Wrong. I display virtually no knowledge of what’s inside the head of my opponents.
You are promoting mind reading. Why?
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories VI: Lyndon Johnson's Revenge
- Thread starter BStrong
- Start date
- Status
You are promoting mind reading. Why?
HSienzant
Philosopher
Where did they say this? Please provide a NARA source.
That's your assertion. We're awaiting your proof of the claim - minus any attempt to shift the burden of proof.
I know that's your claim. I'm looking for the evidence you're citing for that supposed fact that (a) NARA looked for it and (b) NARA didn't find it. You've mentioned the claim at least a half-dozen times now. Somehow you keep forgetting to cite for it, or provide any evidence of it.
So you're citing yourself now as someone qualified to assess the veracity of your claims. Sorry, that's not the least bit persuasive. You might be a bit biased in your own favor, don't you think?
Begging the question. That the NARA had a 'non-finding' is one of the points under dispute, and you don't establish your case by asserting it's true. We're still looking for the evidence of this 'NARA non-finding'. You do have a source from the NARA for this, don't you?
And we're back to you shifting the burden of proof. I don't have the obligation to disprove any of your contentions. You have that burden to prove them. How did you forget that so quickly?
Religion-based terminology has no basis here.
Hank
Last edited:
- The Hughes and Zapruder films are synchronized by using the average speed of the SS follow up car over a known distance. This is detailed on page 48 of the Myers report
- McLain first appears at H648 (equivalent to Z150) turning the corner from Main to Houston
- McLain's position is calculated at that point using his relationship to lines of sight with the Northwest and Southwest corners of the DalTex building and Hughes camera. This is detailed on pages 49 and 50 of the Myers report.
- Based on his location at H648, he is 174.38 feet from the edge of the first microphone position detailed in the dictabelt test.
- Acoustic experts have placed the first shot (a miss) at Z160. If McLain is 174 feet away at Z150 and the Z film was shot at 18.3 frames a second, he would need to make up that 174 feet in 0.546 seconds to be in the right spot. To do that would require him to be moving at 198mph. These calculations are on page 50 of the Myers report.
The position and relative speed of McLain in the Hughes film compared to the rider in the Dorman film is detailed starting on page 90. Using similar techniques involving line of sight, McLain is found to be moving at 14.7mph as he rounds the corner from Main to Houston. The rider in the Dorman film appears at D456 (which is synched to Z365) approaching the intersection of Houston and Elm. From the time the motorcyclist appears in Dorman, he is calculated to be moving at 8.0mph.
The distance from McLain's position at H648 (Z150) to the rider at D456 (Z365) is calculated at 159.5 feet. If the rider in Dorman is McLain, he would have traversed that distance over 11.75 seconds going an average of 9.3mph, slowing down as he went, which would mirror the speed of all of the vehicles in the motorcade while approaching that intersection.
The rider in Dorman occupies the same relative position in the motorcade (trailing Camera Car 3 and ahead of Congress 1) less than 12 seconds after McLain is seen occupying that same position and has the same white notepad clipped to his windshield that McLain was known to have.
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
- Messages
- 21,829
But there's a white blob in a picture/film somewhere else and that disproves all of your fancy analysis.
I am wondering if maybe that white blob is the badge man?
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
No, you display no knowledge of the topics of the assassination which are brought up to you. Two examples: consilience and the National Academy of Science debunking of the acoustical evidence.
What an odd non sequitur. Can you explain your bizarre claim? You'll need to look up what non sequitur means first.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Do you agree with the HSCA acoustical evidence and the mistakes they made? Why?
Do you disagree with it? Why?
Do you disagree with the comprehensive debunking that the National Academy of Science did? Why?
Be specific and thorough.
HSienzant
Philosopher
No, that's just another example of you begging the question. You need to establish five, not just assert five. You also have the deep burden - which you will ignore - of establishing how five shots meshes with the other evidence, such as:
One shooter seen in Dealey Plaza, and only in the Depository as reported by witnesses on the day of the assassination.
Only three shots heard by the vast majority of the witnesses that reported a number (more witnesses reported two or one than reported four or more).
Only one weapon discovered in Dealey Plaza on the day of the shooting. That weapon was linked to the crime by ballistic evidence.
Only three shells found in Dealey Plaza on the day of the shooting. Those shells were linked to the weapon linked to the crime by ballistic evidence.
JFK had wounds inflicted by only two bullets, according to the autopsy and the medical review panel of the HSCA. Connally's wounds could have been inflicted by one bullet, according to his doctors. That's three shots at most, and as few as two if one of the bullets that struck JFK went on to strike Connally.
So you argue for five. Prove it. Citing the HSCA study doesn't cut the mustard, as there are plenty of rebuttal arguments that you pretend not to understand when they are presented to you. Pretending five shots is a given and must be disproven doesn't move the needle either. It's still begging the question.
The consilience of the evidence says three shots.
Show us the consilience of the evidence that moves the needle.
Hank
Robo, if consilience mattered in the JFK CT world, that world could scarcely continue to exist, at least in its present form. Either they would have to accept Oswald's guilt (because the consilience of evidence points to it), or they would have to come up with an alternative hypothesis grounded in a new pattern of consilience (which, being anomaly-hunters, they hardly ever do). So, almost by definition, consilience can have no role in CT world.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Consilience must have followed honesty in the list of concepts the JFK CT world has decided they could do without.
Resort to outrageous strawman fabrications doesn’t promote your standing in civilized society.
Maybe you have other aspirations with your life?
Tell me.
And I’m still waiting for you and your kind to explain just HOW this concept applies to the assassasination of JFK.
Will you ever do that?
How does ”the consilience of evidence points to” Oswald killing JFK?
You keep aserting it does but you never explain why and how.
Will you ever do that?
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Thanks for providing an example of the dishonesty of you CTs. What was wrong with the list that Hank just provided?
Typical CT.
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
I have read it but have not found any evidence in there.
You have? Show me.
Signed reports by Seymour Weitzman and E.L. Boone (Deputy Sheriff): https://kennedysandking.com/images/pdf/JosephsRifle.pdf
The only written statements of the discovery to this day, states that it was a 7.65 Mauser bolt action rifle.
Boones and Weitzmans formal retractions caOriginally Posted by Robert Prey View Post
Although Boone used the wording "appeared to be", Seymour Weitzman's sworn statement flatly affirms it was a Mauser, Cal. 7.65.
As law enforcement officers, both know that when you swear that something is true, it had better be true.
Affidavits are attested statements that the affiant believes to be true when they make the statement.
Neither Boone and Weitzmann picked up and examined the rifle according to their statements - they saw it between boxes, and the Captain is the one who collected it. Without actually picking up or at least getting very close to the weapon you would not be able to read any of the engravings or stampings on the weapon that would identify calibre, manufacturer, etc. As to identifying a weapon by sight, try this test and identify these rifles all from the same erasted by Border me when interviewed by WC.
Deputy Roger Craig did never retract his testimony.
To save time, lets review this post from 2013:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9052566&postcount=562
Originally Posted by Robert Prey View Post
Although Boone used the wording "appeared to be", Seymour Weitzman's sworn statement flatly affirms it was a Mauser, Cal. 7.65.
As law enforcement officers, both know that when you swear that something is true, it had better be true.
Originally posted by Border Reiver:
Affidavits are attested statements that the affiant believes to be true when they make the statement.
Neither Boone and Weitzmann picked up and examined the rifle according to their statements - they saw it between boxes, and the Captain is the one who collected it. Without actually picking up or at least getting very close to the weapon you would not be able to read any of the engravings or stampings on the weapon that would identify calibre, manufacturer, etc. As to identifying a weapon by sight, try this test and identify these rifles all from the same era:
See the link above to view attached images.
XXXXX
Run-of-the-mill LEO's are no better than the general public at firearms identifications. If that wasn't true, A significant part of my LE career would have been unnecessary.
What manifesto and other CTists have consistently missed is that for the purposes of an actual indictment or prosecution, the identifications of the rifle by Craig et al would not be sufficient to establish what the rifle in question actually was.
The 60's were no different than the 90's when it cane to firearm identification. We had more tools and better reference information available but had I ever submitted a report that solely consisted of what the beloved "sworn affidavits" consist of I would have had some serious 'splainin' to do.
As to general LEO expertise in firearm identification, It's a sad fact that in dealing with Joe Blue Suit, any large frame revolver is a ".44 Mag", any lever action rifle is a ".30/30 Winchester" and any bolt action rifle with glass is a "30-06."
From my firsthand experience?
HK41A2, 7.62 NATO
Left side of magazine well showing Manufacturer's markings.
Left side of trigger housing showing Importer's markings.
I was on a LE range firing this rifle from the bench. An officer approached me during a ceasefire and complimented me on my "AK."
I explained that the rifle in question was a design built by HK, Heckler & Koch, was in a different caliber (7.62 NATO v 7.62 x 39 combloc) and operated differently, being recoil operated delayed blowback v. gas in the AK.
It made no difference, he knew it was an AK.
FTR, generic Chinese AK:
Most egregious incident of LEO weapon ignorance I have ever encountered firsthand involved one of the below 1911 type pistols:
Right column second from bottom, Colt Combat Commander. It was a .45 when it left the Colt Factory, it was a .45 when I sent it to F. Bob Chow to be tuned and it was a .45 when it came back and it is a .45 today.
My partner and I were conducting an open LEA weapons familiarization program at an LE range. Various officers from different agencies were invited to spend the day burning our ammo free of charge various through firearms and MG's they most likely had never seen before, and they weren't responsible for cleaning the pieces afterward either - it was a most popular type of range day.
During the course of the day, a uniformed LE administrator (as opposed to street cop) approached me to thank me etc, and complimented me on the "beautiful 9mm" I was carrying. Because the object of the exercise was to make friends and contacts, I thanked him and attempted to guide the conversation in a different direction, but the Admin. puke wanted to examine the piece - my gun was live (loaded) and I advised him we'd need to go to the firing line before I'd remove it from the holster (sop safety rule on any range) but our hero explained to me that "he knew what he was doing so it was OK..."
I dropped the mag without removing the piece from my holster, found a 100% safe direction, withdrew it from the holster, depressed the thumb safety and ejected the chambered round before handing it to fearless leader. My eyes were on him because I wanted to see how much of a fool this particular cat might be, but he did not sweep anyone with the muzzle and did not commit any basic safety violations that I'd be concerned with.
What did happen, and because it wasn't a safety issue I didn't consider it before handing over my piece was that the Colt .45 ACP roll markings on the slide caught his eye.
A rational individual who thought a piece was in a different caliber than it actually was would most likely take note that they were incorrect and move on, but this particular fella wasn't that type of individual (note: Colt did and does chamber 1911 types in 9mm as well as other calibers) as he noted that if I didn't even know the proper caliber to carry in my "gun" I might not have much real expertise to pass along to his officers. He believed my piece was what he initially identified it was and the caliber markings had to be mistaken. When I showed him the live .45 round I had ejected from the chamber before handing it over his opinion did not change...
When I eventually attended his retirement dinner I would have enjoyed telling that story, but enough guys in my circle had either been witnesses to the event or had heard it through the grapevine that it wouldn't have made a hell of a lot of difference.
Bottom line - cops are no different than anyone else when it comes to willful stupidity. I'm surprised that fact never seems to occur to our CTist brethren - other than when they choose to gratuitously reject established facts from LE sources
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
Another pertinent post from 2013
As another example of recycled CTist claptrap, here's an exchange between a now MIA CTist and myself on the subject of LE weapon miss identification:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9052564&postcount=561
Originally Posted by Robert Prey View Post
Trouble is, it is undisputed that the Carcarno had clearly imprinted on it the words "Made Italy, Cal 6.5" For three officers and two sworn statements to make such a mistake calling it a "Mauser, 7.65" is one hell of a mistake.
Me:
And it happens all the time.
There is a reason why agencies hire individuals specifically trained in firearms identification, and there's a resaon why specific accreditation exists in the field.
Untrained (and the officers in question fall into that category) individuals misidentify firearms more often than not, and most individuals will misidentify a firearm by using a trade name (Mauser, Winchester, etc) they're familar with in passing.
On the range, I once encountered a shooter who could not wrap their head around the fact that the rifle I was shooting was a 1917 Enfield rather than the 1903 Springfield he thought it was, even after I pointed out the receiver engravings.
The fact that the "identification" made by the officers stopped at trade name and caliber is a clue to a very common mistake, as people also tend to misidentify firearms based both on their limited knowledge of caliber - ie, every bolt action hunting rifle is a "30/06" and every lever action rifle is a "30/30" and every Glock is a "9 mm".
As another example of recycled CTist claptrap, here's an exchange between a now MIA CTist and myself on the subject of LE weapon miss identification:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9052564&postcount=561
Originally Posted by Robert Prey View Post
Trouble is, it is undisputed that the Carcarno had clearly imprinted on it the words "Made Italy, Cal 6.5" For three officers and two sworn statements to make such a mistake calling it a "Mauser, 7.65" is one hell of a mistake.
Me:
And it happens all the time.
There is a reason why agencies hire individuals specifically trained in firearms identification, and there's a resaon why specific accreditation exists in the field.
Untrained (and the officers in question fall into that category) individuals misidentify firearms more often than not, and most individuals will misidentify a firearm by using a trade name (Mauser, Winchester, etc) they're familar with in passing.
On the range, I once encountered a shooter who could not wrap their head around the fact that the rifle I was shooting was a 1917 Enfield rather than the 1903 Springfield he thought it was, even after I pointed out the receiver engravings.
The fact that the "identification" made by the officers stopped at trade name and caliber is a clue to a very common mistake, as people also tend to misidentify firearms based both on their limited knowledge of caliber - ie, every bolt action hunting rifle is a "30/06" and every lever action rifle is a "30/30" and every Glock is a "9 mm".
What list? Cite.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
What list? Cite. Link. Argue.
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
Ignorance is said to be bliss, and over the years on this forum we've had several very happy posters.
What acoustic experts?
- Status