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.
MJ recycles another argument from ignorance - from March 2017:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11763166&postcount=2639
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
BStrong is BS-strong. Just google "silencer", "noise", "opposite direction" and you'll find people on gun forums discussing this well-known phenomenon, to the point of some suggesting it's benefit in hunting. Why do you have to lie instead of honestly debate?
Insecure table pounding noted.
The "phenomenon" you reference is nothing more than the perception of the earwitness and is not related to the use of a suppressor.
Let's review what you posted about suppressors:
Noise suppressors can distort the sound of a gunshot to seem like it came from the opposite direction. But of course, noise suppressors don't make the muzzle blast completely silent.
You are asserting that a suppressor
as a device causes an earwitness to believe that the shooter is in the opposite direction from the actual position of the shooter.
This isn't a phenomenon that is caused by the can. As I've pointed out repeatedly, earwitness testimony can be unreliable for a number of reasons.
I posted my most embarrassing moment with my "it's gotta be a shotgun" 911 call and in the example of one of my friends that witnessed the murder, he didn't hear the pistol being fired within ten feet of him and the piece wasn't suppressed. He target fixated on the gun and the victim, saw the thing cycle and eject the empty case but didn't hear the shot.
For the purposes of your fantasy, a ventriloquist suppressor might be a very cool thing, but there is no such thing. People who hear loud noises react to and interpret to those noises in different ways. If a person is untrained they might not even notice the sound of a projectile passing close by, or someone hearing the same projectile at a different point in the projectile's trajectory nearby static objects might interpret that single projectile as being multiple projectiles due to the "crack" as passes them.
Smart well-trained guy might be completely wrong about a sound they heard.
No suppressor needed.
What I'd like to see from you is some evidence of one of these cool ventriloquist suppressors. It would go great with my Hush-a-Bomb.
As far as lying goes. I can't even turn it around on you.
You don't know enough about the subject matter to lie about it. You do confuse fact, fantasy and wish fulfillment, but that's par for the course. And that's why when you're going to stick your baby toe into the ocean of facts concerning firearms in general and this case in particular you're not going to like the bath that you'll end up taking.
A debate requires two or more well informed individuals to participate.
In this arena you do not qualify as being well informed.
XXXXX
And since MJ is so into recycling, here's another post from March 2017 that I'm sure he won't mind seeing again:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11761286&postcount=2581
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Silliest discussion ever. The situation in Dealey Plaza, as reported by dozens of witnesses who were there compared to the findings of the two observers in the HSCA earshot experiment, was nothing like what you would expect from three shots fired from a Carcano. The only thing that could discredit the HSCA earshot experiment would be a similar, but more exhaustive experiment with more observers. But what happens when that just further confirms the same thing as the HSCA? Do you say half the witnesses to the assassination simultaneously had the same auditory hallucination?
The HSCA earshot experiments and the assassination witness statements are enough to almost certainly know that the situation in Dealey Plaza wasn't just three shots from a Carcano.
I've gone multiple rounds with multiple posters in this thread that want to hang their hat on "earwitness" reports. Rather than repost all the earlier material, I'll hit the high points:
In response to a ctist that believed the muzzle blast was caused by the velocity of the projectile, not the expanding gases that propel the projectile:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=348
Same poster, same jive, no evidence and like many folks on that side of the street, -0- knowledge of the actual subject matter:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=372
More from the world's most poorly informed JFK fantasist:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=403
Early appearance of Micahjava working the wrong side of the street:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1250
This one is just me describing some earwitness reports that were interesting and germane to the discussion, including one of my own most embarrassing moments:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1266
And here's that moment:
"#3
Me.
At home.
Loud hollow boom, not bang.
First report gets my attention, second boom maybe two minutes later.
Hollow, boom not bang, not handgun, not rifle, has to be a 12 gauge shotgun.
I get on the horn, while on phone, more reports.
I report to 911 dispatcher what I heard.
Maybe three minutes later I get a call from the responding officer informing me that the "flat hollow boom" I reported as a shotgun being fired was in reality a truck driver having difficulty with his tractor. The flat hollow boom was un-burned diesel combusting in the tractors' exhaust stack...and yes, my balls were broken for a long time behind the 911 call once the word got out, and it took all of 48 hrs to circulate through local LE and into my agency
Ear witness testimony is subjective at best, and all manner of factors can color the report of an ear witness, or an eye witness for that matter."
Here's one of MJ's all time greatest misses and my response:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1152
"Lol. Some of the best snipers in the world have said that they could not replicate those shots, and they were alledgedly made with a dollar store with the most defective scope ever. I'm not aware anybody replicating the shots. I know of one experiment in which an olympic sniper accomplished something similar... from a height of the third floor of the school book depository."
To this day those "Worlds best snipers" have yet to make their opinions known through MJ and it's only been what? almost a year? The factual mistakes are hilarious. Great 'investigator" that doesn't even know which floor of the TSBD building the shots were fired from.
This one addresses MJ's "Worlds best" jive, and in looking this post up I realized that it's substantially the sane post I made in the last couple of days, referencing the same facts and using the same pictures. That might give some idea about how certain CTist posters react after their fantasies are refuted- they simply wait for an opportune moment to hit the reset button and try the same old jive that went TU the last time they tried pushing it:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1230
[One of my all-time favorite local bands, Tower of Power. has a song titled
"Diggin' on James Brown" and there's this lyric:
Ya know the more things change
The more they stay the same
That's what pops into my thoughts every time MJ brings up the same nonsense that didn't get him anywhere the first, second, third and infinitum times they posted it.
