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

[pgwenthold]

Are they really? Explain.

From the HSCA testimony

Mr. FITHIAN. While they are doing that, let me ask you sort of the central
question.

Is it your conclusion that you proved that there were four shots?

Dr. BARGER. No.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Again. I do not care of the ”common practice”, I care of the evidence in the most important political assassination of the 20th century.

You don't care about the answers to your question? Makes sense. You already have your conclusion, and a little knowledge would get in the way of that.

Don't let little details about which evidence should have been gathered, why it was gathered that way, and why standard procedures or common practices were used, get in your way.

Why keep (the alleged) photographs of (the alleged) evidence, but through away (the alleged) evidence?

[Skywalker] Impressive, every word you just said was wrong [/Skywalker]

The prints (or photocopies) of the evidence was retained, but the investigators did not throw away the other records, they were returned to their rightful owner.
Because:
1) There was no reason to keep possession of private records of a private business.
2) There was no reason to retain details of private individuals unrelated to the case in said records.
3) There were no originals, the records were already photographed to microfiche.
4) The documents would have to be printed anyway, to be handed out, included in reports, or otherwise distributed.

I am going to assume you are intelligent enough to know this, and to have worked out that "not caring" how investigations are carried out is a cheap fallacy, the "running the farm fallacy".

You are suggesting, without a single good reason why, that there is some room for the evidence to be tampered with or faked. You are claiming the investigation should have been held to some higher standard, simply to suggest it was flawed, without being able to show a flaw.

You have been asked to show any evidence in the documents as produced, that indicate tampering, forgery, or alteration.

You have not been able to do so, which tells me everything I need to know about your reasoning.

 

[Tomtomkent]

JFK was killed with at least one bullet to the head fired from a rifle behind the picket fence in front to the right of him.

And how did that bullet manage to leave no trace visible to the filmed footage, x-rays, autopsy surgeons, post mortem photographs, etc?

The probability for this NOT being so is P = 1/100 000.

You beg to differ?

Yes. As did the authors of the study you are claiming as the source of your probability of 10^-6.
Did you read the report?
Did you understand the report?
Do you understand the testimony given to the HSCA about the report?

I expect you to claim you do, but your posts suggest otherwise. I am offering you the chance to admit you do not.

 

[CORed]

As long as you share this core belief, everything Hank says, goes.

As long as you share Hanks core belief in Oswalds guilt, of course you ”note” this.

Of course you belive this since doing the opposite would challenge you in your core religious belief in Oswald killing JFK.

No. Best case scenario: Hank confirms your core belief in Oswald as the lone assassin of JFK and therefore your core identity as a member of the Mighty Church of the Lone Nut.

Convert.

Sorry. My belief is based on evidence. I am open to the notion that Oswald is not the sole shooter, if sufficient evidence is offered to support. that notion. I find that the efforts of people who take that position fall far short of that standard. I find your efforts in particular to be amateurishly bad.

I would acknowledge a very small probability that the evidence is the result of a clever, carefully orchestrated frame job on Oswald, but you, or other JFK CT's have yet to make a convincing case for that. I think it is considerably more likely that Oswald is the sole shooter, but did so as part of some conspiracy. Again, I have not seen convincing evidence in support of that scenario.

All I have seen from you is a transparent and poorly executed attempt to disguise an argument from incredulity as an examination of evidence. The trouble is, you have actually presented no evidence, nor have you succeeded in challenging in any meaningful way the evidence in favor of Oswald as the only shooter.

In short, I don't find your arguments to be amateurish, childish and unconvincing because they conflict with my beliefs, but because they actually are.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Explain how the investigators confused a rifle shot with the echo from a rifle shot. With reference to their reasoning, methods and findings.

Be specific.

It's not my understanding of the report I am questioning.
I want some vague indication you read the report, and understand the basic principles the report alludes to.

I will make it even simpler:
Were the impulses identified as possible gunshots, for which you claim the chances of the *not* being gunshots is 10^-6, the ONLY impulses in the report?
Was there any feature of the selected gunshots that differentiates them, from the others, apart from timing?

 

[traxy]

I have found no mistake in HSCA’s acoustical investigation, stating that 5 rifle shots was fired in Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination. 4 shots from behind the limo, and 1 shot from in front (picket fence on the knoll) being the fatal.

If you have issues with these findings, be my gusest.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHWZLv3iuo8

 

[RoboTimbo]

JFK was killed with at least one bullet to the head fired from a rifle behind the picket fence in front to the right of him.

Awesome, now we have something to work with.

What evidence is there of a shot from the front?

 

[manifesto]

It's not my understanding of the report I am questioning.
I want some vague indication you read the report, and understand the basic principles the report alludes to.

I will make it even simpler:
Were the impulses identified as possible gunshots, for which you claim the chances of the *not* being gunshots is 10^-6, the ONLY impulses in the report?
Was there any feature of the selected gunshots that differentiates them, from the others, apart from timing?

Before testing on the ground they stated that the amount of echoes should be around 10, given the decibel and reflecting surfaces on the surrounding buildings. They included 6 impulse patterns as possible candidates before testing and excluded one of them after the testing (the first) because it had too few echo-impulses and that probably being an exhaust blow from a motorcycle (less dB).

So, the chain of echoes is the clue to differentiate between very loud noises (i.e. rifle shots) and noises seeming very loud because they are close to the microphone (i.e. popping ballons, etc.).

This was not ad hoc, this was stated criteria before testing.

Edit: Forgot to mention that the distance between echoes had to fit the distance it had to travel in the Dealey Plaza. A stated criteria BEFORE doing any testing on the ground.

 

[manifesto]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHWZLv3iuo8

Instead of link-spamming maybe you should make an effort explaining what your link are providing in the realm of alleged evidence and arguments, and for what.

Could you do that?

 

[manifesto]

Awesome, now we have something to work with.

What evidence is there of a shot from the front?

If you have issues with HSCA’s acoustical evidence, please state them with reference to said evidence.

 

[manifesto]

And how did that bullet manage to leave no trace visible to the filmed footage, x-rays, autopsy surgeons, post mortem photographs, etc?

THAT is the key question, yes. Indeed, why?

Yes. As did the authors of the study you are claiming as the source of your probability of 10^-6.
Did you read the report?
Did you understand the report?
Do you understand the testimony given to the HSCA about the report?

Yes. Do you?

I expect you to claim you do, but your posts suggest otherwise. I am offering you the chance to admit you do not.

Thanks for the offer, but no, you are wrong in all of your fantacies about my readings.

All of it.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Before testing on the ground they stated that the amount of echoes should be around 10, given the decibel and reflecting surfaces on the surrounding buildings. They included 6 impulse patterns as possible candidates before testing and excluded one of them after the testing (the first) because it had too few echo-impulses and that probably being an exhaust blow from a motorcycle (less dB).

So, the chain of echoes is the clue to differentiate between very loud noises (i.e. rifle shots) and noises seeming very loud because they are close to the microphone (i.e. popping ballons, etc.).

This was not ad hoc, this was stated criteria before testing.

Edit: Forgot to mention that the distance between echoes had to fit the distance it had to travel in the Dealey Plaza. A stated criteria BEFORE doing any testing on the ground.

A step in the right direction.
You admit the only distinguishing criteria was a loud noise at distance, and you admit they are indistinguishable, outside the coincidence of timing, from louder noises.

By necessity, if the microphone was not at a specific location, where the echoes would be timed differently, due to differing distances, then the interpretation of the pulses is invalid.

If the synchronisation of the timing is out by a few seconds (let alone an entire minute) the results no longer match the rifle shots and could be anything.

We know also, from the paper, that despite you attempts to multiply numbers to fit your argument, that if the microphone was in the one spot where it all fits, that there was total of 5% chance that any or all of the pulses had been misidentified.

Which brings us to the unfortunate fact that we can not show a microphone to be in the right place, at the right time.

If you accept more recent analysis of the tapes, or not, is moot, because we can see in the footage and photographs there simply is not a motorbike in, or near enough, to the one position the report allows the patterns to match rifle shots.

Ergo: Those six selected impulses could be caused by any number of sources, because we have no measurements against which to calculate echo times, etc.

Which is why when asked if the tests proved rifle shots, the man responsible for said tests answered "no".

I assume you are happy his expertise is somewhat greater than your own?

 

[RoboTimbo]

If you have issues with HSCA’s acoustical evidence, please state them with reference to said evidence.

Answer the question asked. What evidence do you have for a shot from the front?

The null hypothesis is waiting.

 

[manifesto]

Sorry. My belief is based on evidence.

Are they? Exactly what evidence for exactly, what?

I am open to the notion that Oswald is not the sole shooter,

But not the notion that he did not shoot at all?

For this your mind is forever closed?

if sufficient evidence is offered to support. that notion.

Define ”sufficient” in this very case.

I find that the efforts of people who take that position fall far short of that standard.

And, exactly what defines that ”standard”?

I find your efforts in particular to be amateurishly bad.

Of course you do. I’m still waiting, though, for you to point out ONE specific ”effort” of mine actually being that. Amateurishly bad.

Could you at last do that? Or am I waiting in vain?

I would acknowledge a very small probability that the evidence is the result of a clever, carefully orchestrated frame job on Oswald,

It has not have to be particular clever if you are in charge of the investigation, no. Quite easy, actually.

but you, or other JFK CT's have yet to make a convincing case for that.

What, in theory, could convince you of that is was a conspiracy that was and still is being covered up and that Oswald was framed as patsy, ”Just to throw the public off.”

I think it is considerably more likely that Oswald is the sole shooter,

What do you regard as the BEST evidence of Oswald being a shooter at all? Name it.

but did so as part of some conspiracy. Again, I have not seen convincing evidence in support of that scenario.

I take it you have issuses with the findings of HSCA’s acoustical evidence, then?

Be specific.

All I have seen from you is a transparent and poorly executed attempt to disguise an argument from incredulity as an examination of evidence. The trouble is, you have actually presented no evidence, nor have you succeeded in challenging in any meaningful way the evidence in favor of Oswald as the only shooter.

So, why do you discard HSCA’s acoustical investigation with reported findings?

Be specific.

In short, I don't find your arguments to be amateurish, childish and unconvincing because they conflict with my beliefs, but because they actually are.

Show me. But, be specific.

 

[traxy]

Instead of link-spamming maybe you should make an effort explaining what your link are providing in the realm of alleged evidence and arguments, and for what.

Could you do that?

Steve Barber picked up a voice on the dictabelt during the impulses saying "hold everything secure", which was said by Sheriff Bill Decker 90 seconds after the assassination.

The Technical Services section of the FBI found there was no merit in the HSCA conclusions. It was also disproven by a panel of experts with the National Academy of Sciences in 1982 (endorsing Steve Barber's conclusion). The Justice Department made the same conclusion in 1988.

Here is a link to a portion of the NAS panel report - http://www.jfk-online.com/nas04.html

 

[Tomtomkent]

THAT is the key question, yes. Indeed, why?

I for one am reminded of the Silver Blaze by Conan Doyle.
Investigating the poisoning of a farm hand, and the stealing of the titular race horse, Holmes is fascinated by the guard dogs in the farm.

When discussing the evidence of the case he states that he is most intrigued by the (infamous) "Curious incident with the dog, in the night."
"But the dog did nothing, in the night!" States an observer.
"Exactly!" Is Holmes' conclusion.

The dog did not bark an intruder, because there was no intruder.

The key question to why the bullets from the grassy knoll, leave no wound visible on either of the films of the assassination, in the x-rays, in the autopsy, in any post mortem photographs is rather simple.

There was no curious incident of the bullets from the grassy knoll.

There are, however, films of JFK being shot from behind, including the all too obvious trauma exploding out towards the front and right, in a vast exit wound.

 

[manifesto]

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.

Lots of assertions. Nil evidence supporting them.

You do not have any?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Lots of assertions. Nil evidence supporting them.

You do not have any?

Post your theory of the events of that day, which meets more evidence points than the null.
Be concise, be specific, and be thorough.

 

[traxy]

What do you regard as the BEST evidence of Oswald being a shooter at all? Name it.

Rifling on recovered bullets and fragments conclusively linking those shots to the Mannlicher Carcano rifle.

Fingerprints and a palm print on that rifle matching Lee Harvey Oswald.

Order form on microfilm provided by Klein's Sporting Goods showing the rifle was ordered by A Hidell (an ID carried by Oswald) and shipped to Oswald's PO box.

Oswald photographed multiple times holding the same rifle, going so far as signing one of the pictures for a friend. The signature on the picture is conclusively matched to Oswald. An original negative of that same photo session is linked by photography experts to the Oswald's Imperial Reflex camera to the exclusion of all other cameras.

We haven't gotten to the paper bag (with Oswald's prints), the "curtain rods" story, the fibers in the bag, the fibers in the butt of the gun, the prints on boxes in the snipers nest belonging to Oswald, etc. etc. etc.

 

[manifesto]

Steve Barber picked up a voice on the dictabelt during the impulses saying "hold everything secure", which was said by Sheriff Bill Decker 90 seconds after the assassination.

Ah, the famous rock drummer from Ohio? Ridiculously easy refuted by the fact of skipping needle on the dictabelt-machine. Anything else?

The Technical Services section of the FBI found there was no merit in the HSCA conclusions.

Yes. Their first statement refuting the report came even before reading, the report.

Some feat.

It was also disproven by a panel of experts

No. There were no experts in ballistic acoustics in that panel, no.

with the National Academy of Sciences in 1982 (endorsing Steve Barber's conclusion).

Exactly. Keyword is ”endorsing” drummer boys conclusion. Two years of trying to ”debunk” HSCA’s acoustical investigation and the only thing they could find was ”found” by a drummer in Ohio.

Respect.

The Justice Department made the same conclusion in 1988.

Did it now? Based on what?

Here is a link to a portion of the NAS panel report - http://www.jfk-online.com/nas04.html

Thank you, but no need, I have read it. Anything else in the report, besides the ”endorsing” of Barbers findings, you would like to present?

Show me.