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

[RoboTimbo]

I didn't find anything compelling about the comments here from the last couple of days. You can't get away with stating something without basis because you put it in a long rambling wall of text.

You've not said anything compelling that points to conspiracy. Maybe it would help you if you were to answer the numerous outstanding questions which you've consistently run away from.

Until then, you've not made a case for whatever it is you're claiming and the prevailing theory still prevails as it is the one with a consilience of evidence behind it.

If you do have some other theory which would better explain the consilience of evidence, you may present it here.

 

[HSienzant]

I didn't find anything compelling about the comments here from the last couple of days. You can't get away with stating something without basis because you put it in a long rambling wall of text.

So you're saying that we can dismiss Pat Speer's article you previously cited simply by saying it isn't all that compelling and calling it a long rambling wall of text?

Here is some history behind who saw what on the X-rays regarding a purported defect 4-5 inches above the EOP.
http://www.patspeer.com/chapter18%3Ax-rayspecs

Thanks for the tip!

Hank

 

[smartcooky]

Micahjava pretty much exhibits no more than SOPs right out of the CT playbook...

1. Find a study, experiment or article that contains some of the words that show it relates to the subject.

2. Ignore the professionally or scientifically attained results and conclusions.

3. Draw his own conclusions, ones that are totally at odds with the data or information therein.

4. Ignore any data or information that doesn't support his case, and quote some words or a phrase from the study, experiment or article, completely out of context to support his case.

Then, when someone points out the the study, experiment or article not only doesn't support his case, but actually refutes his case, and wants to ask him some hard questions about it, run away and pretend it never happened. After a suitable period of time, come back and refute the article as if he never posted it in the first place.

I've seen this same behaviour over and over with Apollo Moon landing deniers, Holocaust deniers, 9/11 truthers, et al. Nothing new to see here!

 

[HSienzant]

Micahjava pretty much exhibits no more than SOPs right out of the CT playbook...

1. Find a study, experiment or article that contains some of the words that show it relates to the subject.

2. Ignore the professionally or scientifically attained results and conclusions.

3. Draw his own conclusions, ones that are totally at odds with the data or information therein.

4. Ignore any data or information that doesn't support his case, and quote some words or a phrase from the study, experiment or article, completely out of context to support his case.

Then, when someone points out the the study, experiment or article not only doesn't support his case, but actually refutes his case, and wants to ask him some hard questions about it, run away and pretend it never happened. After a suitable period of time, come back and refute the article as if he never posted it in the first place.

I've seen this same behaviour over and over with Apollo Moon landing deniers, Holocaust deniers, 9/11 truthers, et al. Nothing new to see here!

And it's funny you should mention this, because it's also exactly what MicahJava's cited source (Pat Speer) does in the article by Pat Speer that MicahJava cited here in this post:

Here is some history behind who saw what on the X-rays regarding a purported defect 4-5 inches above the EOP.
http://www.patspeer.com/chapter18%3Ax-rayspecs

Perhaps MicahJava thinks that's the appropriate way to do CT "research"?

Let me mention just a few examples of Speer putting his opinion over that of his cited experts.

EXAMPLE ONE: Cites Mantik and Wecht as experts, then overrules their findings:
"Should one think I'm exaggerating the obviousness of Livingstone's mistake, then one should consider that Dr.s Cyril Wecht and David Mantik offered a similar rebuttal to the "missing face argument" of Livingstone and others in The Assassinations, published 2003. They wrote: "most of the x-rays in the beam are absorbed not by the bone, but rather by the brain itself. The dark area should instead have suggested to them that brain, rather than skull, was missing in this area."

Now, to be clear, I'm not claiming Wecht and Mantik as unerring experts on the x-rays.

Actually, far from it. While Wecht and Mantik observed that Kennedy was laying on his back when x-rayed, and that the brain in such case would settle on the back of his head, they also expressed doubt that the damage to Kennedy's brain observed at autopsy was significant enough to explain this "settling". On this, however, I believe they are mistaken..."


EXAMPLE TWO: Cites Dr. Peter Cummings as an expert, then overrules his findings: "On November 13, 2013, PBS broadcast a new program on the Kennedy assassination, NOVA: Cold Case JFK. While much of the program was wasted trying to prop up the single-bullet theory, the ending of the program held a big surprise. Dr. Peter Cummings, a Massachusetts forensic pathologist, visited the National Archives to view the Kennedy assassination medical evidence. He came out with a surprising conclusion. He concluded that the x-rays suggested that the fatal bullet entered low on the head, as determined at autopsy. A quick graphic showed why he came to this conclusion. Cummings believed the large fracture running along the back of the skull derived not from the large defect, as I suspect, but from the entrance by the EOP, and that the lateral fracture heading from the supposed cowlick defect was a subsequent fracture, and part of an eggshell or spiderweb fracturing pattern, in which primary fractures from the defect are connected by secondary fractures running between them.

In other words...Cummings AGREED with Robertson (and presumably Ubelaker) that the lateral fracture from the supposed cowlick entrance came to a stop at the vertical fracture heading into the large defect! Well, this completely undercuts the long-held (supposedly official) conclusion the fatal bullet entered at the cowlick!

Of course, it also undercuts my suspicion that the vertical fracture derived from the large defect, and that the large defect came first. This led me, then, to consider the possibility the bullet entered near the EOP, sent fractures up the back of the head, and then exploded out of the large defect, pretty much as described in the autopsy report.

But only pretty much. The report makes it clear that the largest fractures derived from the large defect. In Cummings' and apparently Robertson's interpretation of the x-rays, the bullet's impact in the occipital region creates a small entrance hole and massive fractures that stretch upwards to the vertex of the skull. I'm skeptical this happened..."


EXAMPLE THREE: After demonstrating (he says) Mantik's unreliability and (he says) untrustworthiness, he cites Mantik's conclusions and says he agrees with him: "Now, to be clear, on this particular point I concur with Dr. Mantik. He was apparently the first to notice it, he deserves credit for it, and he is absolutely correct--CE 843, the fragment Humes claimed he'd removed from behind Kennedy's eye, bears no resemblance to the club-shaped fragment so many assume he'd recovered from the forehead.

In his essay 20 Conclusions After Nine Visits, Mantik writes that this is “One of the most shocking contradictions in the entire case.The shape of the larger piece of metal is nothing like the supposedly identical piece seen on the x-rays. No measurements taken on this piece can explain its bizarre transformation in shape. Most likely, it is not the piece taken from the skull…I saw only two, not three, at NARA. The largest, however, bears no resemblance to the corresponding image on the x-rays. The larger piece shown here is pancake shaped and was 107 mg. On the other hand the x-rays show a club shaped object—on both x-ray views. The studies done by the FBI on this object—spectrographic analysis and neutron activation analysis, required only a tiny amount at most, about 1 mg, according to one of the FBI experts…No one has offered an explanation for this flagrant discrepancy in shape of the largest piece. Sampling of the material is not an explanation. The possibility of substitution of fragments, an issue actually raised by the neutron activation expert (Dr. Vincent Guinn), remains wide open.”

While it might seem strange my quoting Mantik on this issue, seeing as I've repeatedly demonstrated his lack of credibility..."


This then, is the sum and substances of the article cited by MicahJava as CT "research". It's not dissimilar to the same argumentation style MJ demonstrates here, posting some expert's finding, then over-ruling those findings and substituting his own lay opinion in its place. Or claim expert so-and-so is unreliable and not credible, and then citing his findings as true.

It's a bizarre methodology for getting at the truth, without a doubt.

Hank

 

[BStrong]

I didn't find anything compelling about the comments here from the last couple of days. You can't get away with stating something without basis because you put it in a long rambling wall of text.

At any point will you explain how one of your favorite sources (Pat Speer) acknowledges that a single 6.5 x 52R projectile can cause a catastrophic headwound as in JFK's case but you don't accept that conclusion?

 

[abaddon]

Micahjava pretty much exhibits no more than SOPs right out of the CT playbook...

1. Find a study, experiment or article that contains some of the words that show it relates to the subject.

2. Ignore the professionally or scientifically attained results and conclusions.

3. Draw his own conclusions, ones that are totally at odds with the data or information therein.

4. Ignore any data or information that doesn't support his case, and quote some words or a phrase from the study, experiment or article, completely out of context to support his case.

Then, when someone points out the the study, experiment or article not only doesn't support his case, but actually refutes his case, and wants to ask him some hard questions about it, run away and pretend it never happened. After a suitable period of time, come back and refute the article as if he never posted it in the first place.

I've seen this same behaviour over and over with Apollo Moon landing deniers, Holocaust deniers, 9/11 truthers, et al. Nothing new to see here!

There is also the phenomenon of the "no-claimer". Something, anything else must have happened. No idea what, just something else. Those wingnuts are hard to nail down since they don't have an actual claim to start with. It is an intentional tactic. Hurl the holy hand grenade of Antioch in the vain hope that something happens.

 

[BStrong]

Our hero is studiously avoiding this thread while posting nonsense on other possible CT's to keep their hand in.

Must be a rough position to be in when your supply of nonsense runs out on one subject and you're forced to cut and paste on a whole new area of ignorance.

 

[smartcooky]

Our hero is studiously avoiding this thread while posting nonsense on other possible CT's to keep their hand in.

Must be a rough position to be in when your supply of nonsense runs out on one subject and you're forced to cut and paste on a whole new area of ignorance.

I pointed this out in the thread he transparently created for the sole purpose of running away to... unfortunately the posts "got removed".

Go figure

 

[bknight]

I've been away for about 21 days (that's 3 weeks for MJ) and find he still has nothing to say that has any evidence nor anything new. Give it up MJ, Oswald and only Oswald,shot JFK. No evidence points to anyone else, plain and simple.

 

[BStrong]

I've been away for about 21 days (that's 3 weeks for MJ) and find he still has nothing to say that has any evidence nor anything new. Give it up MJ, Oswald and only Oswald,shot JFK. No evidence points to anyone else, plain and simple.

They are very busy being wrong on another subject.

 

[smartcooky]

They are very busy being wrong on another subject.

 

[Axxman300]

Whelp...since it's just the grownups in the room now, I'll post this story, hot off the press:

http://www.hsvvoice.com/news/20180220/secret-service-agent-remembers-jfk-assassination---part-i

It's about Secret Service Agent Mike Howard who " was the advance agent in Fort Worth on Nov. 21 and the morning of Nov. 22, he was in the room when suspect Lee Harvey Oswald was interrogated and later protected Oswald’s family for a week following the assassination."

This looks like part one, but this highlight is an instant classic:

After the planes left for Washington, D.C., Howard was told to return to Fort Worth to interview a suspect.
The suspect had been seen at a filling station with a rifle and scope in the backseat of his vehicle. Police found him and took him in for questioning. They were getting little information from him until Howard arrived. He entered the interrogation room and sat down in front of him. The man said the rifle was his father’s and he had gotten it from a repair shop. While at the store he decided to purchase a shotgun, thus the guns in the car. Howard asked him what he was doing in Dallas. “He said none of your business,” Howard said. At that point an exhausted Howard had enough of the cocky suspect, pulled his revolver, cocked the hammer back and convinced the man it would be in his best interest to talk, which he did. Turns out the suspect had picked up a girl in Dallas and spent the night in a hotel. Thereafter the man was released.

On top of the macho awesomeness, this anecdote shows that law enforcement was pulling in suspects from everywhere, and not just focused on framing Oswald.

Real history is fun.

 

[BStrong]

Whelp...since it's just the grownups in the room now, I'll post this story, hot off the press:

http://www.hsvvoice.com/news/20180220/secret-service-agent-remembers-jfk-assassination---part-i

It's about Secret Service Agent Mike Howard who " was the advance agent in Fort Worth on Nov. 21 and the morning of Nov. 22, he was in the room when suspect Lee Harvey Oswald was interrogated and later protected Oswald’s family for a week following the assassination."

This looks like part one, but this highlight is an instant classic:




On top of the macho awesomeness, this anecdote shows that law enforcement was pulling in suspects from everywhere, and not just focused on framing Oswald.

Real history is fun.

Agent Howard sounds like he was a real world close cousin of Pete Boundurant, the fictional character created by James Ellroy for his Underworld USA trilogy.

When the fictional Big Pete encountered individuals that wouldn't talk, he'd remove all the rounds from his wheelgun (except one) and would give them the Russian roulette conversation encouragement treatment.

It worked in the fictional world.

 

[Wolrab]

1963 was 18 years after WWII. Huge numbers of men and women in their thirties (and younger) up were a bit...harder than most Americans today.

 

[BStrong]

1963 was 18 years after WWII. Huge numbers of men and women in their thirties (and younger) up were a bit...harder than most Americans today.

That could be the understatement of the year because to survive the war they first had to survive The Depression.

 

[Wolrab]

True dat.

 

[smartcooky]

Agent Howard sounds like he was a real world close cousin of Pete Boundurant, the fictional character created by James Ellroy for his Underworld USA trilogy.

When the fictional Big Pete encountered individuals that wouldn't talk, he'd remove all the rounds from his wheelgun (except one) and would give them the Russian roulette conversation encouragement treatment.

It worked in the fictional world.

I know what you're thinking. "Did he fire six shots or only five?" Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement, I've kinda lost track myself. But being this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question...'Do I feel lucky?'...Well, do ya, punk?

 

[Disbelief]

Maybe MJ is putting the finishing touches on his theory that combines all the known evidence, instead of planning a fringe reset.

 

[MicahJava]

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."

[qimg]https://www.dropbox.com/s/3u5lymw44dqj5hc/TableIV.png?raw=1[/qimg]

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.



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?

If you torture the data, it'll admit to anything. You have to be an honest person and assess all of the evidence instead of rearranging the content of the HSCA earshot experiment to make it seem like you have a chance.

The table you didn't show:

Here are the pages which show Dr. Wightman and Dr. McFadden wrote a knoll answer for a shot from the depository. See how sure they were about where the shot originated:

Out of 50 gunshots fired. And it depends on where they were standing in Dealey Plaza.

Compare that to the situation in Dealey Plaza where multiple knoll witnesses swore they were sure and reacted as such. You need a better explanation for the perceived loud report(s) from the knoll area. Right now you have no case.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Compare that to the situation in Dealey Plaza where multiple knoll witnesses swore they were sure and reacted as such. You need a better explanation for the perceived loud report(s) from the knoll area. Right now you have no case.

Now all you have to do is show evidence for a grassy knoll shooter that can trump the consilience of evidence for Oswald's three shots.

When can we expect that?