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

[manifesto]

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

I know that you are trying to derail the discussion on the HSCA acoustical evidence, RoboTimbo. That is your job, I know.

I wrote:

”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.”

What is it that you do not understand, RoboTimbo?

 

[RoboTimbo]

I know that you are trying to derail the discussion on the HSCA acoustical evidence, RoboTimbo. That is your job, I know.

I wrote:

”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.”

What is it that you do not understand, RoboTimbo?

Answer the questions you're asked, manifesto. The null hypothesis is still there.

 

[RoboTimbo]

You've run away from answering another question, manifesto. Which officer's mic was held open? Will you continue to run away, manifesto?

 

[Stamuel]

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

Apparently, you are here claiming to link to a refutation of Jaynes' photo analysis. Here is what you posted at that link:

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.

This post mentions photos, but doesn't say anything at all about Jaynes or what is wrong with Jaynes' analysis. You claim that pgwenthold admits the analysis is flawed, yet in the post you are replying to, pgwenthold did not even mention the photos.

How do you know he had his siren on?

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

The Doppler effect occurs when the source of the sound and the receiver of the sound are in relative motion. If the microphone recorded a siren with Doppler effect, then the microphone was not moving along with the siren. Since McLain was traveling with the motorcade, there shouldn't be a Doppler effect, even if it wasn't his own siren.

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.

You keep citing p = 1/100,000 as if it is an established fact, yet you have never provided a citation for it. I am guessing you are taking it from Thomas. You mentioned multiplying his conclusion of p = .037 together for all 5 shots, but this does not yield 1/100,000 and is not even the right way to calculate the p-value.

Thomas only mentions p = 1/100,000 when he gives his most generous estimate. He does this by modifying several parameters of the NRC calculation. He does not present this as his final conclusion, however.

So the HSCA concluded p < 0.05, the NRC concluded p < 0.22, and Thomas concluded p < 0.037. Yet you have only ever used the value p < 0.00001. I understand why you will only ever mention this outlier: even a p-value of 0.037 is only suggestive. The strongest conclusion it would allow you to reach is: "This is potentially worthy of further study." Further study has been done, and it shows no microphone was near where it needed to be. Turns out the impulses are not assassination gunshots.

Concider your ”refutation” and ”demolition” refuted.

Or, present other data.

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.

 

[Tomtomkent]

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?

I wonder if you noticed, or care, how this undermines your claims.
You are claiming that the recording is unreliable and sounds in the sequence can not be considered fixed in time or order.

Assuming your new claims of a skipping needle are valid (they are not) and assuming you have identified the correct microphone (you have not) and given that no motorcycle is visible, in the right place for those impulses to be shots, what conclusion can reasonably be drawn?

Go further. What attribute of the dialogue indicates it, over other sounds, is displaced? (Other than it being a convenient excuse?)
None.

The simplest explanation that explains most points of evidence, including engines being heard to rev when they should have idled, the lack of visible candidate in the filmed footage, the dialogue, etc, is that the recording is NOT a witness to the gunshots at all.

 

[Tomtomkent]

I know that you are trying to derail the discussion on the HSCA acoustical evidence, RoboTimbo. That is your job, I know.

I wrote:

”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.”

What is it that you do not understand, RoboTimbo?

Surely we can answer the question simply:
We have one rifle in evidence.
We have photographs of one rifle being found.
We have prints found on one rifle.
We have evidence of three shots being fired, and only three shots.
We have a bullet, and fragments of a bullet, matched to that one rifle.
The wounds are consistent with that one rifle.

The null hypothesis is of one rifle being used. The probability that the single rifle being honestly mistaken for another, more common model, by one or more officers far outweighs the probability of a second rifle being used, either firing additional shots that leave no evidential trail, or firing the known shots, whose evidence was then altered or eliminated.

Further more, the Conspiracy lore about the quality of the rifle has often been exaggerated to make the rifle seem far less accurate or workable than it was. I am no expert, but to my reading the "failures" are all misstating the timing to start with the aiming of the first shot, even though they were calculated from the time of the sounds, or within the limits that more practice and familiarity with the rifle (that there is NO doubt Oswald would have time to build on) could put the timings within achievable grounds. A guy picking up that model, and timing himself for the first time, is going to be at a disadvantage to somebody who has drilled on the same rifle at the range, adjusted the sights to his liking, etc.

 

[bknight]

Surely we can answer the question simply:
We have one rifle in evidence.
We have photographs of one rifle being found.
We have prints found on one rifle.
We have evidence of three shots being fired, and only three shots.
We have a bullet, and fragments of a bullet, matched to that one rifle.
The wounds are consistent with that one rifle.

The null hypothesis is of one rifle being used. The probability that the single rifle being honestly mistaken for another, more common model, by one or more officers far outweighs the probability of a second rifle being used, either firing additional shots that leave no evidential trail, or firing the known shots, whose evidence was then altered or eliminated.

Further more, the Conspiracy lore about the quality of the rifle has often been exaggerated to make the rifle seem far less accurate or workable than it was. I am no expert, but to my reading the "failures" are all misstating the timing to start with the aiming of the first shot, even though they were calculated from the time of the sounds, or within the limits that more practice and familiarity with the rifle (that there is NO doubt Oswald would have time to build on) could put the timings within achievable grounds. A guy picking up that model, and timing himself for the first time, is going to be at a disadvantage to somebody who has drilled on the same rifle at the range, adjusted the sights to his liking, etc.

In addition Dale Myers did a video concluding the same observation, that McClain could not have been in the position that the HSCA "calculated". Forty years of technology improvements refutes the conclusion of the HCSA.

 

[pgwenthold]

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

What the hell are you talking about?

There is no doppler effect if the receiver is moving at the same speed as the source of the sound. For example, a microphone on a motorcycle. The doppler effect is only there if there is a relative difference in the velocities of the source of the sound and the receiver. In that case, the sound frequency shifts by the difference in the velocities.

So much for that stupid attempted rationalization.

As for the rest, you walked right into it. Claim McLain is lying, that is all you have.

 

[carlitos]

Manifesto’s sinister comments about the CIA suppressing American democracy reminded me of this quote from Tom Wolfe — “The dark night of fascism is always descending in the United States and yet lands only in Europe.”

 

[traxy]

”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.”

JC Day was videotaped by Dallas news recovering the rifle at the depository. The rifle in that videotaped footage is a Mannlicher Carcano.

I mean...how much more definitive do you want?

 

[RoboTimbo]

I'll give manifesto three days to think of answers to the numerous questions that are still outstanding. I hope he uses the time wisely.

 

[HSienzant]

I wonder if you noticed, or care, how this undermines your claims.
You are claiming that the recording is unreliable and sounds in the sequence can not be considered fixed in time or order.

Assuming your new claims of a skipping needle are valid (they are not) and assuming you have identified the correct microphone (you have not) and given that no motorcycle is visible, in the right place for those impulses to be shots, what conclusion can reasonably be drawn?

Go further. What attribute of the dialogue indicates it, over other sounds, is displaced? (Other than it being a convenient excuse?)
None.

The simplest explanation that explains most points of evidence, including engines being heard to rev when they should have idled, the lack of visible candidate in the filmed footage, the dialogue, etc, is that the recording is NOT a witness to the gunshots at all.

CTs do this over and over.

They quote from the eyewitness testimony when it suits their purposes, but argue the eyewitness testimony was changed when it doesn't suit their purposes.

They cite what the Zapruder film shows when it suits their purposes, but claim it was altered when it doesn't.

They argue against the pristine nature of the bullet found in Parkland when it suits their purposes, then declare it wasn't the actual bullet found in Parkland when it doesn't.

They cite the autopsy photos and radiographs when it suits their purposes, but claim they are altered when it shows something they dislike.

And of course, the dictabelt is reliable evidence when they choose but unreliable whenever it disproves one of their contentions.

As noted, they are very predictable.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

JC Day was videotaped by Dallas news recovering the rifle at the depository. The rifle in that videotaped footage is a Mannlicher Carcano.

I mean...how much more definitive do you want?

Filmed by Thomas Alyea of WFAA-TV.

His film was converted to videotape. And to an electronic medium so you can watch it on YouTube.

Like here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsnIeaAWFfo

Notice he claims, a year after the assassination, that he entered the building with FBI and Secret Service agents. That's a presumption of his. More than likely, he entered with some plain-clothes police officers and members of the Sheriff's Department.

His film was studied by photographic experts for the HSCA in 1978. And determined to be a Carcano.

And Manifesto should surely know this, being as he claims he's so well-read on this subject.

So why the argument about what witnesses saw? Another thing Manifesto should understand is that eyewitness testimony is unreliable, if he's truly as well-read as he claims.

The film and photographs overturn the eyewitnesses, not the other way around.

And as Jean Davison, author of OSWALD'S GAME pointed out, you can tell them apart by the groove.

Manifesto, the Roger Craig video you posted actually proves that Craig lied.

All you have to do to see that is to compare the rifle Day held up with a photo showing a Mauser and a Carcano side by side. (Sorry I can't post the link but it's easy to find.)

The rifle Day picked up has the Carcano's long horizontal groove in the wooden stock that the Mauser lacks. The shape of the Mauser's trigger guard is also different. Craig's claim that he saw "7.65 Mauser" stamped on the barrel was therefore a big fat lie.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

In addition Dale Myers did a video concluding the same observation, that McClain could not have been in the position that the HSCA "calculated". Forty years of technology improvements refutes the conclusion of the HCSA.

Here's that video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thSPu57vaWg

Hank

 

[Stamuel]

[...]

So why the argument about what witnesses saw? Another thing Manifesto should understand is that eyewitness testimony is unreliable, if he's truly as well-read as he claims.

The film and photographs overturn the eyewitnesses, not the other way around.

[...]

More than this, witnesses are more reliable about some things than others. The witnesses who said the rifle was/looked like a Mauser (Weitzman, Boone, and Craig) also all said that they did not pick up or examine the rifle. They only looked at while it was on the floor behind some boxes. They also all testified and/or wrote in affidavits that they didn’t move the rifle, and that Capt Fritz and Lt. Day took charge of it. This rifle was carried out of the building on film and brought back to the station.

We can be more confident in their testimony about what happened to the rifle than we can be in their identifications of the specific model of rifle, given the conditions. Looking behind some boxes at a rifle on the floor does not allow one to distinguish between similar rifles, like a Carcano and a Mauser. But being in a room does allow one to tell if people were switching or moving rifles. Conclusion: the rifle they found was the rifle DPD carried out of the building on film that day. Upon examination, that rifle was determined to be a Carcano.

So conspiracy theorists are not only favoring witnesses over photographic evidence, they are favoring less reliable statements of witnesses over more reliable statements from the same witnesses.

 

[OKBob]

Do you trust the CIA?

Ad hominem. Begged question. I'll say it again. You are not equipped for the task you have taken on. And you have no interest in becoming so equipped. I'm a teacher by profession. I can tell when someone is unteachable.

 

[Axxman300]

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

Your inattention to detail is a problem.

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

You wandered in here making demands that we all be specific, and that should apply to the person making the demands.

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.

Yet you didn't specify rifle in your initial post, and you have still have not specified which Mauser model they claim to have seen. This is an obvious game because the model they thought they saw resembles the Carcano, and thus automatically makes their statements - written or otherwise - mute.

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.

But there weren't different identifications of the Carcano. The cops who thought they saw a Mauser saw it in a dark corner for a few seconds, and not one of them handled the weapon, and all three were under tremendous professional stress. The only testimony that matters is from the detective who recovered and identified and secured the weapon into police custody.

The only questions come from people playing games.

Do you have issues with this?

I do.

State them one at a time.

1. Intellectually dishonest.
2. Double Standard
3. Factually proven to be untrue.
4. Proven to be untrue for 54 years.

 

[HSienzant]

More than this, witnesses are more reliable about some things than others. The witnesses who said the rifle was/looked like a Mauser (Weitzman, Boone, and Craig) also all said that they did not pick up or examine the rifle. They only looked at while it was on the floor behind some boxes. They also all testified and/or wrote in affidavits that they didn’t move the rifle, and that Capt Fritz and Lt. Day took charge of it. This rifle was carried out of the building on film and brought back to the station.

The above applies to Boone and Weitzman but not to Craig. Craig is a special case and should be treated separately. While Boone and Weitzman said the rifle appeared to be a Mauser the weekend of the assassination, Craig didn't start claiming to see a Mauser on the sixth floor until the 1970s.

There were two affidavits by Craig on the weekend of the assassination. In neither of those did he mention handling the rifle or identifying it as a Mauser. He also didn't mention a Mauser in his testimony to the Warren Commission nor in his testimony at the Clay Shaw trial in New Orleans (I cited all those earlier here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12253356&postcount=838 )

In 1968, in fact, in an interview printed in the LA Free Press, he specifically denied seeing a Mauser when he said "I couldn't give its name because I don't know foreign rifles" ("RC" in the below is Roger Craig, "PJ" is conspiracy theorist Penn Jones, while "FP" is the LA Free Press interviewer). He also mentioned he had heard there was a Mauser found on the roof and then repeats some erroneous hearsay about that supposed rifle:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/craigandjonespage7.jpg

In the 1970s, Craig started claiming he not only saw the rifle on the sixth floor, he personally also saw the markings that identified it as a 7.65 Mauser. This is Manifesto's 'evidence' for Craig's identification of the rifle as a Mauser.

But the point is 'the Mauser on the sixth floor' story Craig was telling in the 1970s was contradicted by his own statements from earlier, as well as all the photographic and film evidence, as well as the testimony of the man who actually handled the rifle, transported the weapon to the crime lab, and photographed it there and made note of all the markings on the rifle.

By the early 1970s, yes. Craig was telling a story that he handled the weapon and saw its markings and determined it was a 7.65 Mauser. But that's not a claim he ever advanced in the 1960s at any point. It's a story Craig invented in the 1970s to garner attention. It's also clearly a story any reasonable person would concede is a falsehood.

Which is why it's still repeated as evidence for a conspiracy by conspiracy theorists like Manifesto.

So while Boone and Weitzman made an honest error, Craig is a special case. He lied.

Hank

 

[Venom]

Excuse me,

is anyone familiar with the 3 foot, 8 inch or so tall gunman that this one investigator/debunker estimated would have been at some area if the conspiracy theorists' claim was true?

I cannot find anything much about that but I remember seeing it in a documentary once.

 

[HSienzant]

Excuse me,

is anyone familiar with the 3 foot, 8 inch or so tall gunman that this one investigator/debunker estimated would have been at some area if the conspiracy theorists' claim was true?

I cannot find anything much about that but I remember seeing it in a documentary once.

It's unclear which photo you're talking about, but these are the best two candidates.

Jack White and Gary Mack took a copy of the Moorman photo showing the grassy knoll and using colored markers, thought they found a person shooting from the knoll. A number of problems soon surfaced. Among them that if the shooter was in front of the fence he was totally exposed to the witnesses, but if he was behind the fence he'd have to be on a ladder and well behind the fence to have a shot at the President (if he had a normal sized head). If he was closer, like right at the fence, he'd be suffering from microcephaly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Badge_Man
http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/badgeman.htm (multiple parts, hit the next button).

Separate from that, Robert Groden thought he saw a man with a rifle or handgun in frame 413 of the Zapruder film hiding among the bushes. The problem there was the bush in question was almost immediately in front of Zapruder, was a scrawny thing, and wasn't more than four feet tall. Analysis established it was actually a man on the steps further away from Zapruder's position.

The HSCA photographic panel examined this in 1978:
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0069a.htm (multiple pages).

Hank