Saturday, May 9, 2015
Why I Remain Uniquely Qualified to Have Reviewed Richard Charnin's JFK Book.
Have any of the twits who think I'm not a JFK assassination expert even read my book?
I really had to unleash howls of laughter as I perused some of the daft comments from the peanut gallery after Richard Charnin posted a link to my review of his JFK book, e.g.
on Google groups. One dumbo actually replied, saying, in effect, "Well, Charnin, when you finally write an astrophysics book then Stahl can review it" (citing my astrophysics background). And also, "Yeah, he's qualified to review it if JFK saw stars in Oswald's eyes before he fired" or some blather to that effect.
The level of doltishness disclosed made me wonder at the average level of education of most of the commentariat in this forum. Had they no insight at all that the main basis of Charnin's book was the application of the Poisson statistical distribution to the JFK witness deaths? And did I not fully show my expert background precisely in the use of the Poisson distribution - albeit to the occurrence of solar flares? E.g.
Wherein I referenced my paper ‘Limitations of Empirical-Statistical Methods of Solar Flare Prognostication’ which showed how the relevant flare incidence corresponds to a Poisson process of the form: P(t) = exp (- l) lt / t!, But, okay, maybe these folks simply lack the imagination or extrapolation ability to see how - if one can apply the Poisson in one setting - it is no biggie to apply it another. Or, maybe they simply don't believe that because I can apply it to the solar setting I am also qualified to apply to the JFK witness deaths - to the level of reviewing Charnin's book.
But if that indeed was the case, which it is not, then it would mean I really had no clue about using the Poisson, period! The whole point of understanding a statistical distribution - whether Poisson, Student's t or chi squared, is that you have to be able to apply it with maximal generality, not just to one case or two!
These intellectual misfits also appeared to have missed the memo that I began as a JFK assassination researcher as part of a physics challenge, e.g.
And in addition, have spent 35 years as a researcher and ultimately wrote a definitive book on the assassination, e.g.
Have any of these jokers and naysayers read the book? If not, then how the hell can they challenge my expertise on the event? Have they even read my FAQ on the assassination - published in multiple parts on this blog in November, 2013? Are these twits even able themselves to answer questions on a basic test?
All of which indicates to me their aspersions are much ado about nothing. The random expulsions of brains captured by the gravity of a 'black hole' of insight - from which they are intellectually incapable of escaping. A 'black hole' of denialism spawned by the twisted gibberish of John McAdams - the conservative gadfly and JFK disinformationist formerly ensconced at Marquette University.
It's easier for these shoot -from-the -hip critics to take snide potshots than to have one independent thought outside of McAdams' orbit. They would rather just fall under the sway of a pseudo intellectual force that aligns them with the monumental fraud of the Warren Commission.
Yes, the loss of a mind can be a terrible thing. In the case of McAdams' sundry sniping puppets it means they will never be able to see the truth that a conspiracy was behind the killing of JFK.