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

[manifesto]

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,

What photographs? Show me.

and from his testimony.

He can’t possibly remember trivial little details 15 years after the event. He has also shown that he is strongly biased in favor of the official mythology of Oswald the Lone Nut killer.

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

So, why don’t you show me how? Instead of just aserting like a fanatical religious person?

None of this is relevant to the recordings.

It is relevant to their findings. Nuclear submarines are expensive equipment. I doubt that W&A was hired to develop its sonar system, its eyes and ears, if they couldn’t separate statics/random noise from a real echo pattern unique to a specific environment.

Submarines have no windows.

Same goes for the BBN Boomerang. Instant positioning of firing snipers in urban enviroment. Life or death for the American soldiers depending on it.

This is Science in its purest form. More than P = 1/100 000 for being wrong, is a Scientific Proof, in its purest form.

So, the question arises, what on earth are you doing in a forum for Scientific Skepticism when your MO clearly is anti Science and pro blind affirmations based on religious faith?

Looking for converts?

There were only three.

Science says there were at least five. Faith vs proof, what is your medicine?

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

No, the science providing sonar systems, eyes and ears, to US Navys nuclear submarines, says this.

The science providing US Armys Boomerang sniper detection systems, eyes and ears in urban warfare, says this.

The two scientific investigations of DPD’s dictabelt recording of ch-1 during the shooting, performed by the two at the time world leading scientific teams in the field of ballistic acoustics, says this.

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

You have had ample opportunity to prove your case. Proven wrong, point by point, you resort to fanatical blind religious affirmations showing your adherence to the Mighty Church of the Lone Nut.

I thought this was a forum for Scientific Skepticism. Was i wrong thinking that?

Here's the science:

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

According to what ballistic investigation?

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

Agree.

and exiting the front of JFK

1. Same bullet? How do you know?

2. Exiting? How do you know?

Forensic: 2 bullets from behind.

How do you know?

This is the science that proves Oswald's guilt.

Nothing in your asertions says it had to be Oswald, even if said asertions were supported by science. So, how did Oswald pop up in your ”science”? Faith?

Read books not written by the delusional.

So far it is you who are clearly delusional.

Repent.

 

[manifesto]

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.

So, why is there a concept like ”chain of custody”? What is it for? What is its function?

 

[RoboTimbo]

1. Same bullet? How do you know?

2. Exiting? How do you know?

How do you know?

How do you propose to educate yourself about the assassination since you clearly know so little about it?

 

[bknight]

Provide evidence that a chain of custody was not accomplished properly.

 

[manifesto]

How do you propose to educate yourself about the assassination since you clearly know so little about it?

I know quite a lot of the investigations of the assassination of JFK. What I DON’T know is whats inside your head.

I’m not a mind reader.

 

[manifesto]

Provide evidence that a chain of custody was not accomplished properly.

What specific material evidence, allegedly showing what, are you refering to?

 

[Tomtomkent]

What specific material evidence, allegedly showing what, are you refering to?

You can't name a single piece of evidence for which the custody chain is broken or unreliable.

Noted.

 

[Tomtomkent]

How do you propose to educate yourself about the assassination since you clearly know so little about it?

I know quite a lot of the investigations of the assassination of JFK. What I DON’T know is whats inside your head.

I’m not a mind reader.

For somebody who claims to be well read on the investigations, you seem to understand very little about the investigations and evidence.

Once again I suggest you read the WC Report, and try to understand what it is you are arguing against.

 

[manifesto]

For somebody who claims to be well read on the investigations, you seem to understand very little about the investigations and evidence.

Exactly what evidence are you claiming I know ”very little about”? The HSCA acoustical evidence showing five rifle shots, four from behind and one from in front, from the picket fence on the knoll?

I’m still waiting for you to respond to my two latest post directed to you, regarding this evidence. I suggest that you respond in detail to these instead of posting mindless accusations grounded in nothingness.

Here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12265883&postcount=1471

Here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12266045&postcount=1482

Once again I suggest you read the WC Report, and try to understand what it is you are arguing against.

As I said, I have read most of it. As I said, I can’t read your mind.

Be specific.

 

[manifesto]

You can't name a single piece of evidence for which the custody chain is broken or unreliable.

Noted.

Show me a piece of material vidence where the chain is solid.

 

[pgwenthold]

Provide evidence that a chain of custody was not accomplished properly.

I'd suggest something else: ezplain why it matters? Suppose there was a break in the chain of custody. And? What is manifeato implying happened?

This is not a trial. It's not a question if trying to manufacture reasonable doubt. We trying to figure out what happened. It's not enough to say "there is reasonable doubt that it was LHO" (if there were; there isn't of course)

If the claim is that the evidence can't be trusted because of the lack of the chain of comnand, tell us what's wring with it. Has it been doctored? That must be the claim because if it wasn't doctored, then there is nothing wrong with it. If it was doctored, who did it abd how did they doctor it?

Stop with the stupid attempts at gotcha games. Figure out what happened best we can.

And stop playing dumb. Jaynes's and Myers's photo/film analyses of where McLain was has been presented. Stop acting as if it hasn't.

 

[Axxman300]

You can't name a single piece of evidence for which the custody chain is broken or unreliable.

Noted.

I can! I can!

The dictabelts used in the HSCA Acoustic Fiasco! Of all the evidence in the JFK assassination their chain of custody is the most confusing.

Don't take my word for though:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/scally.htm

Here's the summary:

The bewildering chain of possession for the channel 1 dictabelts, from the day of the assassination until the present, which raises more questions than it provides answers, can therefore be summarised as follows:

Channel 1 radio transmissions were recorded onto a series of Dictabelts on November 22, 1963;
The DPD were not equipped to copy the dictabelts to tape;
The Secret Service, or more probably the FBI, took possession of the dictabelts shortly after the assassination;
The FBI apparently copied dictabelts to tape for the DPD, possibly in the immediate aftermath of the assassination;
The DPD provided “recordings” to the Secret Service on or before November 29, 1963, in a format which allowed them to be copied to tape;
The DPD claims to have made a transcript (Sawyer Exhibit B) from the dictabelts in early December 1963;
A tape recording and a dictabelt tape were given to Chief Curry at the conclusion of a DPD internal investigation on December 19, 1963;
The FBI returned the dictabelts to the DPD in March 1964;
The DPD made a new transcript (WCE 705) from the dictabelts in March 1964;
Chief Curry made sixteen dictabelts (ten dated November 22 and six dated November 24, 1963) available to the FBI in July 1964;
From 1966 to 1969, the material given to Curry by the internal investigation team in December 1963 was stored in a locked filing cabinet outside the Chief’s office;
From 1969 until 1978, the material was in the personal possession of Paul McCaghren;
Although not listed in the inventory, the material handed over to the HSCA by McCaghren in March 1978 consisted of tape recordings and two dictabelts;
BBN received fourteen dictabelts from the HSCA in July 1978;
The HSCA handed over three dictabelts to the Justice Department in March 1979.
In March 1990, the Justice Department turned over fifteen dictabelts (five dated November 22 and ten dated November 24, 1963) to the National Archives.
And what of the ten dictabelts dated November 24, 1963, covering the time period 6:10 to 14:26, which mysteriously reappeared in the possession of the Justice Department in December 1981, and were handed over by them to the Archives in 1990?


When the FBI transcript of channel 1 was made on July 21-24, 1963, the dictabelts for November 24 were also transcribed, for the period from 10 am until 2:18 pm. Endnote This transcript, which is part of Warren Commission Exhibit 1974, shows that only 6 dictabelts were utilised during that time period. By reference to the Bowles transcript of March 1964 (WCE 705), it can be seen that there were only a very small number of transmissions between midnight on November 23 and 10 am on November 24, when the FBI’s transcript commences. Endnote Furthermore, there were only 15 transmissions transcribed from belt #6 by the FBI Endnote , and WCE 705 shows that only 24 further transmissions occurred between 2:18 (when the FBI transcript ends) and 2:25 pm Endnote . Finally, from 2:25 pm until 6 pm on November 24, when the WCE 705 transcript ends, there were only 134 further transmissions. Endnote As there were in excess of 90 transmissions on some of the belts transcribed by the FBI (eg. Belts #2, #3 and #4), it is therefore virtually inconceivable that as many as 10 belts were used on November 24, and certainly not for the period from 6:10 am. to 2:26 pm.

 

[Tomtomkent]

As I said, I have read most of it. As I said, I can’t read your mind.

Be specific.

Why would you have to?
After this post...

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.
.

..you would not have to be a mind reader or ask "how do you know" about the science. If you have read the WC, and understand what a Null is, you should know where Axxman is coming from, regardless of if you believe it, or find it convincing.

You should be able to produce an actual argument along the lines of "I disagree with the ballistics because..." Or "I do not find the matches to the bullets convincing because..."

If you are familiar with the case, you need beat around the bush, you need not keep asking others to be specific, or demand everything else be proven to YOUR satisfaction.

If you want to prove the "acoustic evidence" validate it with evidence of more bullets, validate it with proof there was an open mic where it needs to be for the calculations to be anywhere near valid, and overcome the null. Take the burden of proof, and show your alternative theories hold water.

At the moment though, I will be perfectly honest, your selective points and limited scope to place them in the wider pattern suggests you are not familiar with the case, or with the evidence, but seemingly with the few points CT books roll out.

 

[Tomtomkent]

I can! I can!

The dictabelts used in the HSCA Acoustic Fiasco! Of all the evidence in the JFK assassination their chain of custody is the most confusing.

Don't take my word for though:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/scally.htm

Here's the summary:

Dammit Chewie! Leave the meat alone!

 

[RoboTimbo]

I know quite a lot of the investigations of the assassination of JFK. What I DON’T know is whats inside your head.

I’m not a mind reader.

You haven't shown that you have any knowledge beyond what your CT websites have told you to think. That's not our problem, that's yours.

You have the burden of proof to prove your claims. Aren't you able to do that?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Show me a piece of material vidence where the chain is solid.

Your burden.

 

[OKBob]

Show me a piece of material vidence where the chain is solid.

Here's your "Zoo" problem precisely. You beg the question in stating that the chain of custody must be "solid." Where do you get that standard, and what do you mean by it? It seems to be a very high standard--improvised by you--since you imply that we could mention any "material [e]vidence" and you would likely find it to lack a "solid" chain, and therefore rule it inadmissible in your court. I couldn't have illustrated the "If I Ran the Zoo" fallacy more succinctly. It's the fallacy in which a critic assumes the roles of both legislator and judge--that is, the critic gets to make up the rules and then apply them.

 

[Axxman300]

He can’t possibly remember trivial little details 15 years after the event. He has also shown that he is strongly biased in favor of the official mythology of Oswald the Lone Nut killer.

Every American can tell you where they were when they found out JFK was shot.

The fact he believed Oswald acted alone is based on his ability to reason.

So, why don’t you show me how? Instead of just aserting like a fanatical religious person?

Because you started this nonsense by stating that you were well read on the assassination. A well read person can find those photos on both respected history websites, and CT-nutjob websites. You are on the same internet as everyone else, and if you were in anyway serious you would look the information up on your own.

It is relevant to their findings. Nuclear submarines are expensive equipment. I doubt that W&A was hired to develop its sonar system, its eyes and ears, if they couldn’t separate statics/random noise from a real echo pattern unique to a specific environment.

Submarines have no windows.

Same goes for the BBN Boomerang. Instant positioning of firing snipers in urban enviroment. Life or death for the American soldiers depending on it.

No, it's irrelevant to the assassination because NONE OF THAT EQUIPMENT WAS PRESENT IN DEALEY PLAZA ON 11/22/1963. I've spent many hours transferring old tape recordings onto digital, and trying to clean them up, and the the results vary depending on the recording device.

A dictaphone from 1963 recording police motorcycle radios is a lousy source for anything beyond voices.

This is Science in its purest form. More than P = 1/100 000 for being wrong, is a Scientific Proof, in its purest form.

So, the question arises, what on earth are you doing in a forum for Scientific Skepticism when your MO clearly is anti Science and pro blind affirmations based on religious faith?

A can't speak for everyone else but I have yet to see any science presented here. Science is looking at all of the evidence before making a conclusion. Science is does not cite questionable sources such as CT websites to make its case for anything. Science is drawing logical conclusions about what is real and not what scientists wish to be true.

Looking for converts?

No, I am doing my penance by steering fair-minded people who read this thread away from the rabbit-hole of the JFK Assassination.

Everything you have written here is exactly what I would have written 30 years ago. Every word was a lie. Believing in a conspiracy in this case is nothing less than a form of chosen mental retardation where one willingly ignores obvious facts, and instead embraces fecal ambiguity.
Science says there were at least five. Faith vs proof, what is your medicine?

No, the science providing sonar systems, eyes and ears, to US Navys nuclear submarines, says this.

The science providing US Armys Boomerang sniper detection systems, eyes and ears in urban warfare, says this.

No it does not. There was no Boomerang in Dealey Plaza, and the transceiver on McLain's motorcycle does not have the capability to detect the direction of incoming gunfire. In fact, no police transceiver today has this capability either.

The two scientific investigations of DPD’s dictabelt recording of ch-1 during the shooting, performed by the two at the time world leading scientific teams in the field of ballistic acoustics, says this.

They were wrong. They put McLain in the wrong place.

You have had ample opportunity to prove your case. Proven wrong, point by point, you resort to fanatical blind religious affirmations showing your adherence to the Mighty Church of the Lone Nut.

You have proven nothing. You have run away from every major statement you have made so far, and you will abandon this HSCA silliness too once it's clear you've failed again.

I thought this was a forum for Scientific Skepticism. Was i wrong thinking that?

According to what ballistic investigation?

I thought you were well read.

1. Same bullet? How do you know?

2. Exiting? How do you know?

Fiber evidence and ballistic evidence. I thought you were well read.
How do you know?

Nothing in your asertions says it had to be Oswald, even if said asertions were supported by science. So, how did Oswald pop up in your ”science”? Faith?

So far it is you who are clearly delusional.

Oswald's gun(s), Oswald's bullets, fired from the floor where Oswald was at the time of the assassination. That's reality.

You have yet to answer why the DPD tried to frame Buell Wesley Fraizer as a co-conspirator to the murder of JFK if they were also trying to frame Oswald as the lone shooter. How do you reconcile this fact?

 

[manifesto]

Dammit Chewie! Leave the meat alone!

Why are you running away from your bald claims of the HSCA acoustical investigations being refuted?

Here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12265883&postcount=1471

Here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12266045&postcount=1482

 

[RoboTimbo]

Why are you running away from your bald claims of the HSCA acoustical investigations being refuted?

Here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12265883&postcount=1471

Here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12266045&postcount=1482

No, it's the National Academy of Science who has refuted it. Ate you claiming they didn't? You have the burden of proof.