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

[OKBob]

No, but I see you calling names. Why?

I'm not calling you names. I'm telling you that you fit a pattern of CTist argumentation that we have witnessed on this list for years. I and others have told you what many of those characteristics are. They are fatal to persuasive argumentation. Apparently you don't care, filled as you are with the righteousness of your cause. But even in your assumed moral zeal, you're reflecting the CT pattern, what has been called the paranoid style in politics.

 

[RoboTimbo]

If you have issues with the HSCA acoustical investigations and their findings, state your reasons for this.

No. You are shifting the burden of proof. If you dispute the HSCA acoustical investigations with findings, state your reasons for this.

I can’t possibly do that for you. I’m not a mind reader.

Are you disputing the National Institute of Science's debunking?

You'll need to be specific as to where you disagree. You have the burden of proof.

 

[manifesto]

That's been refuted. What other claims do you want to be wrong about?

Refuted by whom?

 

[smartcooky]

If you make a claim it’s up to you to provide evidence supporting said claim.

Referencing the locations where you can find printed evidence IS supporting the claim. If you are expecting posters here to find it for you and post it in its entirety on the forum, well that is not going to happen because;

1. Its not their job to do so.

2. It is a breach of the forum MA to post large tracts of text in their entirety instead of posting links to said text.

3. Every one of us here knows it will do absolutely no good becausu we all know you will just hand-wave it away regardless of what is posted.

I couldn’t possibly do that for you even if I wanted to.

Yes you could, but its obvious you won't, because you don't want to.

I’m not a mind reader.

FTFY

 

[RoboTimbo]

Refuted by whom?

Which time?

Be specific.

 

[manifesto]

Because you don't get to determine what is "secured provenance or secured chain of custody."

Don’t get to? What on earth are you meaning by this?

First, you aren't competent to make such determinations.

Says who?

Second, you aren't entitled to run the zoo.

What? The zoo? Explain.

 

[manifesto]

Are you disputing the National Institute of Science's debunking?

Of course I do.

You'll need to be specific as to where you disagree. You have the burden of proof.

Read my posts and tell me what specifics you are missing.

But, be specific.

 

[manifesto]

Which time?

Be specific.

Which time? If there is more than one refutation, take your best pick.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Of course I do.

You'll need to give compelling evidence for where they got it wrong.

Be specific. The null hypothesis stands unmoved.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Which time? If there is more than one refutation, take your best pick.

Don't you know which one you're claiming got it wrong? Specifically?

 

[Axxman300]

Wrong. I carefully argue why McLains testimony is faulty:

1. He changes his mind and retracts his sworn testimony to HSCA when he understand that it gives credence to the acoustics findings of five shots = conspiracy = maybe an innocent Oswald.

2. To remember, at the time, very trivial episodes 15 years later is almost impossible. Did I use the siren? Did I use cha-1 or cha-2? Was my mike stuck? Etc ... against this you have to look at the scientific evidence for him remembering this trivia faulty.

You do the math.

Mr. CORNWELL. Do you have a memory of hearing any shots while you were in Dealey Plaza?
Mr. McLAIN. I only remember hearing one.
Mr. CORNWELL. And approximately where were you when you heard that shot?
Mr. McLAIN. I was approximately halfway between Main and Elm Streets on Houston.
Mr. CORNWELL. So you would have heard it sometime after the picture was taken in exhibit F-671, the last one on the right?
Mr. McLAIN. Yes, sir.
Mr. CORNWELL. And before you got to the corner and turned the corner from Houston onto Elm; is that correct?
Mr. McLAIN. That's correct.
Mr. CORNWELL. When you heard the shot, what, if anything, did you look at or what did you do?
Mr. McLAIN. I Just looked up the street and the only thing was a bunch of pigeons flew out behind the school book depository.
Mr. CORNWELL. So you heard the shot, your memory was, looking up, seeing the school book depository in front of you, and the pigeons fly off?
Mr. McLAIN. Yes, sir.
Mr. CORNWELL. After you heard this shot, would it be accurate to state that you continued on motorbike, made the corner from Houston onto Elm, and started down Elm Street?
Mr. McLAIN. Yes, sir.

McLain didn't lie about anything.

More importantly the recording has not one clear example of a gunshot. It is nothing more than an acoustic Rorschach test.

Then there is the real-world problem of applying the 5-shot fallacy to the assassination. Only two shots struck JFK, both came from behind, both came from the same rifle. A third shot (likely the first) missed, and a fragment from that bullet struck James Tague, which is important because if you look at the line of fire from any other vantage point in Dealey Plaza those other two shots you think existed would have likely hit someone on the sidewalk.

The impact of these phantom missiles would have certainly been noticed.

 

[manifesto]

Referencing the locations where you can find printed evidence IS supporting the claim. If you are expecting posters here to find it for you and post it in its entirety on the forum, well that is not going to happen because;

Wrong. The person who makes the claim has to show the evidence supporting the claim.

It’s really that simple.

1. Its not their job to do so.

It is, if ”they” want to defend their claim. Or do you want me to defend it for ”them”?

2. It is a breach of the forum MA to post large tracts of text in their entirety instead of posting links to said text.

Not needed. It is quite sufficient to cite the specifics and argue from that.

Do that.

3. Every one of us here knows it will do absolutely no good becausu we all know you will just hand-wave it away regardless of what is posted.

Well, that is a lie. Read my posts. Carefully argued with references to relevant evidence.

Yes you could, but its obvious you won't, because you don't want to.

Could I? How? Explain.

FTFY

Rewriting my posts doesn’t make your case. It makes YOU a case. Big difference.

 

[OKBob]

What? The zoo? Explain.

I've already explained what the "If I Ran the Zoo" fallacy is. It's when you arbitrarily create a standard for judging others' performance--a standard not necessarily recognized in the domain at issue--and then proceed to judge them according to that manufactured standard. When you assert that some piece of evidence--the stretcher bullet, for example--cannot be accepted because it doesn't conform to some "chain of custody" standard that is in your own mind (or is misapplied from the domain of law, say), you are doing nothing more than telling us how things would be if you ran the zoo. We have found that, typically, CTists set the standard of performance unrealistically high, thus ensuring that evidence cannot be admitted.

 

[smartcooky]

Wrong. The person who makes the claim has to show the evidence supporting the claim.

...and they may do so by linking to the evidence; it is considered as exactly the same as posting it... forums have worked this way since BBS on Telnet.

It’s really that simple.

It is, if ”they” want to defend their claim. Or do you want me to defend it for ”them”?

Unparseable nonsense. You know exactly what I mean, you are choosing to act dumb.

Not needed. It is quite sufficient to cite the specifics and argue from that.

Do that.

Linking to the evidence is citing the specifics, better than any summary can ever do... you get the actual data first hand and not someone else's version of it.

Well, that is a lie. Read my posts. Carefully argued with references to relevant evidence.

Your refusal to follow links provided, your running away from tough questions, your fringe resets when your arguments have been debunked (the mauser, for example), and your whole body of work on the forum strongly suggests otherwise.

Could I? How? Explain.

By following, reading, inwardly digesting and understanding the content of links and references REPEATEDLY supplied to you by Hank, Robotimbo, Steve, OKBob, Stamuel, Whip, cmikes, Axxman300, pgwenthold, bknight, traxy et al.

Rewriting my posts doesn’t make your case.

I didn't rewrite your post, I fixed to show what you should have said... you... don't... read!!

 

[RoboTimbo]

Wrong. The person who makes the claim has to show the evidence supporting the claim.

It’s really that simple.

You've claimed that the National Academy of Science got it wrong. You'll need to back up your claim with evidence.

It's really that simple.

 

[manifesto]

Mr. CORNWELL. Do you have a memory of hearing any shots while you were in Dealey Plaza?
Mr. McLAIN. I only remember hearing one.
Mr. CORNWELL. And approximately where were you when you heard that shot?
Mr. McLAIN. I was approximately halfway between Main and Elm Streets on Houston.
Mr. CORNWELL. So you would have heard it sometime after the picture was taken in exhibit F-671, the last one on the right?
Mr. McLAIN. Yes, sir.
Mr. CORNWELL. And before you got to the corner and turned the corner from Houston onto Elm; is that correct?
Mr. McLAIN. That's correct.
Mr. CORNWELL. When you heard the shot, what, if anything, did you look at or what did you do?
Mr. McLAIN. I Just looked up the street and the only thing was a bunch of pigeons flew out behind the school book depository.
Mr. CORNWELL. So you heard the shot, your memory was, looking up, seeing the school book depository in front of you, and the pigeons fly off?
Mr. McLAIN. Yes, sir.
Mr. CORNWELL. After you heard this shot, would it be accurate to state that you continued on motorbike, made the corner from Houston onto Elm, and started down Elm Street?
Mr. McLAIN. Yes, sir.

McLain didn't lie about anything.

I am not claiming that he was lying. I am claiming he was mistaken and I present facts and arguments for this.

More importantly the recording has not one clear example of a gunshot. It is nothing more than an acoustic Rorschach test.

Wrong. It has four impulse patterns with a binary coifficient between 0.6 - 0.8, which translates into statistical significance and less than 5% chance for each pattern not being echo-patterns from a rifle fired from behind the limo.

A fifth impulse pattern was detected, this time from in front of the limo with a binary coifficient of 0.8. In order to really secure/or refute this pattern as an echo-pattern from a rifle they decided to do a sonar analysis of it. Doing this, it was shown that the probability for this being random static/noise and not a rifle shot from the picket fence on the knoll, was a devastating P = 1/100 000.

On top of all this was the order in the topographical data: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. If some or all of the patterns was random statics/noise, they would have been all over the place, like for example: 3, 5, 1, 4, and 2. They were not. The were placed in perfect order AND showing that the mike was traveling with an average speed of ca 11 mph between the first and the last impulse pattern, which incidently happened to be the average speed of the motorcade on Elm Street!

So, no, his is NOT an acoustic Rorschach test (although Rorschach tests have scientific merit), it is a very careful scientific investigation performed by the two at the time world leading teams on ballistic acoustics, BBN and Weiss & Ashkenasy from Queens College, NY.

BBN: solved the Kent State shooting showing that it was the National Guard who started the shooting. They developed the Boomerang system used by US Armed forces to instantly detect snipers in urban warfare.

W&A: developed the software to the sonar systems in US Navys nuclear submarines.

They were wrong?

Then there is the real-world problem of applying the 5-shot fallacy to the assassination.

At least 5 rifle shots, yes. It could have been more, with silencers and/or from other positions not tested for.

Only two shots struck JFK, both came from behind, both came from the same rifle.

Well, how do you know this?

A third shot (likely the first) missed,

How do you know this?

and a fragment from that bullet struck James Tague,

It could as well have been a piece of concrete when a bullet hit the curb stone just in front of him. The curb stone with a bullet mark that FBI tried to litterally ’cover up’ with cement.

They were caught.

which is important because if you look at the line of fire from any other vantage point in Dealey Plaza those other two shots you think existed would have likely hit someone on the sidewalk.

What? Your chain of reasoning is so far just fantasies based on, well, you tell me?!?

The impact of these phantom missiles would have certainly been noticed.

The majority of the witnesses reported hearing three shots, yes. This could easily be explained by the tight spacing between two of the first three and 4.8 seconds after these, the two last shots.

That said, the acoustical evidence has to be assessed own its own merits and as such it is a slam dunk and scientific proof, if such has ever been shown before.

 

[Axxman300]

I am not claiming that he was lying. I am claiming he was mistaken and I present facts and arguments for this.

The photographs don't lie.

He was not in position.

Wrong. It has four impulse patterns with a binary coifficient between 0.6 - 0.8, which translates into statistical significance and less than 5% chance for each pattern not being echo-patterns from a rifle fired from behind the limo.

They used blanks, not live ammunition for these tests, and there is a vast difference. The tests are voided.

A fifth impulse pattern was detected, this time from in front of the limo with a binary coifficient of 0.8. In order to really secure/or refute this pattern as an echo-pattern from a rifle they decided to do a sonar analysis of it. Doing this, it was shown that the probability for this being random static/noise and not a rifle shot from the picket fence on the knoll, was a devastating P = 1/100 000.

Based on placing McLain in the wrong place.

On top of all this was the order in the topographical data: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. If some or all of the patterns was random statics/noise, they would have been all over the place, like for example: 3, 5, 1, 4, and 2. They were not. The were placed in perfect order AND showing that the mike was traveling with an average speed of ca 11 mph between the first and the last impulse pattern, which incidently happened to be the average speed of the motorcade on Elm Street!

He wasn't on Elm Street yet, and he was slowing to make the turn.

.

.. the Kent State shooting showing that it was the National Guard who started the shooting.

Considering the college kids were unarmed, this would have been easy.

They developed the Boomerang system used by US Armed forces to instantly detect snipers in urban warfare.

Last time I checked, Boomerang does not use early 1960's police motorcycle radio transceivers.

W&A: developed the software to the sonar systems in US Navys nuclear submarines.

Again, US attack submarines do not use 1960's police motorcycle radio transceivers. Plus, Dealey Plaza is not a submarine environment, nor do DPD motorcycles operate under water.

They were wrong?

Clearly yes. Smart people are wrong sometimes. Their source material for the dictaphone recording was always questionable, especially in the chain of evidence. They drew their conclusions based upon bad information.

At least 5 rifle shots, yes. It could have been more, with silencers and/or from other positions not tested for.

And those bullets went where?

The majority of the witnesses reported hearing three shots, yes. This could easily be explained by the tight spacing between two of the first three and 4.8 seconds after these, the two last shots.

The honest explanation is that there were only three shots.

That said, the acoustical evidence has to be assessed own its own merits and as such it is a slam dunk and scientific proof, if such has ever been shown before

No, it is the assassination CT equivalent of Robert Rines' underwater photographs of the Loch Ness Monster.

The police radio and the dictaphone are NOT scientific recording devices, and this makes the HSCA acoustic evidence nothing more than wishful thinking dressed up to look like science.

 

[manifesto]

The photographs don't lie.

He was not in position.

What photographs? Show me.

They used blanks, not live ammunition for these tests, and there is a vast difference. The tests are voided.

No, they used sharp ammo shooting at sand bags placed on Elm Street and at the south part of the tripple underpass where bystander James Tague got hit by a fragment.

Based on placing McLain in the wrong place.

No. Based on the DPD dictabelt recording.

He wasn't on Elm Street yet, and he was slowing to make the turn.

I’m showing the acoustic evidence. You are discussing the photographic ditto?

.

Considering the college kids were unarmed, this would have been easy.

There were allegations from the Guards men that they responded to sniper fire.

Last time I checked, Boomerang does not use early 1960's police motorcycle radio transceivers.

Maybe, but it was the BBN who developed the system.

Again, US attack submarines do not use 1960's police motorcycle radio transceivers. Plus, Dealey Plaza is not a submarine environment, nor do DPD motorcycles operate under water.

Same type of calculations and algorithms, different medium. Bats and dolphines, air and water, same same.

Clearly yes. Smart people are wrong sometimes. Their source material for the dictaphone recording was always questionable, especially in the chain of evidence. They drew their conclusions based upon bad information.

They did? How? Explain.

And those bullets went where?

Good question. Were did all the bullets go?

The honest explanation is that there were only three shots.

Why is this ”honest” when the science says at least 5 rifle shots?

No, it is the assassination CT equivalent of Robert Rines' underwater photographs of the Loch Ness Monster.

Is it? Good, show me the scientific evidence of said monster, but do not forget it has to show less than P = 1/100 000 for being a rubber duck.

The police radio and the dictaphone are NOT scientific recording devices, and this makes the HSCA acoustic evidence nothing more than wishful thinking dressed up to look like science.

No one has claimed that the dictaphone is a scientific recording devise. What is claimed is that the recording shows evidence of five rifle shots in Dealey Plaza during the time sequence the actual shooting happened.

The probability for this not being so, is hystericaly low. It’s a slam dunk.

 

[Axxman300]

No. Based on the DPD dictabelt recording.

I’m showing the acoustic evidence. You are discussing the photographic ditto?

The dictaphone recording is allegedly from McLain's transceiver, and he was not where the HSCA says he was, it is clear in the photographs, and from his testimony.

If he is in the wrong place the calculations are all wrong.

Maybe, but it was the BBN who developed the system.

Same type of calculations and algorithms, different medium. Bats and dolphines, air and water, same same.

None of this is relevant to the recordings.

Good question. Were did all the bullets go?

There were only three.

Why is this ”honest” when the science says at least 5 rifle shots?

Science does not say this. You're version of science says this, but not actual science.

No one has claimed that the dictaphone is a scientific recording devise. What is claimed is that the recording shows evidence of five rifle shots in Dealey Plaza during the time sequence the actual shooting happened.

And yet it's not evidence of anything other than DPD had a radio network.

The probability for this not being so, is hystericaly low. It’s a slam dunk.

Here's the science:

Ballistics: 2 bullets fired from the Carcano found on the 6th Floor of the TSBD struck JFK from behind.

Fiber: The jacket, shirt, and tie all show a single missile entering the back and exiting the front of JFK

Forensic: 2 bullets from behind.

This is the science that proves Oswald's guilt. Read books not written by the delusional.

 

[RoboTimbo]

What is claimed is that the recording shows evidence of five rifle shots in Dealey Plaza during the time sequence the actual shooting happened.

And that claim has been found to be without merit. The National Academy of Science debunked that and nobody has ever refuted the NAS about that debunking.

Are you claiming otherwise? Be specific.