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

[BStrong]

When soundly beaten on every issue rised, Axxmeuin300 resorts to right out lying of his opponents statements. THAT is a sign of poor sportmanschip and severe intellectual dishonesty.

Miscellaneous table and chest pounding deleted





In science, that is called, PROOF.

Her is the oscilloscopic graph of the sound from the shot:

[qimg]https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/0/00/Pict_essay_acousticshistory_NoiseLevel.jpg[/qimg]

Likewise...

1st bolded:



2nd bolded: Yes, her, as in Mary Ferrell. Should have applied the scientific method a little deeper than finding something you agree with:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination_Dictabelt_recording#Further_analysis

Further analysis
The Justice Department reviewed the HSCA report and the National Academy of Science's study of the acoustical evidence. It reported to the Judiciary Committee on March 28, 1988, and rebuked the HSCA's conclusion of a probable conspiracy.[36]

In 2003, an independent researcher named Michael O'Dell reported that both the National Academy and Dr. Thomas had used incorrect timelines because they assumed the Dictabelt ran continuously. When corrected, these showed the impulses happened too late to be the real shots even with Thomas's alternative synchronization. In addition, he pointed out that the 95% or higher probability of a shot from the grassy knoll referred only to random noise (which all earlier research acknowledges), while the impulse could have been something else. He identifies it as speech, ignoring that the analysis that the impulse is from a shot is based on timing of echos.[37]

A November 2003 analysis paid for by the cable television channel Court TV concluded that the putative gunshot impulses did not match test gunshot recordings fired in Dealey Plaza any better than random noise.[38] In December 2003, Thomas responded by pointing out what he claimed were errors in the November 2003 Court TV analysis.[39]

Digital restoration
In 2003, ABC News aired the results of its investigation on a program called Peter Jennings Reporting: The Kennedy Assassination: Beyond Conspiracy. Based on computer diagrams and recreations done by Dale K. Myers, it concluded that the sound recordings on the Dictabelt could not have come from Dealey Plaza, and that Dallas Police Officer H.B. McLain was correct in his assertions that he had not yet entered Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination.

In the March 2005 issue of Reader's Digest, it was reported that Carl Haber and Vitaliy Fadeyev were assigned with the task of digitally restoring Dictabelt 10 by Leslie Waffen from the National Archives. Their method consisted of using sensors to map the microscopic contours of the tracks of old sound recordings without having to play them using a stylus, which would further degrade the sound. Dictabelt 10 was worn from countless playings and cracked due to improper storage.[40] By 2010 digital restoration of the Dictabelt seemed a more distant prospect, with both funding and final approval for the project unlikely to be secured in the near future.[citation needed]

Looks like your PROOF! went poof?

 

[manifesto]

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/infojfk/jfk6/timing.htm

That timeframe was first suggested by the Warren Commission as it encompasses several reactions, most notably John Connally who snaps to the right when he hears what he thinks is gunfire coming from over his right shoulder.

The first reaction by any of the limousine occupants to a severe external stimulus begins to occur in the vicinity of Zapruder frames 162-167.* At this time, Connally is looking to his left, when his head begins a rapid, sudden motion to the right. In quantitative terms, he turns his head approximately 60 (deg) to his right in one-ninth of a second (a rate equivalent to a 540 (deg) rotation per second). He pauses momentarily and then executes a further 30 (deg) turn to his right, within an eighteenth of a second (again, a rate equivalent to a 540(deg )rotation per second). This initial rapid motion, in which Connally has apparently turned Iris head to look behind him, is accompanied during the next approximately 20 frames by a more gradual 60(deg) shift to the right of his upper torso. Although it is apparent that none of the limousine occupants has been shot at the time that Connally initiates this movement, the Panel considers these actions to be particularly significant because they were consistent with his Warren Commission testimony that he turned in response to having heard the first shot and was struck almost immediately afterwards.

Did the Commission consult any experts on acoustics making this conclusion?

Max Holland's study puts the first shot even earlier than that.

Holland is CIA. Did CIA lend him some of their experts on acoustics?

The House Select Committee posited a shot at frame 158 due to a jiggle in the film at that point and Connally's "severe" reaction beginning 2 frames later.

The evidence in the joint investigation report did not. It place it at Z-175 after syncronizing it with the five identified echo patterns on the dictabelt recording.

That adds almost a second to McLains needed time to reach the spot to pick up the first shot = 1 + 0,5 = 1,5 seconds. There is more.

Connallys movements could have been a reaction from the ”sound like fire crackers” reported by many witnesses sounding an instant before the real shooting started. Or a backfire. Or ...

As seen in the Table II there is a false positive just before the five detected rifle shots = loud sound, but not as loud as rifle fire.

You disagree?

 

[traxy]

The evidence in the joint investigation report did not. It place it at Z-175 after syncronizing it with the five identified echo patterns on the dictabelt recording.

The dictabelt evidence has been debunked. You've been shown this.

Connallys movements could have been a reaction from the ”sound like fire crackers” reported by many witnesses sounding an instant before the real shooting started. Or a backfire. Or ...

As seen in the Table II there is a false positive just before the five detected rifle shots = loud sound, but not as loud as rifle fire.

You disagree?

An audible firecracker, followed by 5 audible gunshots...that's your position?

The vast majority of witnesses heard three or less, including the one they initially interpreted as a firecracker or backfire. 3 loud noises total.

Connally maintained 3 shots until his dying day. One at Z160, one that hit him in the back, one that hit Kennedy.

The evidence doesn't support your conclusion. Try again.

 

[RoboTimbo]

You disagree?

You still haven't made your case to back up your claim. Maybe if you learned something about the assassination first?

 

[manifesto]

1st bolded:



2nd bolded: Yes, her, as in Mary Ferrell. Should have applied the scientific method a little deeper than finding something you agree with:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination_Dictabelt_recording#Further_analysis

Mary Ferrell is dead and gone and the site is a data base hosting material relevant to the assassasination of JFK.

The doucument you are trying to smear is a report written by real scientists doing real science.

Further analysis
The Justice Department reviewed the HSCA report and the National Academy of Science's study of the acoustical evidence. It reported to the Judiciary Committee on March 28, 1988, and rebuked the HSCA's conclusion of a probable conspiracy.[36]

Do you call this ”analysis”? Why?

In 2003, an independent researcher named Michael O'Dell reported that both the National Academy and Dr. Thomas had used incorrect timelines because they assumed the Dictabelt ran continuously.

Neither NRC, Thomas or BBN/W&A assumed that the dictabelt or the audiograph runned continously. BBN did a linear regression analysis to see how much of the ch-2 recording was ”dead air”, but did not have to do it on the cha-1 recording because it was recording continously from the stuck mike on McLains motorcycle.

Is this also part of your ”analysis?

When corrected, these showed the impulses happened too late to be the real shots even with Thomas's alternative synchronization.

Did they now? Show me.

In addition, he pointed out that the 95% or higher probability of a shot from the grassy knoll referred only to random noise

Lol. Show me.

(which all earlier research acknowledges),

Did they now? Could you name these and explain on what science they make such silly conclusions?

while the impulse could have been something else.

Like, what?

He identifies it as speech, ignoring that the analysis that the impulse is from a shot is based on timing of echos.[37]

Ah, speech. How on earth did he come up with this?

Explain.

A November 2003 analysis paid for by the cable television channel Court TV concluded that the putative gunshot impulses did not match test gunshot recordings fired in Dealey Plaza any better than random noise.[38] In December 2003, Thomas responded by pointing out what he claimed were errors in the November 2003 Court TV analysis.[39][/I][/B]

Yes he did tell them that they had to adjust for the 5% slower recording speed. When runned in correct speed the computor algorithm gave a perfect match to the shot from the knoll.

They did never send the program again. They did never retract or apologize for misleading the American public or misrepresenting BBN/W&A and Donald Thomas.

Digital restoration
In 2003, ABC News aired the results of its investigation on a program called Peter Jennings Reporting: The Kennedy Assassination: Beyond Conspiracy. Based on computer diagrams and recreations done by Dale K. Myers, it concluded that the sound recordings on the Dictabelt could not have come from Dealey Plaza, and that Dallas Police Officer H.B. McLain was correct in his assertions that he had not yet entered Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination.

As I said, I’m debating Myers proclamations this very moment and therefore suspend my more detailed comments, but I can say this, Myers is a fraud and a quack.

In the March 2005 issue of Reader's Digest, it was reported that Carl Haber and Vitaliy Fadeyev were assigned with the task of digitally restoring Dictabelt 10 by Leslie Waffen from the National Archives. Their method consisted of using sensors to map the microscopic contours of the tracks of old sound recordings without having to play them using a stylus, which would further degrade the sound. Dictabelt 10 was worn from countless playings and cracked due to improper storage.[40] By 2010 digital restoration of the Dictabelt seemed a more distant prospect, with both funding and final approval for the project unlikely to be secured in the near future.[citation needed]

Yes, and?

Looks like your PROOF! went poof?

If there is such a thing as scientific proof, yes, this is it.

 

[RoboTimbo]

but I can say this, Myers is a fraud and a quack.

There aren't too many things less valuable than the opinion of a CT.

 

[Axxman300]

The specified it as a Mauser rifle with a scope.

The crime of the century and three police officers get the brand of the rifle wrong? In written and signed affidavits? Then, after a good nights sleep, two of them suddely ”remember” much clearer that is was a Carcano rifle, while the third of them still remember a ”wrong” rifle?

Come on ... you are kidding ... ?!?

Post 746.

And you stuck with it. Where you failed repeatedly is that the officers who misidentified the rifle never handled it, and were not responsible for entering it into evidence. It never mattered what they thought they saw, only what was entered into evidence by the appropriate DPD officer.

Standard CT tactic: The Fruit of the Poisoned Tree.

If officer Joe Blow and John Dough got X wrong then the whole investigation is obviously a sham.

 

[manifesto]

The dictabelt evidence has been debunked. You've been shown this.

No, it has not. And no, I have not been shown this.

An audible firecracker, followed by 5 audible gunshots...that's your position?

No, they thought it ”sounded” like fire crackers.

The vast majority of witnesses heard three or less,

No. The majority reported hearing three shots. Some more, some less.

including the one they initially interpreted as a firecracker or backfire. 3 loud noises total.

How do you know they included noise they thought was something else than gunshots among the gunshots they heard?

Connally maintained 3 shots until his dying day. One at Z160, one that hit him in the back, one that hit Kennedy.

Connally reported being hit with a shot the second after JFK was hit in the back. That destroys WC’s theory of three shots fired from behind by lone nut Oswald.

The evidence doesn't support your conclusion. Try again.

I’ll await you showing me by whom and how the five rifle shots on the dictabelt recording have been ”debunked”.

Here they are again:

These five impulse patterns identified as sound of five rifle shots have according to you been ”debunked”.

Show me.

 

[traxy]

How many witnesses heard 5 shots?

 

[RoboTimbo]

No, it has not.

Yep, repeatedly and thoroughly.

And no, I have not been shown this.

Yep, repeatedly and thoroughly.

You just can't seem to get anything right.

 

[manifesto]

Post 746.

And you stuck with it. Where you failed repeatedly is that the officers who misidentified the rifle never handled it,

How do you know they did not handled it?

and were not responsible for entering it into evidence.

Agree. That was Lt. Days responsibilty. The same Day proven to be lying under oath to the Commission. Two times.

1. He contacted WC after his first testimony and wanted to ”change it”, which he did and this time ”swore” again but to different cartridges than the first time. He lied the first time under oath.

2. When asked to identify ALL ingravings on the three cartridges the staff at NARA did so and photographed them in high resolution with pointers to the ingravings and from all angles. No ”DAY” on any of them. He lied the second time under oath.

This infuse confidence in Lt Day ”entering the correct rifle into evidence”?

It never mattered what they thought they saw, only what was entered into evidence by the appropriate DPD officer.

Of course it matters! That is the reason for formalized rules in finding, identifying, marking, handling in chain of custody, of evidence. To secure its authenticity. Without secured authenticity, no evidence.

That said, I do not know what to think of the Mauser turned Carcano turned murder weapon, but I know it was not properly handled and that i see NO reason to trust anything coming from Lt. Day, for reasons listed above.

Standard CT tactic: The Fruit of the Poisoned Tree.

No. Calling names doesn’t cut it and no, the poisoned fruit comes from the DPD and their handling of the finding of the alleged murder weapon. Not from pointing this out.

If officer Joe Blow and John Dough got X wrong then the whole investigation is obviously a sham.

What?

 

[manifesto]

How many witnesses heard 5 shots?

Shots with very tight spacings between them can easily be mistaken for just one shot. This has to be weighed against the scientific findings listed in Table II.

(1.) Less than 5% chance for each and every shot to be random noise.

(2.) The order in the topographical data. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. If random noise the patterns would have been all over the place. Ex. 3, 5, 2, 4, and 1. They were not, they were in perfect order.

(3.) The sonar analysis of the shot from the knoll which resulted in P = 1/100 000 for being random noise.

All this taken together is scientific proof of five shots listed in Table II.

You say someone have succeded to debunk this?

Show me.

 

[manifesto]

Yep, repeatedly and thoroughly.



Yep, repeatedly and thoroughly.

You just can't seem to get anything right.

<snip>

Edited by jsfisher: 

Edited for compliance with rules 0 and 12 of the Membership Agreement.

 

[traxy]

It was a simple question.

178 witnesses in Dealey Plaza (give or take). How many heard 5 shots? I'm just looking for a number.

 

[Axxman300]

Yes, the CIA has a long list of unspeakable atrocities in its long bloody history. It’s like a cancer metastasizing into every little corner of civil society. Corrupting, murdering, torturing, brainwashing, assassinating, experimenting, destroying decensy all over the world as well as at home.

See this? This right here is the crux of his issue, and why he is immune from factual information.

The CIA is 71 years old come this September.

MI-6 is 99 years old, but official British intelligence goes back to 1854, and England has had spies as long is it has had a monarchy.

France has had a formal foreign intelligence agency since 1871, but obviously has had a spy network going all the way back.

Russia has had an intelligence apparatus since 1810, with the fun-bunch at KGB starting in 1954 until it became the FSB in 1995 (FSB makes it sound like a banking institution, which I used to think was weird, but now seems ironic).

Then there's Spain, Italy, Cuba, and every other country in the world (including the KSI, and SAKK)

Do I need to list the KGB's questionable acts? Should I delve into British, Spanish, and French colonialism?

No - they have nothing to do with what happened in Dallas on 11/22/1963.

What if I suggested that the reasons the CT theories that have lasted for so long all come from former CIA officers, and FBI agents, and Justice Department lawyers based solely on the idea that someone like Oswald could never have acted alone. I suggest this based on the fact that from the late 1960's onward the files from CIA and FBI were often accessed by officers and agents who were consumed by assassination CT's, and enough of these people would suggest in casual conversation with civilian friends that they'd "seen the files, and something doesn't add up".

For an example of one of these folks I give you Robert Blakey. Blakey was the mind behind the RICO Act, which has helped fight organized crime ever since 1970. Blakey helped fight the Mafia, and a byproduct of this is that everything becomes suspicious. Blakey was a JFK CTist who had power within the US government, but his prejudice handicapped his objectivity ( in my view) to focus only on a mob connection.

Blakey is a smart man, I guy I'd hire as my lawyer in a second, but he had a blind-spot when it came to the murder of JFK.

America can't keep secrets longer than thirty years. Maybe someday.

 

[Axxman300]

How do you know they did not handled it?

Agree. That was Lt. Days responsibilty. The same Day proven to be lying under oath to the Commission. Two times.

1. He contacted WC after his first testimony and wanted to ”change it”, which he did and this time ”swore” again but to different cartridges than the first time. He lied the first time under oath.

2. When asked to identify ALL ingravings on the three cartridges the staff at NARA did so and photographed them in high resolution with pointers to the ingravings and from all angles. No ”DAY” on any of them. He lied the second time under oath.

This infuse confidence in Lt Day ”entering the correct rifle into evidence”?

The Carcano stayed on the floor until Lieutenant J.C. "Carl" Day recovered it, and it was handled only by him from the TSBD to the evidence locker. Most of that is all on film (still, and motion picture).

He didn't lie under oath, and Americans are allowed to change their sworn testimony during an inquiry as long as they're telling the truth.

You have yet to show he lied about anything.

NARA has never said anything about the casings lacking initials, and "JD" is visible on one of them.

 

[manifesto]

It was a simple question.

178 witnesses in Dealey Plaza (give or take). How many heard 5 shots? I'm just looking for a number.

I don’t know. It wasn’t many, but that’s not the point. Even if no one heard five shots it is still plausable to assume that two pair of hots were so close together that they were perceived as one.

That is why they decided to investigate the DPD dictabelt recording to look for scientific proof of the number of rifle shots and from where they came on Dealey Plaza that day.

They found five in two clusters. The first cluster contained three tight spaced rifle shots from behind and 4,8 seconds later, 2 even more tight together, one from in front and the last one from behind.

These scientific findings are PROOF of these five shots.

1. Refute the data and findings showing the five shots.

2. Prove that the bike with the mike could not have been at the right spots at the right time.

3. Both.

Case in point. The majority of the asked witnesses said that shots came from the knoll. As convincing this is, it is still possible for defenders of the lone nut Oswald theory to discard this as mere witness testimony, wich could be faulty. These testimonies are far stronger than the three_shot_witnesses given the dramatic difference between opposite directions vs. tightly spaced shots easy to conflate.

The acoustic evidence have solved this once and for all with a P for being random noise = 1/100 000 only for the knoll shot + 5% for each of the rest four shots, and most important, the topographical order in the data. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.

You do the math.

 

[manifesto]

The Carcano stayed on the floor until Lieutenant J.C. "Carl" Day recovered it, and it was handled only by him from the TSBD to the evidence locker. Most of that is all on film (still, and motion picture).

How do you know they did not picked it up and put it back before Day came by?

He didn't lie under oath, and Americans are allowed to change their sworn testimony during an inquiry as long as they're telling the truth.

He looked att the cartridges while giving his first sworn testimony. That is lying in every known definition of the word.

You have yet to show he lied about anything.

NARA has never said anything about the casings lacking initials, and "JD" is visible on one of them.

Krusch asked NASA to show with pointers where the ingravings were.

No pointer points to a ”DAY”.

”JD” ≠ ”DAY”

 

[Tomtomkent]

It wasn’t many, but that’s not the point. Even if no one heard five shots it is still plausable to assume that two pair of hots were so close together that the were perceived as one.

Whatever point you are trying to make, you are not making it in a way that makes sense.

Why should you have to assume anything about the timings of the shots, given you have quoted the "Acoustic Evidence" so many times in your argument? If the impulses identified were gunshots, you have the timings mapped, and you would be able to show near instantaneous pairings.

 

[Tomtomkent]

How do you know they did not picked it up and put it back before Day came by?

If you would like to suggest the evidence was handled before the still photographs and film were taken, feel free to supply evidence for this.