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

[HSienzant]

How do you know he was behind the 7th car when shot number 5 was fired?

Hilarious. Putting the very point under debate (five shots) into your question is a classic logical fallacy of a Loaded Question, isn't it?

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/69/Complex-Question-Fallacy
Description: A question that has a presupposition built in, which implies something but protects the one asking the question from accusations of false claims. It is a form of misleading discourse, and it is a fallacy when the audience does not detect the assumed information implicit in the question and accepts it as a fact.
Example #1: How many times per day do you beat your wife?

Hank

 

[traxy]

You want me to read it and start taking it down. I could do that and have done so several times before, no worries. This time, though, I’ll try something different, and do it the way it is supposed to be done.

This should be fun.

1. BBN/W&A published their joint investigation of the a ocoustical evidence saying that it was five rifle shots on the dictabelt recording. Four from behind the president and one from in front, from the picket fence on the knoll, being the fatal head shot.

2. You are objecting to this, saying this findings have been debunked by a guy named Dale Myers.

Stop right there. This is the first place you're wrong.

The dictabelt finding was first refuted by the FBI Technical Services division in 1980, which disputed the finding that the dictabelt contained evidence of a shot at all.

The National Academy of Sciences also refuted the finding in 1982. In addition to the spoken phrase that happened a minute after the shooting, they found that the impulses thought to be gunshots were no different from static on the recording.

The Justice Department also weighed in in 1988 and found the finding of gunshots on the recording had no merit.

Several members of the National Academy of Sciences team re-analyzed the recording in 2001 for Science and Justice and reaffirmed that the impulses on the recording were not gunshots and were recorded a minute after the assassination. You can read their findings here:

http://jfk-records.com/ScienceAndJustice_45(4)_207-226(2005).pdf

Michael O'Dell did his own independent study in 2003 and once again refuted the finding of shots on the dictabelt. Feel free to read his findings here:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/odell/

Myers just happens to be the one study we are discussing. Myers' study backs up the other half a dozen refutations with photographic evidence.

3. I ask you how you know that Myers have ”debunked” the investigations findings.

4. You post his ”paper” and demand I read it.

• I summarized Myers' findings for you. You asked for more proof.
• I posted a video clip of Myers narrating and summarizing his method, complete with visual aids. You asked for more proof.
• I posted a link to Myers' exhaustive study and invited you to read it...at which point you asked me to summarize it...

So which do you want? Facts and figures, or a summary? I've offered both, you don't seem to want either.

5. I say that I have certainly read it but that’s not the point. The point is that YOU have to explain how YOU got convinced of the veracity of Myers proclamations.

What do you think I've been doing for the last 2 pages, a piece at a time?

When I try to hand-hold you through it, you ask me to summarize. I offer a summary, you ask how I came to that conclusion. I offer you the data, you want me to hand-hold you through it again.

Circular reasoning. There is just ONE motorcycle in the Dorman film. The white ticket book is proven not unique to McLain = no evidence for McLain being the cop on the Dorman bike.

I thought you liked playing "process of elimination". Isn't that how you determined your shapeless blob HAD TO BE HB McLain?

Process of elimination. What other Dallas PD motorcycle officers were riding in the left-hand hand lane between Camera Car 3 and Congress 1 with a white notepad clipped to their windshield? If no other officers with a white notepad were near that location at that timeframe, the Dorman figure is McLain.

 

[HSienzant]

Are you calling the staff a NARA ”conspiracy loons”? Tell me more.

Still waiting for you to establish the staff at NARA took any position on whether or not J.C.Day initials are on the shells. A letter from the NARA with that claim will do. What is the source of your claim? Some conspiracy theorist like yourself?

Look at the high resolution photos and let me know if you find any on them. NARA didn’t.

And you're still attempting to shift the burden of proof. Your claim, your burden. That's the way it still works. And still asserting NARA agrees with you, but that is unproven.

Hank

 

[bknight]

The difference between my posting of Robertson’s video and Myers ”investigation” is that I do not pretend the video is scientific proof of anything, while Myers do just that, pretend his investigation is. Science.

What evidence do you link that proves Myers work is not scientific? What measures/procedures does Myers do that invalidates science? Please be specific?

It’s not. It’s mimicing science. It’s a so called, travesty, on science. Cargo cult science, if you like. Junk science, is maybe the more apt label.
What can you post that proves that Myers work "pretend" to science and you can post evidence that his work is in error?

So, you are saying someone have tampered with the Zapruder-film?

I'm not saying that anyone tampered with the original, but what I am saying is that Roberton's video tampered with a copy of the original, drawing white and red circles on the video. Do you disagree? Why not with specific details please.

Why are you fabricating interpretations of the historic record in a forum for scientific skepticism?

You are fabricating interpretations of the historic records why is there any difference between you and I?

I’ve been treated to a **** storm of condecending tone since a did my first posting in the thread. It is still on going. Why should I not respond in kind?

Your behavior and posts from the initial one were laden with a condescending tone, the membership treated appropriately. If you want to be treated without that tone then I suggest you alter your behavior and posting style. I have not used that tone so why should I expect any other treatment?

Do it as you like but do it in a clear and inambigous way, possible to follow.

I'm not sure what you are asking? Could you be specific?

Naming people and/or teams who SAY they have debunked something doesn’t equal this is so. You have to explain how they did it. In order to do that you have to show that you have actually read the science, if there is any, and understood it.

If not, you argue from authority, which is a classic defeasible reasoning, not deductively valid.

Yes, it’s real science at its best.

Exactly how did BBN et. al. arrive at their interpretation? What do you know of the science? Further how do you know that the science behind the debunking is inaccurate/unscientific?

Testimony from an individual trying to remember, at the time, trivial episodes more than 15 years after the event is not reliable. If the individual in top of that change his sworn testimony on different issues and doing that in order to promote the official version of the event, he/she is not reliable.

Against this there is scientific proof of him being wrong. It is enough to conclude that the photographic record doesn’t prohibit McClain from being the cop on the bike with the mike. The proof is in the acoustic evidence
That is, you have to prove he couldn’t have been at the right spots at the right time. Can you do that?

Fair enough the members of this thread have tried in vain to get the CT's here to understand that fact that people have diminished memory as time advances. With that being said all direct testimony in all of the committees/groups have no value. The proof that McLain or any one else at the last position, is not that we have to prove. You've got it all wrong, you are the dissenting voice you have to prove that he is in that position. Besides the images from Hughes preclude him form being there as the over lapping of the Hughes and Zapruder images show him turning the corner at Houston as the white car in Hughes, Zapruder, and Robertson All show the vehicle as about to turn onto Elm.

 

[manifesto]

Explain how it doesn't.

Explain nothingness. You ought to know.

 

[abaddon]

Explain nothingness. You ought to know.

You experienced nothingness yourself before you were born. Why are you asking for an explanation of something you have experienced?

 

[manifesto]

You experienced nothingness yourself before you were born. Why are you asking for an explanation of something you have experienced?

Are you saying a womans vomb is nothingness? A new misogynic low?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Explain nothingness. You ought to know.

Explain. Be specific and thorough.

 

[manifesto]

Still waiting for you to establish the staff at NARA took any position on whether or not J.C.Day initials are on the shells. A letter from the NARA with that claim will do. What is the source of your claim? Some conspiracy theorist like yourself?

They litterally ’took position’ when placing markers pointing to the only ingravings they could find.

None of these says ”DAY”.

And you're still attempting to shift the burden of proof. Your claim, your burden. That's the way it still works. And still asserting NARA agrees with you, but that is unproven.

Hank

My claim is that NARA did not detect any ingraving saying ”DAY” and after I myself looked them through confirmed their non-finding.

If you dispute NARA’s non-finding, you have to explain exactly where you find a ”DAY”-ingraving on two the two correct cartridges.

Do it or repent.

 

[abaddon]

Are you saying a womans vomb is nothingness? A new misogynic low?

Nope, where were you and what was your experience say, ten years before your mother even met your father, before there was even a fertilized zygote. Where were you then and what was your experience?

 

[manifesto]

Hilarious. Putting the very point under debate (five shots) into your question is a classic logical fallacy of a Loaded Question, isn't it?

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/69/Complex-Question-Fallacy
Description: A question that has a presupposition built in, which implies something but protects the one asking the question from accusations of false claims. It is a form of misleading discourse, and it is a fallacy when the audience does not detect the assumed information implicit in the question and accepts it as a fact.
Example #1: How many times per day do you beat your wife?

Hank

Ok, debate why the acoustic evidence show four shots and not five. Here is Table II showing the binary correlation for the six impulse patterns tested for:

The first one has a correlation of 0.5 and was therefore discarded as a false alarm. The following five patterns has a correlation between 0.6 - 0.8 and therefore showing significance for being a positive = echo pattern from the sound of a rifle shot at Dealey Plaza.

Which of these five impulse pattern is a false positive?

Show me, Hank.

 

[RoboTimbo]

That’s my point, it doesn’t.

I think your point is that your CT website didn't tell you what to think about it so you're floundering and lost.

Try again. How does consilience apply to Oswald assassinating JFK? Think this time.

 

[manifesto]

Nope, where were you and what was your experience say, ten years before your mother even met your father, before there was even a fertilized zygote. Where were you then and what was your experience?

There was, to my knowledge, no me before ”me” being in my mothers vomb.

Should you really continue on this tangent exposing your little weakness for arguing ’deep’ high school philosophy?

Stay on track.

 

[manifesto]

I think your point is that your CT website didn't tell you what to think about it so you're floundering and lost.

Try again. How does consilience apply to Oswald assassinating JFK? Think this time.

It doesn’t. Think again.

 

[RoboTimbo]

It doesn’t. Think again.

So in CT world, consilience doesn't matter. Interesting, in a sad and pathetic kind of way.

 

[abaddon]

There was, to my knowledge, no me before ”me” being in my mothers vomb.

Should you really continue on this tangent exposing your little weakness for arguing ’deep’ high school philosophy?

Stay on track.

And so you know from personal experience what nothing is like.

ETA: And yes. You have demanded that people define "nothing" despite the fact that you have direct personal experience of
"nothing".

 

[Tomtomkent]

Ok, debate why the acoustic evidence show four shots and not five. Here is Table II showing the binary correlation for the six impulse patterns tested for:
[qimg]https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/a/a2/BikeWithTheMike_HSCA_v8p101.gif[/qimg]
The first one has a correlation of 0.5 and was therefore discarded as a false alarm. The following five patterns has a correlation between 0.6 - 0.8 and therefore showing significance for being a positive = echo pattern from the sound of a rifle shot at Dealey Plaza.

Which of these five impulse pattern is a false positive?

Show me, Hank.

Are those “positives” reliant on location?
Is a rifle proven to be the *only* possible cause?
If the mic is in a different location what happens to the measurements on which those coefficients are based on?

Quoting data does not show you understand it, or the issues with it.
Here’s a shortcut to the answer: did the author of the report state to the HSCA that his analysis proved additional shots? No.

 

[RoboTimbo]

...I’ve read just about everything there is...

Seems almost laughably over stated now, doesn't it? When you display virtually no knowledge of anything related to the assassination?

 

[abaddon]

Seems almost laughably over stated now, doesn't it? When you display virtually no knowledge of anything related to the assassination?

That's...interesting. Manifesto displays no actual knowledge of the facts, while relying on crank sites claims. Why? I leave that to all to conclude.

 

[manifesto]

This should be fun.

Agree.

Stop right there. This is the first place you're wrong.

The dictabelt finding was first refuted by the FBI Technical Services division in 1980, which disputed the finding that the dictabelt contained evidence of a shot at all.

1. Was it? Show me.

2. I thought that we discussed your claim that Dale Myers refuted the acoustical evidence. Was I wrong thinking that?

The National Academy of Sciences also refuted the finding in 1982. In addition to the spoken phrase that happened a minute after the shooting, they found that the impulses thought to be gunshots were no different from static on the recording.

1. Did they? Show me.

2. I’ll take it you have stopped arguing Dale Myers findings, now wanting to show NRC’s ditto? Yeas? No?

The Justice Department also weighed in in 1988 and found the finding of gunshots on the recording had no merit.

Do you agree with this finding?

Several members of the National Academy of Sciences team re-analyzed the recording in 2001 for Science and Justice and reaffirmed that the impulses on the recording were not gunshots and were recorded a minute after the assassination. You can read their findings here:

http://jfk-records.com/ScienceAndJustice_45(4)_207-226(2005).pdf

Do you agree with them claiming the HSCA acoustical evidence being mistaken? Why?

Michael O'Dell did his own independent study in 2003 and once again refuted the finding of shots on the dictabelt. Feel free to read his findings here:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/odell/

Do you agree with O’Dells ”refuting”? Why?

Myers just happens to be the one study we are discussing.

No. Myers study IS the subject of diskussion. Therefore I referenced to Myers in my listing of the schematic progress of the discussion of, yes, Myers study.

Myers' study backs up the other half a dozen refutations with photographic evidence.

And I am still waiting for you to show how his study show this.

• I summarized Myers' findings for you. You asked for more proof.
• I posted a video clip of Myers narrating and summarizing his method, complete with visual aids. You asked for more proof.
• I posted a link to Myers' exhaustive study and invited you to read it...at which point you asked me to summarize it...

So which do you want? Facts and figures, or a summary? I've offered both, you don't seem to want either.

I asked for the information, the data, the numbers going in to Myers computer analysis he claims showing that McLain couldn’t be at the right spots at the right time for being the cop with the stuck mike.

Without the data, it’s ’just so’.

What do you think I've been doing for the last 2 pages, a piece at a time?

When I try to hand-hold you through it, you ask me to summarize. I offer a summary, you ask how I came to that conclusion. I offer you the data, you want me to hand-hold you through it again.

I asked you to list your scheme of events and actors in order to be able to keep track on your line of thought.

An honest request for clarity preemting unnecessary misunderstandings.

I thought you liked playing "process of elimination".

No, I like process of elimination as a necessary tool in science. Your claim that the Dorman cop had to be McLain was based on circular reasoning, not process of elimination. Circular reasoning is not science.

Isn't that how you determined your shapeless blob HAD TO BE HB McLain?

No. I determined that IF the shapeless white blob is a MC helmet, process of elimination says it has to be McLain.

Process of elimination. What other Dallas PD motorcycle officers were riding in the left-hand hand lane between Camera Car 3 and Congress 1

That is the question under concideration, yes, its answer not to be asumed a priori.

with a white notepad clipped to their windshield?

McLain was not the only cop with a white notepad/ticketbook clipped to the left side of the windshield. The only other candidate for being the Dorman cop is officer Courson and there is no evidence of him, for or against, having a white ticketbook at the left or right side of the windshield.

If no other officers with a white notepad were near that location at that timeframe, the Dorman figure is McLain.

Correct, but as I said, there is no known photographic (or other) evidence of Courson having/not having said ticketbook clipped anywhere on his MC.

Show me how Myers came to the conclusion that McLain at the end of the Hughes sequence only had 1/2 seconds to reach the spot for the picking up of the first shot.