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

[Whip]

YOU presented as evidence of the divide JFKs own views.

well, no. hearsay accusations without documentation is what's been presented.

 

[OKBob]

I am exposing members of the almighty Church of the Lone Nut for what you are. And no, I do not expect that you would ever fully understand this, unless someone take pity on you and pay for a radical reprograming of your brain.

I notice that you and other CTists often like to abuse your critics as adherents of "beliefs," "churches," and such. I think it's what card-players call a "tell." Your own position is plainly faith-based. Many of your posts amount to nothing more than a declaration of your beliefs or suspicions. We're not interested in your autobiography or psychology.

Also, what you fail to realize is that a good many on this list at one time accepted JFK conspiracy theories. They educated themselves out of them. And I don't think they'd applaud your wish that their brains be "radically reprogram[ed]."

 

[tinribmancer]

Off-Topic: what is the "Church of the Lone Nut"?

 

[Tomtomkent]

well, no. hearsay accusations without documentation is what's been presented.

My mistake.

 

[bknight]

Off-Topic: what is the "Church of the Lone Nut"?

Anyone that looked at the evidence and pronounced LHO as the killer.

 

[CORed]

I notice that you and other CTists often like to abuse your critics as adherents of "beliefs," "churches," and such. I think it's what card-players call a "tell." Your own position is plainly faith-based. Many of your posts amount to nothing more than a declaration of your beliefs or suspicions. We're not interested in your autobiography or psychology.

Also, what you fail to realize is that a good many on this list at one time accepted JFK conspiracy theories. They educated themselves out of them. And I don't think they'd applaud your wish that their brains be "radically reprogram[ed]."

Well, churches differ from CTists in one important respect. Most churches have a detailed narrative of their beliefs. It is generally nonsense, unsupported by evidence, but the clergy of the church, though not necessarily all of the faithful, can explain in great detail what it is that they believe.

Most CTists, OTOH can only tell your what they believe didn't happen: Oswald didn't kill Kennedy, planes hijacked by Al Queda operatives didn't bring down the WTC towers, NASA didn't really put astronauts on the moon. In general, the generally accepted narrative, or "official story" didn't happen. They can cite lots of "holes" in "the official story", but ask them for a detailed alternative narrative, and they run away.

 

[manifesto]

Well, I asked you to tell us all where the open mike was at the time of the shooting.

I also advised you not to suggest it was McLain, because there is no basis for asserting that his mike was open (and lots of basis for concluding it was not)

The bike with the open mike had to be McLains, even though no photograph or film exists proving he (or anyone else) was at the mike-checkpoints established by HSCA, they drew the conclusion through elimination of other candidates, his bike was the only option.

Now you are saying that this was not the case, that the stuck mike was on a bike at the Trade Mart?

What investigation are you refering to, making that claim?

 

[CORed]

Yep, as I stated, you're only looking for reasons to question the evidence.

Your claim above is false.

The paper copy now in existence came from the microfilm. We have the evidence for that in the testimony of Waldman. So the microfilm would have to be forged.

But again, from the testimony of Waldman, we know it wasn't, because he vouched that he marked it when he gave it to the FBI, and he vouched that it was the original microfilm when the copies were made. So the original microfilm wasn't forged, and the paper copies are sufficient.

Why aren't you accepting the photocopies in evidence, made by Waldman in the presence of Belin and entered into evidence at that time?




So no info that you know of? Right? And what more info do you need? We know what Oswald ordered (6.5 Carcano), we know what he paid for it ($21.45), we know what Klein's shipped (6.5 Carcano w/S# C2766), we know where it was shipped (PO Box 2915), and we know when it was shipped (March 20th). Do you need something else?




Crescent Firearms doesn't exist anymore. And if they did, I doubt they would retain records from 55 years ago last month.

And if we had the originals, you would just claim they were faked, right?

And why does it matter WHERE Klein's got the weapon? All that matters is where Klein's shipped it -- to Oswald's PO Box 2915.




Photocopies are admissible evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence.




Photocopies are admissible evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence.
The microfilm itself is a microcopy of the original paper documents, so even if we had the microfilm, wouldn't you just complain we don't have the original paper documents?

Why aren't you accepting the photocopies in evidence, made by Waldman in the presence of Belin and entered into evidence at that time?

Oh, that's right, you're a conspiracy theorist, and you can't accept evidence pointing to Oswald, by definition. Otherwise you'd risk being drummed out of the CT Union.

Complain about being called a conspiracy theorist again, and the negative connotations thereof. But in your posts we see exactly why conspiracy theorists have such a bad reputation. You reject any evidence pointing anywhere except a conspiracy, you post suspicions, and hearsay, and innuendo, you don't document your claims, you repeat your claims even after they are shown to be wrong.

If 'conspiracy theorist' has a pejorative context, it's easy to understand why.

Hank

If Crescent Arms still existed and had the records, manifesto would then complain that there were no records for the steel used to manufacture the gun, and if those existed, he'd complain that there were no records of the steel being made, or the iron ore being mined. And if all of those records existed, he'd need proof that iron and steel actually exist.

 

[manifesto]

If Crescent Arms still existed and had the records, manifesto would then complain that there were no records for the steel used to manufacture the gun, and if those existed, he'd complain that there were no records of the steel being made, or the iron ore being mined. And if all of those records existed, he'd need proof that iron and steel actually exist.

No, I still wonder why they settled for photographs of the evidence and through away the evidence.

You have a perfectly plausible explanation for this?

 

[pgwenthold]

The bike with the open mike had to be McLains, even though no photograph or film exists proving he (or anyone else) was at the mike-checkpoints established by HSCA, they drew the conclusion through elimination of other candidates, his bike was the only option.
?

No. That's not what they said. They said IF their analysis was correct, it required that the open mike had to be in a specific spot, and McLain was the closest option.

However, that doesn't mean it had to be him. It could have been in a different place such that their analysis had nothing to do with anything at Dealey plaza.

Therefore, "it had to be McLain" is just begging the question. You can't assume your conclusion.

Now, without assuming your conclusion, what is your evidence that McLain is the one? He denies it, and I've alrrady explained how the siren is wrong. And photographic evidence has him in the wrong spot.

Meanwhile, one of the threewheeler guys admitted his mike was stuck, according to Bowles. But what does he know?

 

[RoboTimbo]

No, I still wonder why they settled for photographs of the evidence and through away the evidence.

Of course you do.

You also wonder why 2 + 2 = 4.

 

[manifesto]

No. That's not what they said. They said IF their analysis was correct, it required that the open mike had to be in a specific spot, and McLain was the closest option.

However, that doesn't mean it had to be him. It could have been in a different place such that their analysis had nothing to do with anything at Dealey plaza.

Therefore, "it had to be McLain" is just begging the question. You can't assume your conclusion.

Now, without assuming your conclusion, what is your evidence that McLain is the one? He denies it, and I've alrrady explained how the siren is wrong. And photographic evidence has him in the wrong spot.

Meanwhile, one of the threewheeler guys admitted his mike was stuck, according to Bowles. But what does he know?

Ok, I reformulate. IF there are 5 rifle shots on the recording, it have to be McLain. The probability for the 5 detected rifle shots being random noise is P = 1/100 000.

That give you three ways forward:

1. Show that the data for the mike being somewhere else is P > 1/100 000.

2. Show that the probability isn’t that low for something else than 5 shots on the recording.

3. Both.

Which is it?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Ok, I reformulate. IF there are 5 rifle shots on the recording, it have to be McLain. The probability for the 5 detected rifle shots being random noise is P = 1/100 000.

That give you three ways forward:

1. Show that the data for the mike being somewhere else is P > 1/100 000.

2. Show that the probability isn’t that low for something else than 5 shots on the recording.

3. Both.

Which is it?

Show me.

 

[HSienzant]

Off-Topic: what is the "Church of the Lone Nut"?

An imaginary faith-based (as opposed to an evidence-based) belief in a lone nut shooter of JFK.

It's the ultimate in projection. Many CTs - even some of the published authors * - made up their mind there was a conspiracy before examining any evidence and thus they project that basis for their conclusion onto their opponents. They believe we accept the Warren Commission conclusions blindly, based on faith, rather than because we've studied the evidence and it is the best available fit for the evidence.

But that is actually what most CTs did, reach their conclusion first and then spend their time trying to find evidence to justify their conclusion.

They like to quote from Alice Through the Looking Glass, and claim up is down, and black is white, trying to argue that the masterminds behind this assassination monkeyed with all the evidence so nobody can get a handle on it. But it only fails to make sense if you're trying to jam all that evidence into a conspiracy scenario. It makes perfect sense that the evidence points to Oswald if you understand that Oswald committed the assassination, and that's why the evidence points to Oswald, not because some criminal genius altered the film and the body and planted the rifle and fingerprints and and got every FBI agent to lie as necessary and killed witnesses and found the perfect patsy - one who knew he was innocent but acted guilty.

Manifesto, what was it in your case that caused you to believe in a conspiracy? It doesn't have to be just one thing - but it can't be everything. Was it the movie JFK? A particular book? One incident you read about?
What was it, if you can remember?

Hank
_______________

* For example, Harold Weisberg said he knew Oswald was innocent the minute he saw Ruby shoot him. Mark Lane wrote his "Brief For the Defense" within a couple of weeks of the assassination, before interviewing a single witness.

 

[Axxman300]

I am exposing members of the almighty Church of the Lone Nut for what you are. And no, I do not expect that you would ever fully understand this, unless someone take pity on you and pay for a radical reprograming of your brain.

It can be very painful, yes I know, but it’s better to take the bull by the horn and face up to reality in one grand swoop.

Until that happens, I do as much I can do in eroding your false sense of reality.

Telling the truth.

Said the spokesman for the Cult of Conspiracy.

Here are a few reasons I stopped believing in a JFK conspiracy:

I went to Dallas, visited the 6th Floor Museum, stood on the sidewalk below the Grassy Knoll, and touched the white picket fence. It was immediately clear that everything I had read about the assassination was wrong.

It was an EASY SHOT from the 6th Floor. It was a shot anyone could make. CTists authors LIE about the difficulty of the shot.

The Carcano is a capable rifle, not the piece if junk CTists make it out to be.

There is no consistent element to any of the conspiracies other than "Oswald didn't do it", no consistent suspect or set of suspects. No consistent scenarios of the assassination itself, no consistent locations of shooters, no consistent number of extra shots. The biggest clue of stupidity is there is no consistent motivation for why JFK was killed, or why it was done that way.

The only consistent facts since 1963 point to Lee Oswald as the soul actor in the assassination.

 

[pgwenthold]

Ok, I reformulate. IF there are 5 rifle shots on the recording, it have to be McLain. The probability for the 5 detected rifle shots being random noise is P = 1/100 000.

The probability that there are 4 rifle shots being random noise is 1/10000 IF and only there is a motorcycle with a stuck mike in the correct position.

If there is not a motorcycle with a stuck mike in that position, the probability that it is random noise is 100%.

Therefore, in order to conclude they are gun shots, you first have to establish that the motorcycle is in the right position with a mike stuck open.

This is why the HSCA failed. They did not do that. They made the same error you did. Because they wanted it to be so.

So tell me, where was Officer McLain at the time the shots were made? Please answer this without referring to the recording, since you have not established that McLain is the source of the recording.

I'll give some help: He wasn't where he needed to be, and his mike wasn't stuck open.

 

[HSienzant]

No, I still wonder why they settled for photographs of the evidence and through away the evidence.

You have a perfectly plausible explanation for this?

You have no evidence anyone "through" away any evidence. You've made allegations of that, but failed to substantiate the claim in any way, despite multiple requests for that.

Further, a perfectly plausible (and LEGAL!) explanation for the paper copies was offered to you and you ignored it. Photocopies of microfilm are acceptable as evidence according to the Federal Rules of Evidence, but you turn a blind eye to that explanation, and pretend you never saw it.

But regardless of whether you look or not, that's what the Warren Commission has, perfectly legal photocopies of the microfilm. That establish Oswald ordered the weapon, paid for the weapon, and had shipped to his PO box the weapon used to kill JFK.

You don't want to see that evidence, so you don't.

It's really that simple.

Hank

 

[manifesto]

The probability that there are 4 rifle shots being random noise is 1/10000 IF and only there is a motorcycle with a stuck mike in the correct position.

5 shots. Chief of HSCA, Blakey, desided that one shot from behind had to be excluded because Oswald couldn’t possible have made 4 shots in that timeframe. Which of cource is circular reasoning.

If you look att the real investigation, not edited by Blakey, the number of detected rifle shots were 5. 4 from behind and 1 from the picket fence at the knoll with P for random noise less than 1/100 000. Pretty much a slam dunk.

If there is not a motorcycle with a stuck mike in that position, the probability that it is random noise is 100%.

IF your evidence of placing the microphone at the Trade Mart is of the same probability (P = 1/100 000) for being somewhere else, you have a case.

Therefore, in order to conclude they are gun shots, you first have to establish that the motorcycle is in the right position with a mike stuck open.

This is why the HSCA failed. They did not do that. They made the same error you did. Because they wanted it to be so.

No. The chance of the 5 echo pulses-patterns being random noise is 1/100 000. So, you have to establish the same or bigger probability that the microphone was at the Trade Mart if you disprove the HSCA’s findings.

So tell me, where was Officer McLain at the time the shots were made? Please answer this without referring to the recording, since you have not established that McLain is the source of the recording.

You do not understand:

1. The recording show with next to 100% proof five rifle shots on it.

2. There is no photo or film showing the 5 areas where the microphone have to be in order to pick up the sound on the recording.

3. McLain is on photo and film before and after the shooting, making him the prime candidate for having the stuck microphone on said areas during the right time frame.

4. You have to show that the microphone instead was in the Trade Mart with a confidence of P < 1/100 000 for it being somewhere else.

I'll give some help: He wasn't where he needed to be, and his mike wasn't stuck open.

How do you know?

 

[RoboTimbo]

5 shots. Chief of HSCA, Blakey, desided that one shot from behind had to be excluded because Oswald couldn’t possible have made 4 shots in that timeframe. Which of cource is circular reasoning.

If you look att the real investigation, not edited by Blakey, the number of detected rifle shots were 5. 4 from behind and 1 from the picket fence at the knoll with P for random noise less than 1/100 000. Pretty much a slam dunk.

IF your evidence of placing the microphone at the Trade Mart is of the same probability (P = 1/100 000) for being somewhere else, you have a case.

No. The chance of the 5 echo pulses-patterns being random noise is 1/100 000. So, you have to establish the same or bigger probability that the microphone was at the Trade Mart if you disprove the HSCA’s findings.

You do not understand:

1. The recording show with next to 100% proof five rifle shots on it.

2. There is no photo or film showing the 5 areas where the microphone have to be in order to pick up the sound on the recording.

3. McLain is on photo and film before and after the shooting, making him the prime candidate for having the stuck microphone on said areas during the right time frame.

4. You have to show that the microphone instead was in the Trade Mart with a confidence of P < 1/100 000 for it being somewhere else.

How do you know?

But where was the open mic? Show me.

 

[manifesto]

You have no evidence anyone "through" away any evidence. You've made allegations of that, but failed to substantiate the claim in any way, despite multiple requests for that.

So, where is it?

Further, a perfectly plausible (and LEGAL!) explanation for the paper copies was offered to you and you ignored it. Photocopies of microfilm are acceptable as evidence according to the Federal Rules of Evidence, but you turn a blind eye to that explanation, and pretend you never saw it.

But regardless of whether you look or not, that's what the Warren Commission has, perfectly legal photocopies of the microfilm. That establish Oswald ordered the weapon, paid for the weapon, and had shipped to his PO box the weapon used to kill JFK.

You don't want to see that evidence, so you don't.

It's really that simple.

Hank

I don’t care what the legal presedents are, I care about the evidence. The problem with alleged photocopies are that they are very easy to fake. To make a secure handwriting ID is impossible from a photograph, to name one example.

1. FBI did not show the real microfilm or the real documents to the Commission, only the alleged photographs of it.

2. No one outside FBI have seen the real microfilm or the real documents and with an established chain of custody.

3. I’m still waiting for you to tell me where this microfilm and documents can be found today.