillion) 44 unnatural deaths. Probability 4.4E-41 (1 in a trillion trillion trillion)
Source of Shots Surveys: Witnesses who said Grassy Knoll
35 McAdams (36%)
51 Feldman (61%)
52 Galanor (52%)
93 Charnin (77%) 100% Probability of Grassy Knoll shooter
JFK Limo; Zapruder film
59 Limo witnesses
33 said the Limo came to a FULL STOP
44 heard a double-bang of nearly simultaneous shots 100% Probability of FULL LIMO STOP 100% Probability of Zapruder film alteration (does not show full stop)
Suspicious Deaths of JFK-related individuals (1964-78)
1400+ JFK-related individuals in Who’s Who in the JFK Assassination
122 suspicious deaths listed in JFK Calc 34 officially ruled homicides (ZERO probability) 78 officially ruled unnatural deaths (ZERO probability)
84 estimated homicides based on statistical expectation of other causes
99 estimated unnatural deaths based on expectation of natural causes ZERO (E-31 or 1 in 6 million trillion trillion) probability of 34 ruled homicides
Witness Deaths spiked in 1964 (Warren Commission) and 1977 (HSCA)
Richard Charnin's Blog 