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

Status
Not open for further replies.
BStrong said:
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?
Click to expand...

Edited by jsfisher: 
..snip.. Edited for compliance with rules 0 and 12 of the Membership Agreement.


You can't deny facts that are so common. No big words and enter bars to inflate your crappy wall of text is going to change the laws of physics.

Noise-suppressors can distort the noise of both the muzzle blast of the weapon, A noise suppressor can make a muzzle blast sound like it's coming from somewhere else. This is a fact. Remember?

xliTddR.jpg


Witnesses can also confuse the origin of a gunshot if the sound of the supersonic bullet traveling through the air is louder than the muzzle blast. This is a fact. You can not deny it. I have shown that this is a known fact among gun enthusiasts. A noise-suppressor in conjunction with supersonic ammunition can even create an illusion like a gunshot is originating from the opposite direction. Don't pretend to forget.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
RoboTimbo said:
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?
Click to expand...

RoboTimbo, do you grasp that the acoustical problem of the grassy knoll loud report is evidence against the single-assassin theory?
 
MicahJava said:
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.

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.
Click to expand...

Actually he does, we know where the shots came from (hint: 6th floor of the TSBD), and we know no gunshots were fired from the knoll. The ballistics and pathology has proved this.
 
Axxman300 said:
Actually he does, we know where the shots came from (hint: 6th floor of the TSBD), and we know no gunshots were fired from the knoll. The ballistics and pathology has proved this.
Click to expand...

Axxman300, how many times do i have to tell you. There does not need to be a gunman on the knoll to explain the perceived loud report(s) originating from the knoll. A rear shooter may have been able to replicate this acoustical anomaly by using a noise-suppressor in conjunction with supersonic ammunition. The evidence gathered by the HSCA earshot experiment indicates that a high-powered rifle fired from the snipers nest cannot explain the knoll witnesses.
 
MicahJava said:
Are you frustrated because you're a nutter who used to sell guns and have literally nothing to contribute to a conversation about guns?
Click to expand...

Clearly knows more about firearms than you do.

You can't deny facts that are so common. No big words and enter bars to inflate your crappy wall of text is going to change the laws of physics.
Click to expand...

Physics is against you.

Noise-suppressors can distort the noise of both the muzzle blast of the weapon, A noise suppressor can make a muzzle blast sound like it's coming from somewhere else. This is a fact. Remember?
Click to expand...

Hey, fringe reset!

Plus: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

No, not even close to true.

Witnesses can also confuse the origin of a gunshot if the sound of the supersonic bullet traveling through the air is louder than the muzzle blast. This is a fact.
Click to expand...

In your previous post you discount the obvious, and measured echo-chamber that it Dealey Plaza, and now you're going with the nimrod concept of suppressors, because people can't be confused by echoes, only suppressors.

You can not deny it.
Click to expand...

We can, we have the two bullets that struck JFK, and we have the Carcano that fired them. You lose.

I have shown that this is a known fact among gun enthusiasts.
Click to expand...

No you have not. You are currently arguing with at least three gun enthusiasts, including one who is also an instructor. So you fail.

A noise-suppressor in conjunction with supersonic ammunition can even create an illusion like a gunshot is originating from the opposite direction. Don't pretend to forget.
Click to expand...

The entire 75th Ranger Regiment will disagree with you on this one.
 
MicahJava said:
Axxman300, how many times do i have to tell you. There does not need to be a gunman on the knoll to explain the perceived loud report(s) originating from the knoll. A rear shooter may have been able to replicate this acoustical anomaly by using a noise-suppressor in conjunction with supersonic ammunition. The evidence gathered by the HSCA earshot experiment indicates that a high-powered rifle fired from the snipers nest cannot explain the knoll witnesses.
Click to expand...

Nope.

The shots echoed off of the underpass. The acoustics is clear on this one.
 
http://index-of.co.uk/Tutorials-2/Modern%20Firearm%20Silencers%20-%20J%20David%20Truby.pdf

Found a digital copy of the book with the diagram posted above. It explains that a noise-suppressor can distort the perceived location of a muzzle blast. Page 11 of the pdf.

Look, an actual source. What do you have? Nothing, because you are a lone nutter before you are a gun enthusiast. I believe that lone nutters are delusional people. You need to show otherwise otherwise you're talking to a brick wall on a thread nobody lurks in. You can't cite yourself as a source because I know how you will say anything to waste people's time. Do not leave lone nutter disinformation for others to clean up.
 
MicahJava said:
RoboTimbo, do you grasp that the acoustical problem of the grassy knoll loud report is evidence against the single-assassin theory?
Click to expand...

It seems beyond your ability to understand even the simplest of concepts. You need evidence for another shooter. What we DO have is evidence for three shots fired from Oswald's M-C from the sixth floor of the TSBD.

Pretty much exactly what you don't have.

Who was the phantom gunman that nobody saw? With what weapon and ammunition which seems to have struck nothing in Texas?

Don't you feel betrayed by your one CT website for not giving you those "facts"?
 
MicahJava said:
The man who confused centimeters for millimeters is going to use himself as a source for that claim?
Click to expand...

Also the man who read 90% of the JFK document dump from the National Archives, and the man who used to be on your side of the fence and knows all of your tricks...even ones you haven't used yet...:thumbsup:
 
Axxman300 said:
Also the man who read 90% of the JFK document dump from the National Archives, and the man who used to be on your side of the fence and knows all of your tricks...even ones you haven't used yet...:thumbsup:
Click to expand...

Then why do you always act like you aren't already familiar with the most important evidence? I know you claim to have become a lone nutter on a journey of rediscovering the evidence, but you clearly don't know a lot of the material by memory.
 
HSienzant said:
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?



Thanks for the tip!

Hank
Click to expand...

You really would benefit reading Speer's chapters on the X-rays. The whole history behind the formulation of the cowlick entry theory is documented. There's actual documented history in there, although that book recommendation may be as pointless as Spongebob explaining to Patrick that the food is in the can rather than the can itself.
 
Well this is interesting.
Strip away the misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the effect and capability of a suppressor and we appear to be left with a conspiracy that relies upon how easily somebody can be fooled when trying to identify the location of gunfire based on sound.

Which means the *reason* for believing in a conspiracy boils down to confusion that could just mean Oswald was alone where he was known to be, with the only rifle we have any evidence for having been fired that day...
 
MicahJava said:
You really would benefit reading Speer's chapters on the X-rays. The whole history behind the formulation of the cowlick entry theory is documented. There's actual documented history in there, although that book recommendation may be as pointless as Spongebob explaining to Patrick that the food is in the can rather than the can itself.
Click to expand...

Is there a reason you are unable to support your claims with primary sources?
 
Tomtomkent said:
Is there a reason you are unable to support your claims with primary sources?
Click to expand...

Because many of these testimonies and statements aren't available with OCR text, and I cannot copy and paste them directly here? There's nothing stopping you from going to history-matters or maryferrel.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom