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

[Axxman300]

Runned by the city of Dallas and with a ”representative from the CIA”, yes.

Yeah, I know the secret handshake.

They are so evil that their assassination reading room includes CT literature, obviously to throw people off the scent.

The also have a cool live-camera from Oswald's window:

https://www.earthcam.com/usa/texas/dallas/dealeyplaza/?cam=dealeyplaza

You'd have to be blind or handicapped not to be able to make the shots from this window.

 

[traxy]

Show me

Just did.

The dictabelt evidence bunk, and now you've been shown.

 

[manifesto]

Yeah, I know the secret handshake.

No secret handshake needed. The representative was/is official CIA.

Do you trust the CIA?

They are so evil

Yes, the CIA (members of) have been proven doing many evil deeds since its inception, 1947.

You disagree?

that their assassination reading room includes CT literature, obviously to throw people off the scent.

It doesn’t matter if they include some disenting litterature in their ”reading room”, if real disent is stifled in real life. They have to perform the illusion of a free and open society.

The also have a cool live-camera from Oswald's window:

https://www.earthcam.com/usa/texas/dallas/dealeyplaza/?cam=dealeyplaza

You'd have to be blind or handicapped not to be able to make the shots from this window.

So, you are saying that the expert marksmen trying to replicate the shooting with the alleged murder weapon were: ”blind or handicapped”?

Really?

 

[manifesto]

Just did.

Where did you do that?

The dictabelt evidence bunk, and now you've been shown.

So, you are saying that the skipping needle did not skip?

 

[Tomtomkent]

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

So the dictabelt records sounds upto a minute out of sequence?
Ergo the calculations of timings and distance of any sound on the dictabelt may be in the wrong place.
Thus the calculations describing the suspected "rifle shots" may be upto one minute out of place.

Oh dear...

 

[Tomtomkent]

Where did you do that?

Here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12261687#post12261687

And before that, here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12261580#post12261580

And decades ago Dr James Barger disproved the points you are regurgitating from conspiracy literature:

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.

Mr. FITHIAN. With regard to the groupings of shots what do you prove then?

Dr. BARGER. As regards the grouping of the shots, we demonstrated with
high confidence that if there are four shots, we demonstrated the times
at which they occurred, and the intervals between them were described by
Mr. Cornwell, 1.6 seconds, was it 5.9, and 0.5.

 

[CORed]

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

Take your pick. Every post you've made in this thread so far.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Lots of assertions. Nil evidence supporting them.

You do not have any?

Answer the question asked, manifesto. Do you have any evidence supporting your claim of a shot from the front striking JFK?

The only one we see in the Z film obviously comes from the rear.

Null hypothesis remains intact.

 

[Axxman300]

Runned by the city of Dallas and with a ”representative from the CIA”, yes.

Telling you, what?

Magic touchings of the fence, telling you what?

Interesting. And all the people who have made the same visit coming to the opposite conclusion, that the shooting was from two or more shooters? Same visit to same place giving two contrary conclusions?

It is simple, there was no way a gunman would remain unseen by everyone behind the picket fence. You would have to be galactically blind. Anyone who visits Dealey Plaza and doesn't automatically understand this either doesn't understand shooting, or is a fool.

If someone wants there to be a conspiracy they have to look at the facts, and the Grassy Knoll offered almost no real concealment whatsoever, unless the gunman was a doddering moron who wanted to get caught. If there was a conspiracy it will not be found in Dealey Plaza.

I do not lie when I say that the experts trying to replicate the three shots with the renovated alleged murder weapon, did not manage to do it.

No, lying implies intelligence, and you have yet to display any. When you say "Experts" you really mean "Experts I choose to believe", and not real shooters because the shots have been recreated enough times over the years to settle the case.

And, they would certainly not manage to do it according to HSCA’s acoustical findings. It would have been 100% impossible for one shooter making the FOUR shots from behind with that close between the shots, not using an automated weapon.

The HSCA's findings have been proven to be unfounded, and there were only three shots fired, and the two that struck the President came from the 6.5x52mm Carcano.

That is why chief of HSCA, Blakey, lied to Congess and the American people that one of the detected shots from behind the limo HAD TO be a false positive. To tell the truth would have severely challenged the ”truth” that Oswald killed JFK at all, let alone doing it by himself without co conspirators.

Blakey forced his two acoustical research teams to ’accept’ the ’four shots solution’, claiming his Congressional overseers maby would accept 4 shots = two shooters with Oswald firing the killing shot, but certainly not accept 5 shots = three shooters not knowing who fired the fatal shot killing JFK.

That was not enough, though. Blakey also forced the investigators to clock wise move the shot from in front in order not to fit as the killing shot.

Blakey thus stated political reasons for distorting the data for the stated reason of making his overseers accept a conspiracy, stating that this was streching the limits of what they could accept. To present the truth = 5 shots, 4 from behind, 1 from in front being the fatal shot, would have been impossible for them to accept, according to Blakey.

Which is why the HSCA's acoustic evidence is crap.

Oh, and Blakey was a CTist, which underlines his problems.

No matter what the science says.

The science says Oswald did it.

 

[manifesto]

So the dictabelt records sounds upto a minute out of sequence?
Ergo the calculations of timings and distance of any sound on the dictabelt may be in the wrong place.
Thus the calculations describing the suspected "rifle shots" may be upto one minute out of place.

Oh dear...

Yes, oh dear ...

Looking att the difference in time between the Bellah cross talk and the Decker ditto comparing it to the real difference in time between the two statements, show a difference of almost exactly one minute! So, no, the Decker simulcast was NOT in synchronicity with the unfolding real life events.

The only possible explanation for this one minute discrepancy IS a skipping needle in the dictabelt machine. There are other instances of skipping needle confirming this conclusion even further.

You disagree?

 

[Stamuel]

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

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

Some feat.

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

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.

Did it now? Based on what?

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.

I don't know what this nonsense is about "endorsing" Barber's findings, or why it matters that he was a drummer. You make it sound like the Committee on Ballistic Acoustics, National Research Council did nothing and just rubber stamped what a random guy told them. That is completely false. Here is a brief summary of part of what they did.

First, they redid the statistical analysis of previous studies. This part had nothing to do with Barber. They concluded the apparent signals were not significant.

There are several errors, of which the most serious is the failure to allow in the probability calculations for the fact that the location of the shooter in the WA analysis was adjusted to maximize the number of coincidences. With these corrections and a conservative adjustment, a P value as high as .223 can be obtained for the hypothesis of random location; this is much less impressive than the BRSW-WA value of .05 (2, p. 35). Furthermore, even if it were granted that the hypothesis of randomly located impulses on relevant portions of the tape were in serious doubt, it would not follow that the alternative of gunfire from the grassy knoll was convincing. All plausible alternatives to both of these hypotheses would have to be eliminated, and no convincing effort has been made in this direction.

(p. 130)

Then, they analyzed the sections of the recordings that Barber pointed to, testing whether there was indeed crosstalk. They used four methods. First, they just looked at the spectrograms.

Next:

The committee used three methods in addition to visual inspection to determine whether the sound spectrograms of channels I and II contained signals from the same source (2, p. 41). In the first method we identified characteristic features that were present on both spectrograms and then determined the relation between the times of occurrence of the two sets of features.

[…]

The probability of obtaining such close agreement by random occurrence of the features at their observed average spacing would be about 2.1 x 10^-13, and the probability of randomly obtaining such good agreement on the frequency ratio of the points is about 2 x 10^-10.

(p. 131)

Next:

The second method is the calculation of the effective relative speeds from the frequency ratios for five sections with particularly well-defined frequencies on the two channels. Such a calculation gives a ratio of recorder speeds of 1.062 ± 0.005 in excellent agreement with the value in the preceding paragraph.

(pp. 131-2)

Finally:

In the third approach, the channel I and channel II recordings were digitized and the short-term acoustic spectra were taken and stored in a digital computer. (p. 132)

[…]

The narrow peaks of the cross-correlation curves show by an objective test that the "hold everything" segment of channel II is present on channel I at the same location as the acoustic impulses. There is no doubt that the voice (and other) sounds of channel II are present on channel I to an accuracy in location corresponding to a few milliseconds.

(p. 133)

The fact that a rock and roll drummer lives in Ohio does nothing to undermine any of this. Do you have any actual reason to reject their findings?

 

[manifesto]

Here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12261687#post12261687

And before that, here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12261580#post12261580

And decades ago Dr James Barger disproved the points you are regurgitating from conspiracy literature:

What Barger is pressured to say after the investigations were made doesn’t refute the contents of the same investigations. Remember that he and his company largely depended on government funding in their research and development of new technology. Easy to convince of the ”prudent” way to disclose the findings.

And, that the investigation doesn’t prove four shots is technically an honest assessment. It proved five shots.

If you have issues with the investigations, adress them.

But, be specific.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Answer the question asked, manifesto. Do you have any evidence supporting your claim of a shot from the front striking JFK?

The only one we see in the Z film obviously comes from the rear.

Null hypothesis remains intact.

I take it that you're conceding this point knowing that you can't defend it.

I accept your admission of your error.

What do you want to be wrong about next?

 

[Axxman300]

No secret handshake needed. The representative was/is official CIA.

Do you trust the CIA?

Depends on what they're working on.

I have friends who work/work at Langley, one of them being my former Congressman who ended up as DCI. Folks working there are college educated, speak a few languages, and have empathy for other cultures. Some people make a career out of it, but many can only handle a clandestine environment for so long, and seek work in the civilian sector (many go into teaching, other's apply their skills for multinational businesses, and others find other government jobs).

So if someone at the 6th Floor Museum worked for the CIA it's no big deal, there were and are a lot of CIA agents, and annalists who have lingering questions about the assassination over the years who have used their security clearances to access the CIA's files. We even got a worthless History Channel show out of it last year.

Maybe because you're a foreigner the CIA is some kind of mythical beast, but to me they're just another government agency.

Yes, the CIA (members of) have been proven doing many evil deeds since its inception, 1947.

You disagree?

Not really, no.

The CIA was not acting in a vacuum, it was operating in a world with MI6, DGSE, West German Intelligance, Stasi, and the fun bunch at the KGB.

To this day I believe the CIA is the only one with a gift shop.

It doesn’t matter if they include some disenting litterature in their ”reading room”, if real disent is stifled in real life. They have to perform the illusion of a free and open society.

And yet the 6th Floor Museum is the opposite of that. They have lectures on the 7th floor featuring those who believe in conspiracy to kill JFK, and those lectures are ALL ON YOUTUBE uncensored for anyone with internet access to view. Their "Living History" lectures are gold for history buffs.

Outside of the museum, between the building and the Grassy Knoll you can find people with signs, posters, and brochures advancing their personal CT views. They are there almost every day. No one shuts them down except for when fights break out between CTists.

So, you are saying that the expert marksmen trying to replicate the shooting with the alleged murder weapon were: ”blind or handicapped”?/QUOTE]

No, the marksmen never had to replicate the shots from the window at a moving target. They missed because they didn't have enough time with the rifle. Oswald had 8 months to master the Carcano by dry-firing it on his porch, shooting at bottles he'd toss into the river, and at the gun ranges. The marksmen had only a few days at most.

Since 1964 other shooters have replicated the shots with ease.

 

[pgwenthold]

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

Yrs, I disagree with tbe HSCA, and I've explained why.

There was no open mic at the spot there needed to be. 1) McLain wasn't there, and
2) even where he was, his mic wasn't open.

If he wasn't there with an open mic, then the impulses on the recording are not gun shots in Dealey Plaza.

Which makes sense since the supposed time is after the shooting occured.

Bargar made it clear in his testimony - in their analysis, tbey assumed the mic was in a specific position. There was no basis for that assumption

 

[traxy]

Where did you do that?

So, you are saying that the skipping needle did not skip?

You have no evidence that the skipping needle was the cause of Decker's voice. It was offered as a theory but never actually proven.

Photographic evidence proved that HB McLain wasn't in the spot the HSCA needed him to be in.

So much for that.

 

[manifesto]

You have no evidence that the skipping needle was the cause of Decker's voice. It was offered as a theory but never actually proven.

Yes I have evidence of dicrepancies in timings on the dictabelt and that a skipping needle is the only known cause for this to happen.

As i said, the time difference between the Decker crossover and the Bellah ditto should be the same on the recording as in real life. It is not. The difference is almost exactly one minute! Refuting NRC’s claim that the recorded five impulse-patterns most have happened one minute after the shooting and therefore cannot be five rifle shots at Dealey Plaza during the actual shootings.

Ergo, NRC’s conclusion was rushed and now utterly proven WRONG.

Photographic evidence proved that HB McLain wasn't in the spot the HSCA needed him to be in.

So much for that.

Yes, a good move, skipping away from your faulty assertions of no skipping needle. Duly noted.

Exactly HOW does WHAT photographic evidence prove that McLain was NOT in the spot the HSCA needed him to be?

 

[manifesto]

Yrs, I disagree with tbe HSCA, and I've explained why.

No you have not. Assertions doesn’t equal explanations and evidence.

There was no open mic at the spot there needed to be.

And your evidence for this?

1) McLain wasn't there, and

Evidence for this?

2) even where he was, his mic wasn't open.

Evidence for this?

If he wasn't there with an open mic, then the impulses on the recording are not gun shots in Dealey Plaza.

Agree. But, do you have any evidence of him not being there with a stuck microphone?

Which makes sense since the supposed time is after the shooting occured.

Bargar made it clear in his testimony - in their analysis, tbey assumed the mic was in a specific position. There was no basis for that assumption

You haven’t grasped the basics of this controversy, have you?

What Barger is stating under pressure AFTER finnishing his teams part of HSCA’s two-pronged acuostics investigation isn’t remotly relevant in judging same investigations actual scientific findings.

If you have issues with the investigations findings, adress them here.

But, be specific.

 

[manifesto]

I take it that you're conceding this point knowing that you can't defend it.

I accept your admission of your error.

What do you want to be wrong about next?

Quoting yourself in an ongoing monolouge is a sure sign of not being altogether there.

Let me know when you are actually interested in debating something of, substance.

I’ll be here waiting.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Quoting yourself in an ongoing monolouge is a sure sign of not being altogether there.

Let me know when you are actually interested in debating something of, substance.

I’ll be here waiting.

But what is the next topic you're going to be wrong about? You've been beaten up pretty badly about your mistake about there being extra shots. You did the right thing in conceding that one. That's after being savaged about the "Mauser" and running away from that subject.

What are you going to display ignorance of next?