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

[manifesto]

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?

Ah, you would like to discuss the Mauser turning Carcano turning murder weapon again? What is it that you would like to illuminate?

Be specific.

 

[tinribmancer]

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

Really?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Ah, you would like to discuss the Mauser turning Carcano turning murder weapon again? What is it that you would like to illuminate?

Be specific.

Wow! That's got to be a record for how quickly you return to a topic that you got so savagely spanked on! Fringe reset FTL!

Were you afraid to start a new topic you know so little about?

 

[pgwenthold]

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

And your evidence for this?


Evidence for this?

I already linked to the Jaynes webpage that showed the photographs showing where McLain was. Or wasn't, as the case may be

Evidence for this?

Already explained.

IF his mic was stuck open, you would hear his siren blaring all the way to the hospital. You would not hear the doppler effect like is heard for sirens that are on the recording. It's almost like the mic was in a fixed location and the sirens approached, passed by and then went on. Like at the Trade Mart. But that is a different issue...

Second, he reports hearing the order to go to the hospital on his radio. Could not have heard that if his mike was stuck open.


The hypothesis that McLain is the open mike at the specific position is thereby refuted. Demolished. Has no bearing in reality. And along with it goes the so-called "acoustic" evidence.


All you have left to do is to claim that McLain is lying about 1) where he was when the first shot was fired, 2) turning on his siren as he drove to the hospital, and 3) hearing the order to the hospital.

 

[Axxman300]

Really?

Yup.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...4e800ef2a63_story.html?utm_term=.6a34fcae6b08

I had a cool hoodie and keyring from there.

 

[Axxman300]

When evaluating evidence, it is important to ask not only "What is this evidence of?" but also "Why is it evidence of that?" With this in mind, let's take a look at the Secret Service drivers who manifesto has discussed.

The death of Thomas Shipman is only evidence of a conspiracy to murder JFK if Shipman himself was murdered. If it was just a heart attack, then his death had nothing to do with a conspiracy. Here is what we know: he died at Camp David and the coroner claimed that he died of a heart attack (according to his obituary). This means, if his death points to conspiracy, the conspirators must have had a method of poisoning a member of the president's Secret Service detail at Camp David, a method that appeared to be a heart attack. You must also believe they used this method successfully and got away with it.

This raises an important question: why would a conspiracy with that kind of access and ability not use the same method to kill the president? Why resort to a shooting in broad daylight in front of hundreds of witnesses? You might respond that a thorough autopsy, which the president would surely have gotten, would reveal the truth. Yet you are already raising suspicion about the actual autopsy: specifically, claiming the doctors were ordered not to perform certain procedures (e.g. probing the wounds). If JFK had been poisoned, they would only have needed to prevent whichever tests would reveal the specific poison they used.

Great post.

JFK was on medications for his Addison's Disease, and from the end of WWII right on through today poisoning is the preferred method of assassination, and if "they" could get an assassin into Camp David they would have killed the President right then and there.

In Dealey Plaza the only logical place to place a gunman is the TSBD, and the only reason Oswald didn't land all three shots is due to the floor boards being replaced on the other end where he would have had a better vantage point.

 

[manifesto]

Depends on what they're working on.

Well, we are discussing the fact that the 6th Floor Museum has an official representative of the CIA on its staff and if that is a good omen regarding the same Museums credibility.

Well, is it?

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.

Have they? Iran, Indonesia, Vietnam, Congo, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Chile, Afghanistan, Iraq, France, Italy, Honduras, Cuba, ... shall I continue.

Where was/is the ”empathy”?

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).

I guess most of the employees are fairly good people, but I’m talking of the bad ones. They have been many, doing very very bad things.

So if someone at the 6th Floor Museum worked for the CIA it's no big deal,

If they had a hand in the assassisination of president John F. Kennedy it surely is, a 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.

If you are thinking of Baers parody of historical investigation I have to agree. That was a new low from the Agency. Right behind Hollands ditto.

Maybe because you're a foreigner the CIA is some kind of mythical beast,

No, it is a proven ”beast”, feeding on its host, the American people and its democratic institutions. What they have done to other people in the world, well, that is almost unspeakable.

Pure evil.

but to me they're just another government agency.

And that explains a lot about you, doesn’t it.

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.

Funny thing, ”gift” means ”poison” in a scandinavian language. Are you sure they are not selling ”heart attack”-candy in their shop? LSD? Crack-Cocain? Heroin?

Or maybe those products still are reserved for the urban ghettoes?

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.

As I said, it doesn’t matter when all real dissent is stifled and suppressed in the society as a whole.

In the US you are allowed to belive anything, but to know nothing.

Of real significance.

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.

Exactly how many dissenters was invited to the City of Dallas 50th ’anniversary’ of the assassination of JFK?

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

No, the marksmen never had to replicate the shots from the window at a moving target.

Exactly my point.

- They were shooting from half the hight.

- They were allowed to start shooting whenever they felt doing it.

- The targets were not moving.

- The rifle was newly served and equipped with metal chips to fix the scope.

- They were allowed to do the shooting two times.

- It was not a sharp situation with life and death on the line.

- They were all master marksmen.

They couldn’t do it.

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,

Marinas testimony, yes. The neighbor never saw Oswald doing anything else than reading books on said porch.

shooting at bottles he'd toss into the river, and at the gun ranges.

The Warren Commission made the conclusion that Oswald had NOT practised with the Carcano since he had no car and could not drive a car and that the testimonies of him practicing in gun ranges had to be mistaken because he was proven being at other places with other witnesses when those alleged sightings were made.

So, when and how did Oswald practice with said Carcano?

The marksmen had only a few days at most.

Correct, but they were skilled snipers having two rounds to make the replication.

They could not do it. Oswald was a lousy shot. His last shooting in the Marines scored 91. 90 was the lowest mark possible for remaining in the unit.

Since 1964 other shooters have replicated the shots with ease.

Not with ease and certainly not with the alleged murder weapon.

Again, I’m not saying that Oswald colud not have made the three shots as the Commission proclaimed he dis. I’m saying he would have an enormous amount of ’luck’ doing it.

Possible? Yes.

Plausible? Hardly.

 

[manifesto]

Let me repeat the important part for you:

"Is it your conclusion that you proved that there were four shots? "
"No"

That's from Dr Barger's testimony to the HSCA.

So we can dispense with the notion that the acoustic evidence, even if we accept it, proves the conspiracy. According to the guy who did the tests.

But what else do we find out?



What a minute. What is the evidence for the open mike being McLain? Oh that's right, THEY ASSUMED IT!

And notice the entire case: IF you assume there are 4 shots, and IF you assume there is an open mike in a specific location, then the four shots are at given times.

But what happens if the mike is NOT in that position? Can you you use the acoustic evidence for 4 shots?

According to Dr Bargar, the answer is NO

This is why I keep telling you, your mistake is that you are assuming your conclusion. If you assume the mike is at a specific position and that there are 4 shots, then then the acoustic analysis tells you when those shots must have happened.

So, where was the open mike?

As has been noted, McLain wasn't where he was supposed to be for the acoustic evidence to work. Here is a description of where McLain was

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jaynes/index.htm

He was hanging back on Houston when the shots were fired.

Now, I know manifesto will just deny it, and accuse McLain of being wrong or lying, lying about hanging back and stopping on Houston and lying about turning on his siren (btw, that is magic bullet that destroys the possibility of McLain being the one with the open mike). But note that Jaynes actually talks about how Mack acknowledges this problem and just asserts (with no basis) that Mack was running ahead of where he should be. McLain contends the opposite, that he stopped, and didn't make it to the position needed. But hey, if we just claim that McLain is lying, then it all works again. And since we have to assume there is a 4th shooter, McLain MUST BE lying.

Or, it could all be nonsense.

You said the film/photos prove that McLain could not have been were he must have in order for his stuck mike to pick up the rifle shots as needed for the HSCA’s acoustic investigation to work.

Well, that is now by your own admission a faulty statement.

What you have is McLains testimony decades after the events. That is quite a leap don’t you think?

McClain COULD have been in position for picking up the five shots. That is, you have to weigh the evidence for him not being in position against the evidence for him being in position.

1/100 000 for him NOT being in position is pretty much a slam dunk for him actually being in position, don’t you think?

No? Explain.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Again, I’m not saying that Oswald colud not have made the three shots as the Commission proclaimed he dis. I’m saying he would have an enormous amount of ’luck’ doing it.

Possible? Yes.

Plausible? Hardly.

Do you know what a "gun" is?

 

[manifesto]

I already linked to the Jaynes webpage that showed the photographs showing where McLain was. Or wasn't, as the case may be



Already explained.

And refuted: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12262002&postcount=1428

IF his mic was stuck open, you would hear his siren blaring all the way to the hospital.

How do you know he had his siren on?

You would not hear the doppler effect like is heard for sirens that are on the recording. It's almost like the mic was in a fixed location and the sirens approached, passed by and then went on. Like at the Trade Mart. But that is a different issue...

The doppler effect is there even if the receiver is in motion.

Second, he reports hearing the order to go to the hospital on his radio. Could not have heard that if his mike was stuck open.

Testimony from one individual almost two decades after the event and a disposition to conforming to the official story, doesn’t cut it when weighed against hard evidence impossible to fake, showing P = 1/100 000 for being wrong.

The hypothesis that McLain is the open mike at the specific position is thereby refuted. Demolished. Has no bearing in reality. And along with it goes the so-called "acoustic" evidence.

Concider your ”refutation” and ”demolition” refuted.

Or, present other data.

All you have left to do is to claim that McLain is lying about 1) where he was when the first shot was fired, 2) turning on his siren as he drove to the hospital, and 3) hearing the order to the hospital.

I do not have to claim he is lying. Its enough to claim he could be mistaken and that he probably is biased in favor of the official story. These are three small details almost impossible to remember such a long time after the event.

Again, compare the evidence for and against his memory being correct.

It’s a slam dunk it’s not.

 

[manifesto]

Do you know what a "gun" is?

Why do you ask?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Why do you ask?

I want to see if you're as knowledgeable as the other CTists who've spoken about guns and had apparently never been in the same building with one. So far, you're on par. You don't know anything about guns or shooting except what your one CT website has told you to think.

Ok, go ahead. Put your ignorance of firearms on display.

 

[manifesto]

I want to see if you're as knowledgeable as the other CTists who've spoken about guns and had apparently never been in the same building with one. So far, you're on par. You don't know anything about guns or shooting except what your one CT website has told you to think.

Ok, go ahead. Put your ignorance of firearms on display.

In what way have I shown that my lack of/knowledge of ”guns” have led me astray when discussing anything in this thread, RoboTimbo?

Be specific. Quote. Explain.

 

[Axxman300]

Well, we are discussing the fact that the 6th Floor Museum has an official representative of the CIA on its staff and if that is a good omen regarding the same Museums credibility.

Well, is it?

It's only a problem for the mentally ill.

Have they? Iran, Indonesia, Vietnam, Congo, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Chile, Afghanistan, Iraq, France, Italy, Honduras, Cuba, ... shall I continue.

Where was/is the ”empathy”?

Where's your objective command of history...comrade?

If they had a hand in the assassisination of president John F. Kennedy it surely is, a BIG deal.

And yet they didn't. The most recent document release - the documents the CIA and FBI insisted be locked away for 50+ years - show that the CIA was desperate to link Oswald to the Soviets or Cuba. If they were behind it they would have done a better job of framing him to link him with Cuba

If you are thinking of Baers parody of historical investigation I have to agree. That was a new low from the Agency. Right behind Hollands ditto.

CIA had nothing to do with it. Plus, they ran Baer out of the agency, and tried to prosecute him. He's not loyal to them.

No, it is a proven ”beast”, feeding on its host, the American people and its democratic institutions. What they have done to other people in the world, well, that is almost unspeakable.

You're projecting.

Pure evil.

More like fun evil.

And that explains a lot about you, doesn’t it.

I judge people and organizations on fact-based evidence, and not things blathered about at bars.

Funny thing, ”gift” means ”poison” in a scandinavian language. Are you sure they are not selling ”heart attack”-candy in their shop? LSD? Crack-Cocain? Heroin?

Candy is sold in the cafeteria.

As I said, it doesn’t matter when all real dissent is stifled and suppressed in the society as a whole.

I keep waiting for that day to come, and yet right now somewhere in the US someone is protesting something unmolested.

In the US you are allowed to belive anything, but to know nothing.

Uh huh...you need to visit.

Exactly how many dissenters was invited to the City of Dallas 50th ’anniversary’ of the assassination of JFK?

You spelled "Kooks" wrong.

Exactly my point.

- They were shooting from half the hight.

- They were allowed to start shooting whenever they felt doing it.

- The targets were not moving.

- The rifle was newly served and equipped with metal chips to fix the scope.

- They were allowed to do the shooting two times.

- It was not a sharp situation with life and death on the line.

- They were all master marksmen.

They couldn’t do it.

And this was an accurate test how?

The Warren Commission made the conclusion that Oswald had NOT practised with the Carcano since he had no car and could not drive a car and that the testimonies of him practicing in gun ranges had to be mistaken because he was proven being at other places with other witnesses when those alleged sightings were made.

So, when and how did Oswald practice with said Carcano?

Is this the same Warren Commission you assail for being packed with lies and inaccuracies? The Warren Commission that categorically proved Oswald's guilt? That Warren Commission?

You can't cite them piecemeal, if you buy one conclusion you have to buy them all. Those are YOUR RULES.

If you were a wise CTist the trips to the shooting ranges opens the door to the possibility of conspiracy. Who was the driver? What did he know about Oswald's motives? These visits also feature a Carcano, which is why everyone at the range recognized Oswald from his exotic Italian rifle. If it wasn't Oswald then there was a second Carcano in Dallas. Tracking it down would be easy since tracking Oswald's rifle goes all the way back from Klein's, to the port of entry, and back to Europe.

Find the guy with the other Carcano and you have the killer and win the Pulitzer Prize.

It is known that Oswald took his rifle on the bus to the river where he'd shoot bottles.

Correct, but they were skilled snipers having two rounds to make the replication.

No, they were marksmen, not snipers. There's a difference.

In 1963 the FBI didn't have designated marksmen, just agents comfortable firing a hunting rifle. The USMC didn't open its Scout Sniper School until 1966, and the US Army didn't have a sniper school until 1987. This means that the government had no trained snipers in 1963/64 - just marksmen.

They could not do it. Oswald was a lousy shot. His last shooting in the Marines scored 91. 90 was the lowest mark possible for remaining in the unit.

This is an ancient lie based on a misunderstanding of USMC culture. Oswald was considered a poor shot as a US MARINE, but that just makes him an excellent shot in the US Army, and a phenomenal compared with the average civilian.

Here's why this argument fails:

Oswald's scores were hampered by the fact they were averaged between sitting and standing positions. According to Oswald's to Oswald's personal USMC score book, in two rapid-fire tests at 200 yards from a sitting position he scored a 48 and 49 out of 50. Oswald killed JFK from a sitting position with his rifle braced.

The USMC tests at 200 to 500 yards, and he trained with the M-1 Garand, which was heavier, and had greater recoil than the Carcano.

Bottom line: Oswald scored a 48/50 and a 49/50 at 200 yards using a heavier rifle and no telescoping sight. In Dallas he made two shots with a much more powerful rifle at distances under 100 yards from a sitting position with a 4X scope.

Again, I’m not saying that Oswald colud not have made the three shots as the Commission proclaimed he dis. I’m saying he would have an enormous amount of ’luck’ doing it.

He didn't need luck to make the shots.

He was lucky because his boss gave the TSBD staff time off to watch the motorcade leaving the 6th floor deserted.

He was lucky that the weather cleared up and the limousine's bubble-top was not attached to the car leaving JFK exposed.

He was lucky because Dealey Plaza's echo created enough confusion to allow him to escape the TSBD.

He only had to be lucky once, but as far as shooting skill went he was 2 for 3 missing the closest shot. Not a skilled marksman, just a Marine adapting and overcoming an obstacle.

 

[Axxman300]

Why do you ask?

We asked you three times if the Mauser you claim was found in the TSBD was a rifle or a pistol, and you have yet to clarify. Nor have you stated that if it was a rifle what exact model was found.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Manifesto, was it an impossible shot for anyone? Or just Oswald?

 

[manifesto]

We asked you three times if the Mauser you claim was found in the TSBD was a rifle or a pistol,

Who are we? And where did ”we” ask this question three times?

and you have yet to clarify.

Have I written anything that makes a clarification necessary? Quote it. Explain.

Nor have you stated that if it was a rifle what exact model was found.

Nor do I have to. Three officers testified that the rifle found was a Mauser. Two of them in signed writing. One of them verbally, never retracting his testimony. The other two retracted, remembering better as time went by.

I have never said that this PROVE that the found rifle was a Mauser. I’m saying that there was/is different identifcations of said rifle and that this is one in a long long raw of question marks lining the history of the alleged murder weapon.

Do you have issues with this?

State them one at a time.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Who are we? And where did ”we” ask this question three times?

Have I written anything that makes a clarification necessary? Quote it. Explain.

Nor do I have to. Three officers testified that the rifle found was a Mauser. Two of them in signed writing. One of them vebally, never retracting his testimony.

I have never said that this PROVE that the found rifle was a Mauser. I’m saying that there was/is different identifcations of said rifle and that this is one in a long long raw of question marks lining the history of the alleged murder weapon.

Do you have issues with this?

State them one at a time.

Now you just need compelling evidence that a Mauser was found. Get busy, the null hypothesis is waiting.

 

[manifesto]

Manifesto, was it an impossible shot for anyone? Or just Oswald?

RoboTimbo, why are you lying implying I have ever said it was an impossible shot (which one?) for Oswald?

Why are you lying, RoboTimbo? Does it feel good inside, telling lies?

 

[RoboTimbo]

RoboTimbo, why are you lying implying I have ever said it was an impossible shot (which one?) for Oswald?

Why are you lying, RoboTimbo? Does it feel good inside, telling lies?

Answer the questions you're asked, manifesto. Are you retracting your claim that Oswald couldn't have made the shot?