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

[Stamuel]

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?

What is your source for these numbers?

The HSCA acoustic report from Weiss and Aschkenasy concludes that:

It is conceivable that a sequence of impulse sounds, derived from nongunshot sources, was generated with time spacings that, by chance, corresponded within one one-thousandth of a second to those of echoes of a gunshot fired from the grassy knoll. However, the probability of such a chance occurrence is about 5 percent.

This is p < 0.05, not p < 0.00001 as you are claiming. Furthermore, they concluded that there were 4 shots, not 5 as you are claiming.

If you are taking the numbers from Donald B. Thomas, he concludes:

A conservative estimate of the true value of the probability that the putative Grassy Knoll shot is attributable to random noise is no greater than 0.037.

He is saying there were 5 shots with p < 0.037. This is still 3700 times larger than the p-value you cite.

 

[manifesto]

But where was the open mic? Show me.

The probability it was somewhere else than on Elm Street is less than one in one hundred thousand.

So, show me it was somewhere else.

 

[manifesto]

What is your source for these numbers?

The HSCA acoustic report from Weiss and Aschkenasy concludes that:



This is p < 0.05, not p < 0.00001 as you are claiming. Furthermore, they concluded that there were 4 shots, not 5 as you are claiming.

If you are taking the numbers from Donald B. Thomas, he concludes:



He is saying there were 5 shots with p < 0.037. This is still 3700 times larger than the p-value you cite.

No, he doesn’t. You have to multiply the probability of all five shots = 1/100 000.

 

[pgwenthold]

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

That is only true IF there was a microphone in tbe proper position. If there was not a microphone in tbe correct position, the acoustics show absolutely nothing, and the pulses recorded are due to random sounds. Since there are an infinite number of possible sounds in a large number of possible places where the mike could be, you have to establish there was an open mike in the right place before you start.

Now, where was the open mike?

BTW, have actually seen the digital traces of the authentic gun shots, the traces on the dictabelt recording, and random loud noises? If you think the digital traces on the recording are unmistakable as gun shots, you are largely mistaken.

 

[RoboTimbo]

The problem with alleged photocopies are that they are very easy to fake.

Was it faked?

 

[pgwenthold]

The probability it was somewhere else than on Elm Street is less than one in one hundred thousand.

So, show me it was somewhere else.

You don't understand conditional probability

 

[RoboTimbo]

The probability it was somewhere else than on Elm Street is less than one in one hundred thousand.

So, show me it was somewhere else.

Where are you claiming it was?

 

[manifesto]

Where are you claiming it was?

The HSCA acoustics investigations are claiming it was on Elm Street during the killing of JFK.

You beg to differ?

Show me.

 

[RoboTimbo]

The HSCA acoustics investigations are claiming it was on Elm Street during the killing of JFK.

You beg to differ?

Show me.

You haven't shown me that it actually was on Elm. Which officer's mic was open?

 

[HSienzant]

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

Called it!

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12260145&postcount=1316

Hank

 

[RoboTimbo]

Called it!

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12260145&postcount=1316

Hank

They're nothing if not predictable!

 

[manifesto]

You don't understand conditional probability

No, you do not understand probability, period.

The investigation are showing that the 5 detected impulse-patterns are from rifle shots, four from behind and one from in front at the picket fence at the knoll within a square yard. The probability for it being something else, i.e. statics, is P = 1/100 000.

If you have evidence of the mic was somewhere else (i.e. the Trade Mart) that evidence has to be as strong or stronger than P = 1/100 000.

Or, show me how the probability for the 5 echo-patterns being random statics are more than P = 1/100 000.

Or, both.

 

[RoboTimbo]

No, you do not understand probability, period.

The investigation are showing that the 5 detected impulse-patterns are from rifle shots, four from behind and one from in front at the picket fence at the knoll within a square yard. The probability for it being something else, i.e. statics, is P = 1/100 000.

If you have evidence of the mic was somewhere else (i.e. the Trade Mart) that evidence has to be as strong or stronger than P = 1/100 000.

Or, show me how the probability for the 5 echo-patterns are less than P = 1/100 000.

Or, both.

You haven't shown an open mic on Elm and you haven't answered the question, which officer'officer's mic was open?

Show me.

 

[manifesto]

You haven't shown me that it actually was on Elm. Which officer's mic was open?

If you have a problem of accepting HSCA’s acoustical findings you have to specific if you want me to help you out.

I am here to help. But I am not a mind reader.

 

[RoboTimbo]

If you have a problem of accepting HSCA’s acoustical findings you have to specific if you want me to help you out.

I am here to help. But I am not a mind reader.

You make a claim, you have to provide compelling evidence to back it up. You haven't done that yet. Which officer's mic was open?

 

[smartcooky]

Five shots heard when only three are taken?

Easy peasy!

1. Bang (LHO fires his first shot)

2. Bang (Echo of LHO's first shot)

3. Bang (LHO fires his second shot)

4. Bang (LHO fires his third shot + plus coincident echo of LHO's second shot)

5. Bang (Echo of LHO's third shot)

ETA: I should add that I do not believe the audio "shows" that five shots were heard... but even if it did, then see above..

 

[Axxman300]

If you have a problem of accepting HSCA’s acoustical findings you have to specific if you want me to help you out.

I am here to help. But I am not a mind reader.

You're not a reader of anything.

The HSCA got it wrong. In 1988, researcher Steve Barber " noticed something that the House Committee experts had not: the voice of Sheriff Bill Decker saying "hold everything secure" in the exact place where the shots supposedly occured. Yet Decker was known to have said "hold everything secure" about a minute after the real shots in Dealey Plaza. Thus the "shots" discovered by the House Select Committee could not actually be shots."

Then there is the problem with the position of the officer McClain. Photographic evidence put him several car lengths back from where the HSCA said he was, making the calculations of a shot from the Knoll crap.

Finally, the chain of evidence you're so hung up on is abysmal with this Dictaphone tape, and tape recordings made from it.

This is a whole bunch of nothing here, another CT side-show to draw attention from the fact that Oswald shot JFK.

 

[Tomtomkent]

No, he doesn’t. You have to multiply the probability of all five shots = 1/100 000.

Nowhere does it state the p=0.037 figure was per shot. Prove me wrong with a quote and a link.
As already stated the 0.05 and 0.037 figures are probabilities determined of the pattern of impulses (a complete pattern, not individual points) being explained as something else based on timings UNDER certain conditions.

If those conditions are not met (and in the Z Film we can see they are not) those probabilities are meaningless.

Why? Because the ONLY differentiation between them and random noise is the timing.

 

[Tomtomkent]

By the way Manifesto: was it common practice in the 1960s for the FBI to take copies of documents as evidence?

I’m guessing you worked out the significance of the question and want to avoid it.

 

[cmikes]

I have read most of it, but that is not the issue here. If someone makes a claim he/she has to be specific on what evidence that claim is made. To personally defend the claim.

Do you understand? I’m not a mind reader.

If you've actually read most of the official investigations, you should know what the claim is and all the evidence that supports it. If you have a problem with the null hypothesis, what is your alternate theory of the crime and what evidence do you have that overturns the null?

Shutting your eyes and jamming your fingers in your ears and screaming "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!" may have worked when you were five, but as an adult you're expected to respond to other people's evidence and postings.