Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories VI: Lyndon Johnson's Revenge

Status
Not open for further replies.
MicahJava said:
My pleasure, dude.

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/html/HSCA_Vol8_0074b.htm

Read from page 148-174. It says "A shot from the Depository does not sound like a shot from the knoll" in the unmistakable language of scientific test results.

BTW: Again, they were firing real rounds into sandbags in Dealey Plaza. The acoustics of a traveling supersonic bullet applies to this test.
Click to expand...

This test was deeply flawed for a couple of very important reasons

Confirmation bias.
All the test subjects were there specifically to perform that test. They knew that the gunshots were coming from the TSBD, and were primed to expect the shots when they came. For the real witnesses in Dealey Plaza on 22/10/63 the gunshots came as a total shock; they were wholly unprepared for what happened.

No Panic.
All the test subjects were prepared for what was happening, and calmly went about listening to determine where they thought the shots were coming from. For the real witnesses in Dealey Plaza on 22/10/63 it was sheer panic. People were running around in all directions like headless chickens, trying to take cover; they were wholly were unprepared for what happened.

The testing done in the programme has it all over the flawed experiment you have linked to because it takes the human error out of the equation. There is no confirmation bias and there are no panicked people to screw around with the results. The software programme they used is called EASE (Enhanced Acoustic Simulator for Engineers). This not junk science at all it is a proven software suite that sound engineers use to asses and design auditoriums and sound stages for concerts and movie studios. It graphically displays accurate predictions of real-world acoustics. It provides quantifiable, measurable and verifiable figures. Your human witnesses cannot quantify how loud a sound is, especially a sound as sharp and short as a gunshot. The software can give you actual predicted dBA sound levels that can be checked and verified. When the software says that the sound level at a particular point is 88dBA, you can take that to the bank.
 
MicahJava said:
My pleasure, dude.

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/html/HSCA_Vol8_0074b.htm

Read from page 148-174. It says "A shot from the Depository does not sound like a shot from the knoll" in the unmistakable language of scientific test results.

BTW: Again, they were firing real rounds into sandbags in Dealey Plaza. The acoustics of a traveling supersonic bullet applies to this test.
Click to expand...

Wow, a report from 1978, using equipment from 1978.

Not a modern report using modern sound equipment like the TV show.

The TV show used technology used by civic officials to plan ahead for public works, model the sound off of non-existence buildings to plan for future noise mitigation, and even help get the best sound from your recording studio. It's functioning real-world tech.
 
smartcooky said:
This test was deeply flawed for a couple of very important reasons

Confirmation bias.
All the test subjects were there specifically to perform that test. They knew that the gunshots were coming from the TSBD, and were primed to expect the shots when they came. For the real witnesses in Dealey Plaza on 22/10/63 the gunshots came as a total shock; they were wholly unprepared for what happened.

No Panic.
All the test subjects were prepared for what was happening, and calmly went about listening to determine where they thought the shots were coming from. For the real witnesses in Dealey Plaza on 22/10/63 it was sheer panic. People were running around in all directions like headless chickens, trying to take cover; they were wholly were unprepared for what happened.

The testing done in the programme has it all over the flawed experiment you have linked to because it takes the human error out of the equation. There is no confirmation bias and there are no panicked people to screw around with the results. The software programme they used is called EASE (Enhanced Acoustic Simulator for Engineers). This not junk science at all it is a proven software suite that sound engineers use to asses and design auditoriums and sound stages for concerts and movie studios. It graphically displays accurate predictions of real-world acoustics. It provides quantifiable, measurable and verifiable figures. Your human witnesses cannot quantify how loud a sound is, especially a sound as sharp and short as a gunshot. The software can give you actual predicted dBA sound levels that can be checked and verified. When the software says that the sound level at a particular point is 88dBA, you can take that to the bank.
Click to expand...

Okay, sure, fifty percent of the witnesses hallucinated the same exact thing.
 
MicahJava said:
Read from page 148-174. It says "A shot from the Depository does not sound like a shot from the knoll" in the unmistakable language of scientific test results.
Click to expand...

Did they use really BIG type? That's 27 pages you're citing, and only 67 letters and spaces.

And tell us what the expert conclusion was -- not your conclusion -- the expert conclusion. Once more you're substituting your expertise (of which you have none) for the expertise of the experts who by dint of education, training, and experience designed and carried out the test.

They were there. You were not. They have the expertise, you don't.

What was their conclusion?

Oh, that's right...

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/html/HSCA_Vol8_0077b.htm

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/html/HSCA_Vol8_0078a.htm

Hank
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
Okay, sure, fifty percent of the witnesses hallucinated the same exact thing.
Click to expand...

Straw man...

It reminds me of the joke about the guy who bought a German Shepard dog as a puppy, and from the time he was a puppy, trained it to attacked a balloon caricature of a robber with a gun.

And it appeared to work well, as the dog would attack when he blew his whistle... until one day, a real robber broke into the guy's house, he blew his whistle frantically, and the dog tore the balloon caricature into shreds.

That's exactly what you do, time and time again.

Nobody suggested hallucinations had anything to do with it. You're mining the responses of Robert Harris now full-time.

He too would pretend there were only two possible choices, conspiracy or hallucinations / delusions.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10762313&postcount=3351

It doesn't work that way.

There's a name for that logical fallacy too.

It's called a FALSE DILEMMA.


Hank
 
smartcooky said:
Oh, that is hilarious.

Tell me Hank, do you think being shot down by your own link is anything like being hoisted with your own petard?
Click to expand...

Beg Pardon? Did you mean to direct that at me?

Or did you mean "Tell me, MicahJava"?

Hank
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
Oh, that is hilarious.

Tell me Hank, do you think being shot down by your own link is anything like being hoisted with your own petard?
Click to expand...

Excuse me, I was citing the actual data collected by their experiments. What does the data show? The fact that a gunshot creates echoes and reverberations does not mean that it cannot be easy to locate it's general direction. The HSCA acoustics study proved this. If you want to point out the flaws in their methodology, maybe you'd add more crowd noise, more witnesses, more motorcycle backfire, etc. then go ahead but this is actual scientific evidence that acoustics within Dealey Plaza CANNOT be used to explain the grassy knoll earwitnesses.

No wonder you suggested mass hallucination.
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
3. Reason and logic. You didn't fall into the hole using reason or logic, so you cannot reason your way out of it even if you wanted to... and you don't want to.
Click to expand...

Speaking for myself, I did use reason and logic to become a conspiracy theorist, and did use reason and logic to get myself out of that thought process.

By the late 1960s / early 1970s I had read many books on the assassination and had convinced myself of a conspiracy ... but that was based on the facts as presented in those conspiracy books.

But in many of those cases the conclusions in some of the conspiracy books contradicted what I was reading in other conspiracy books.

I was determined to find out what really happened... I needed to read their source material for myself. Since all those books (like Mark Lane's, Harold Weisberg's, and Sylvia Meagher's) all utilized the 26 volumes of evidence to reach their conclusions, I knew that's where I needed to start.

I didn't have a copy of those (I bought them later) but I did have access to them at my university and later, a major metropolitan library had a copy of the 26 volumes.

After the HSCA issued its report and accompanying volumes, I purchased those from the Government Printing Office and also bought a copy of the Warren Commission 26 volumes (setting me back $2500 at the time) from THE PRESIDENTS BOX BOOKSHOP.

I started reading the 26 volumes in my spare time and by the time I had finished, I understood what happened.

The conspiracy authors were taking their claims out of context to make mountains out of molehills, or even digging a hole in flat land to make some other flat land look like a molehill.

What was present as facts in conspiracy books weren't facts. Once I knew the true facts (and not as they were painted by conspiracy authors) it was relatively easy to understand what happened. But only if I had the facts, and not what was conveyed as the facts by the conspiracy authors.

Hank
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
Excuse me, I was citing the actual data collected by their experiments. What does the data show?
Click to expand...

You're not qualified to interpret the data. The experts are. What was their conclusion again?
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/html/HSCA_Vol8_0077b.htm
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/html/HSCA_Vol8_0078a.htm


MicahJava said:
The fact that a gunshot creates echoes does not mean that it can be easy to locate the direction it came from.
Click to expand...

BOOM! That sound you just heard was your argument exploding in your face.

If it's not easy to locate the direction, you just explained why a decent minority thought shots came from the grassy knoll. Despite the only shooter seen that day being in the Depository, and despite the only weapon found that day being in the Depository, and despite the one shells found that day being in the Depository, and despite the only bullet or bullet fragments traceable to a weapon being traceable to the weapon found in the Depository. For the knoll witnesses, we have "The fact that a gunshot creates echoes does not mean that it can be easy to locate the direction it came from."

Gee, no hallucinations necessary. Just echoes.


MicahJava said:
No wonder you suggested mass hallucination.
Click to expand...

The only one who suggested hallucination was YOU:
MicahJava said:
Okay, sure, fifty percent of the witnesses hallucinated the same exact thing.
Click to expand...

Nobody else suggested hallucination. Except Robert Harris (previously cited) on a different subject.

Hank
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
Excuse me, I was citing the actual data collected by their experiments. What does the data show? The fact that a gunshot creates echoes does not mean that it can be easy to locate the direction it came from.
Click to expand...

I noticed you drew your own conclusions (rather then those of the experts) and carefully excluded the part which undermined your position

MicahJava said:
No wonder you suggested mass hallucination.
Click to expand...

Err, no. "hallucinations" is your ball of wax, not mine.
 
HSienzant said:
You're not qualified to interpret the data. The experts are. What was their conclusion again?
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/html/HSCA_Vol8_0077b.htm
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/html/HSCA_Vol8_0078a.htm




BOOM! That sound you just heard was your argument exploding in your face.

If it's not easy to locate the direction, you just explained why a decent minority thought shots came from the grassy knoll. Despite the only shooter seen that day being in the Depository, and despite the only weapon found that day being in the Depository, and despite the one shells found that day being in the Depository, and despite the only bullet or bullet fragments traceable to a weapon being traceable to the weapon found in the Depository. For the knoll witnesses, we have "The fact that a gunshot creates echoes does not mean that it can be easy to locate the direction it came from."

Gee, no hallucinations necessary. Just echoes.




The only one who suggested hallucination was YOU:


Nobody else suggested hallucination. Except Robert Harris (previously cited) on a different subject.

Hank
Click to expand...

Ha! worst type ever. The type version is true and the corrected version is also true. But I'm getting tired of your excuses to not address the data collected by the two observers standing in various locations within Dealey Plaza and report where they believed the sound of a gunshot originated.
 
HSienzant said:
Speaking for myself, I did use reason and logic to become a conspiracy theorist, and did use reason and logic to get myself out of that thought process.

By the late 1960s / early 1970s I had read many books on the assassination and had convinced myself of a conspiracy ... but that was based on the facts as presented in those conspiracy books.

But in many of those cases the conclusions in some of the conspiracy books contradicted what I was reading in other conspiracy books.

I was determined to find out what really happened... I needed to read their source material for myself. Since all those books (like Mark Lane's, Harold Weisberg's, and Sylvia Meagher's) all utilized the 26 volumes of evidence to reach their conclusions, I knew that's where I needed to start.

I didn't have a copy of those (I bought them later) but I did have access to them at my university and later, a major metropolitan library had a copy of the 26 volumes.

After the HSCA issued its report and accompanying volumes, I purchased those from the Government Printing Office and also bought a copy of the Warren Commission 26 volumes (setting me back $2500 at the time) from THE PRESIDENTS BOX BOOKSHOP.

I started reading the 26 volumes in my spare time and by the time I had finished, I understood what happened.

The conspiracy authors were taking their claims out of context to make mountains out of molehills, or even digging a hole in flat land to make some other flat land look like a molehill.

What was present as facts in conspiracy books weren't facts. Once I knew the true facts (and not as they were painted by conspiracy authors) it was relatively easy to understand what happened. But only if I had the facts, and not what was conveyed as the facts by the conspiracy authors.

Hank
Click to expand...

The Warren Commission accepted the EOP wound but did not reconcile several issues with a high-powered round entering there with the single-assassin theory.
 
MicahJava said:
Ha! worst type ever. The type version is true and the corrected version is also true. But I'm getting tired of your excuses to not address the data collected by the two observers standing in various locations within Dealey Plaza and report where they believed the sound of a gunshot originated.
Click to expand...

Me saying that you couldn't look any more foolish than you already do shouldn't have been taken as a challenge.
 
RoboTimbo said:
Me saying that you couldn't look any more foolish than you already do shouldn't have been taken as a challenge.
Click to expand...

13+-+1.gifcrowd.gif
 
MicahJava said:
Excuse me, I was citing the actual data collected by their experiments. What does the data show? The fact that a gunshot creates echoes and reverberations does not mean that it cannot be easy to locate it's general direction. The HSCA acoustics study proved this. If you want to point out the flaws in their methodology, maybe you'd add more crowd noise, more witnesses, more motorcycle backfire, etc. then go ahead but this is actual scientific evidence that acoustics within Dealey Plaza CANNOT be used to explain the grassy knoll earwitnesses.
Click to expand...


Further, from the link that you provided!

"4.1 Test Conditions

The shot sequence was unknown to both of the observers. Because repeats of certain shots were requested during the sequence, I was also uncertain - despite knowing the planned sequence.

We requested three motorcycles to be running during the test to provide some background noise that would approximate the original listening conditions in Dealey Plaza. Unfortunately, these newer motorcycles were not very noisy, but the shots were so loud that any reasonable level of background noise would have been low in comparison with the shots themselves. Our listening conditions were, therefore, essentially representative of those at the time of the assassination, except for our being able to hear some very-low-level, long-delay echoes that originally might have been inaudible.

Our observers did know that there were only two possible locations for the marksman, whereas there was considerably more uncertainty on this issue at the time or the assassination.

Signal uncertainty of this kind generally does not seriously degrade the accuracy or Judgments, but it does depend on the number or potential alternatives. In this case, as we shall see, the localization reports made by the trained listeners were, for the most part, or general areas, rather than specific windows or a building. The total number or potential locations was not, therefore, large and, thus, was likely to be representative of localization responses given at the time of the assassination.

4.2 Analysis of Observers’ Localization Responses I
The descriptive comments made by the observers are difficult to compare with any degree of precision. However, there was clear agreement in their reports with respect to the apparent loudness or the sounds and echoes and the apparent size of the acoustic image. After each test shot, we asked the two observers to guess whether the shot was fired from the TSBD or the knoll, independent of what the apparent locus might be. Table IV is an analysis of this forced-choice data."

TableIV.png


Now, if am understanding this table correctly, three sequences of shots were fired randomly from either the TSBD or the Grassy Knoll. The test subjects were told only to choose between TSBD or Grassy Knoll as the source of each shot

In the first sequence
Dr Wightman correctly identified the locations of all 12 shots
Dr. McFadden correctly identified 11 out of 12 locations... he got one wrong

In the second sequence
Dr Wightman correctly identified 11 out of 15 locations... he got four wrong
Dr. McFadden correctly identified 14 out of 15 locations... he got one wrong

In the third sequence
Dr Wightman correctly identified the 19 out of 25 locations... he got six wrong
Dr. McFadden correctly identified 23 out of 25 locations... he got two wrong

So, out of 57 shots altogether, Dr, Wightman misidentified the location of the shots ten times (17.5% fail rate) and Dr. McFadden misidentified the locations of the shot 4 times (7% fail rate). Under ideal conditions, knowing that the test shots were only coming from either the 6th floor of the TSBD or the Grassy knoll, these two expert witnesses, still managed to get it wrong 14 times between them.

MicahJava said:
But I'm getting tired of your excuses to not address the data collected by the two observers standing in various locations within Dealey Plaza and report where they believed the sound of a gunshot originated.
Click to expand...

Well, I've just done that for him... and guess what? It doesn't support your claim at all. Do you still stand by your claim that a shot from the TSBD could not be mistaken for a shot from the Grassy Knoll?
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
My pleasure, dude.

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/html/HSCA_Vol8_0074b.htm

Read from page 148-174. It says "A shot from the Depository does not sound like a shot from the knoll" in the unmistakable language of scientific test results.

BTW: Again, they were firing real rounds into sandbags in Dealey Plaza. The acoustics of a traveling supersonic bullet applies to this test.
Click to expand...

So the wheel of CT nonsense was spun and it landed on March 2017.

Here's a bit of the previous run MJ took at earwitness accounts and the acoustics involved:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11776497&postcount=2893

MJ

What are you talking about? If the noise caused by a subsonic bullet moving through the air is louder than the noise caused by the muzzle blast, the sound of the shot will be distorted. And earlier I provided a book that talked about how silencers can disperse the sound of the muzzle blast itself.

I first heard of this "opposite direction" phenomenon on the JFK section of the London Education Forum from user and gun enthusiast Robert Prudhomme. I Googled and browsed around gun forums and saw corroboration for this, where not only can the use of noise-suppressors in conjunction with supersonic ammunition distort the noise of a shot to make it difficult to locate it's origin, but in some cases it can actually sound like the shots are coming from the opposite direction of the shooter. Here are some gun nuts talking about it:

snipped...

My answer, from March 2017

Your complete lack of knowledge in the subject matter. You are trying to find (in your mind) a seemingly plausible explanation of facts not in evidence.

My first hands-on experience with suppressors was in the 1960's. I held a SOT license from the late 1970's until the late '80's and manufactured cans. My first hand knowledge of the subject matter is extensive.

You persist in attempting to crowbar nonsense into the established evidence based on a patent misunderstanding of how individuals perceive sound.

A suppressor as a mechanical device is not the controlling factor that confuses earwitnesses. Earwitnesses are fully capable of mis-identifying sounds and the source of those sounds.

That is why the earwitness accounts you wish to hang your hat on are pretty much worthless.

The smartest suppressor designer of my generation had a sales technique that was and is unprecedented. He would take people on a tour of various areas of New Orleans and fire examples of his suppressed pistols in public areas and inside a particular hotel. One of the venues involved firing a pistol from a balcony into a safe backstop over the heads of people doing their thing down at street level.

The people gettin' their drink on paid no attention to the overhead projectiles, sonic and sub-sonic.

Suppressed or non-suppressed, individuals often make mistakes regarding sound.

Earwitness accounts are wholly subjective. If that wasn't the case, there wouldn't be so many accounts of gunshots sounding like firecrackers.

Try these:

http://komonews.com/news/local/heard...was-a-shooting

http://patch.com/illinois/chicago/gu...ell-difference

The earwitnesses involved filter what they heard through their experience, and more people are familiar with the sounds of firecrackers than are experienced in the sounds of gunfire and the sound of a passing supersonic or sub-sonic projectile.

XXXXXX

MJ should I just repost everything you ignored last time around on this issue?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom