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

[manifesto]

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.

The spacing is as follows: 1.65, 1.1, 4.8 and 0.7

Shot 2-3 = 1,1 seconds

Shot 4-5 = 0,7 seconds

Not easy to keep exact count when in a state of confused bewilderment.

 

[manifesto]

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.

I’m saying it is a possibilty given that this was usually the case. The officer finding the evidence, picking it up. As with the cartridges. As with the alleged rifle-paper-bag found and picked up by unknown officer before photographed.

 

[Tomtomkent]

I’m saying it is a possibilty given that this was usually the case. The officer finding the evidence, picking it up. As with the cartridges. As with the alleged rifle-paper-bag found and picked up by unknown officer before photographed.

And the relevance of this *possibility* without you offering evidence it happened?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Can’t I? The fatal head shot that killed JFK was determined by W&A to have been fired from a rifle positioned at the corner of the picket fence precisely at frame 313 in the Zapruder-film, with a probability of 1/100 000 of being wrong.

In science, that is called, PROOF.

In science we call this misrepresenting the stated position of a paper.
The shot was determined to have been fired from a precise location IF the microphone was correctly identified and IF the microphone was in a precise location, with a probability considerably different fro 10^-6, BEFORE further analysis was taken place, and BEFORE the issue of cross talk brought timing factors into question.

Even those who wrote the paper never called it proof.

 

[smartcooky]

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

How do we know that alien visitors from Planet X orbiting a star in the constellation of Draco, did not pick it up and put it back before Day came by?

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

Being mistaken is not lying, its being mistaken. People do it all the time; they testify to things they believe to be true, and they are not lying when they do so.

 

[RoboTimbo]

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..

How close together were they on the dictabelt recording?

I think you agree that the dictabelt nonsense has been thoroughly debunked.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I’m saying it is a possibilty given that this was usually the case. The officer finding the evidence, picking it up. As with the cartridges. As with the alleged rifle-paper-bag found and picked up by unknown officer before photographed.

Remember the value of a CT's opinion? You still haven't made your case. Keep trying. The null hypothesis is still intact.

 

[bknight]

manifesto, I'll ask again, since you have chosen to not answer my questions.

What makes Myers analysis not scientific in your mind?
Why is the method he used incorrect or in error?

Please don't quote each question a narrative answer encompassing both questions is easier to quote and ask further questions/insert additional information.

 

[HSienzant]

Case in point. The majority of the asked witnesses said that shots came from the knoll.

FALSE. Since you're using the HSCA study for the acoustics, let's use the HSCA study for the witnesses.

It's here: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/pdf/HSCA_Vol8_AS_3_Earwitness.pdf

Here's what they found:

.TSBD......Knoll......Other...Don't Know....Total ... 49 ........... 21 ........... 30 ........... 78 ............... 178
27.5% ..... 11 .8% ..... 16.9% ...... 43.8% ........ 100%

"Over half the sample had some opinion as to the origin of the shot; the majority of these reported the origin as the TSBD. Twenty-one witnesses reported the Knoll as the source, 30 reported some other location, and only 4 witnesses gave more than a single location for the shots."

You can only get to more knoll witnesses than TSBD witnesses if you use biased sources like conspiracy theorists like Mark Lane or Josiah Thompson to do the counting. Lane claimed 58 knoll witnesses in RUSH TO JUDGMENT, Thompson 33 knoll witnesses in SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS. Note the conspiracy sources don't even agree on what witnesses can be counted as knoll witnesses.

Moreover, there's a problem here we discussed multiple times with some of your predecessors in this thread that they never explained. They never even tried to explain. Maybe you can do better, but I doubt it.

Your argument is that shots came from multiple locations. Therefore, according to you, those that named the knoll as the sole source of the shots are wrong (whether it is 58, 33, or 21), because they named only one source. Likewise, according to you, those that named only the TSBD as the source are also wrong, because they named only one source.

Per the HSCA, and hence per anyone who thinks there were shots from multiple locations (including YOU), only four witnesses were right, all the rest were wrong - because only four witnesses thought the shots came from multiple locations.

As convincing this is...

It's not convincing because your claims are not factual. Your claim for the number of knoll witnesses is inflated. You ignore the fact that your scenario calls for shots from multiple locations, and hence, all but four witnesses were wrong as only four claimed shots from multiple locations.

They don't address the fact, it is still possible for defenders of the lone nut Oswald theory to discard this as mere witness testimony, wich could be faulty.

If the shots all came from the TSBD, then there are 49 witnesses who were correct. If the shots came from multiple locations, then there are only four witnesses who are correct. It's your argument that we have to discard the testimony of the majority of the witnesses as erroneous.

These testimonies are far stronger than the three_shot_witnesses given the dramatic difference between opposite directions vs. tightly spaced shots easy to conflate.

FALSE. The three shots was testified to by approximately 90% of the witnesses who gave a number. So you are claiming the vast majority of the witnesses were wrong in both the number of shots AND the location of the shots (only four agree with you that shots came from multiple locations).

The hard evidence also indicates three shots. Only one weapon was found, and on the same floor as the weapon, three shells were found. The wounds can be sourced to two bullets, with one miss. The one bullet that struck both men was found in Parkland Hospital, and is in the evidence trail as CE399. Fragments of the bullet that struck JFK in the head were found in the limousine, and are in the evidence trail as CE567 and CE569:

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0141b.htm
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0142a.htm

The ballistics tie those fragments (and the nearly whole bullet found at Parkland) to the rifle found in the Depository (CE139) as tightly as the fingerprints on the trigger guard tie the rifle found in the Depository to Oswald.

Hank

 

[bknight]

manifesto we have discussed McLain to death and now more closely examining the dictabelt itself.
Why isn't the open mike miles away from the Dealey Plaza?
What precludes the BBN et. al. analysis that in yours and theirs is 95% accurate is wrong from the start, by assuming that the open mike was where they thought it to be?
From reading the narrative by all the investigative agencies the dictabelt analysis has more holes than Swiss cheese.

 

[RoboTimbo]

The spacing is as follows: 1.65, 1.1, 4.8 and 0.7

Shot 2-3 = 1,1 seconds

Shot 4-5 = 0,7 seconds

Not easy to keep exact count when in a state of confused bewilderment.

So NOT spaced closely together as you've claimed when discussing ear witness testimony. How do CTs hold these contradictory thoughts together?

How many of the debunkings of the HSCA dictabelt evidence have you read and understood?

 

[HSienzant]

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

== QUOTE ==
Mr. FRITZ. We started at the bottom; yes, sir. And, of course, and I think we went up probably to the top.
Different people would call me when they would find something that looked like something I should know about and I ran back and forth from floor to floor as we were searching, and it wasn't very long until someone called me and told me they wanted me to come to the front window, the corner window, they had found some empty cartridges.
Mr. BALL. That was on the sixth floor?
Mr. FRITZ. That is right; the sixth floor, corner window.
Mr. BALL. What did you do?
Mr. FRITZ. I told them not to move the cartridges, not to touch anything until we could get the crime lab to take pictures of them just as they were lying there and I left an officer assigned there to see that that was done, and the crime lab came almost immediately, and took pictures, and dusted the shelfs for prints.
Mr. BALL. Which officers, which officer did you leave there?
Mr. FRITZ. Carl Day was the man I talked to about taking pictures.
Mr. BALL. Day?
Mr. FRITZ. Lieutenant Day; yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Do you know whether he took the pictures or not?
Mr. FRITZ. I feel like he did but I don't know because I didn't stay to see whether he could.
Mr. BALL. You didn't know whether he took the pictures?
Mr. FRITZ. I went on searching the building. I just told them to preserve that evidence and I went right ahead.
Mr. BALL. What happened after that?
Mr. FRITZ. A few minutes later some officer called me and said they had found the rifle over near the back stairway and I told them same thing, not to move it, not to touch it, not to move any of the boxes until we could get pictures, and as soon as Lieutenant Day could get over there he made pictures of that.
== UNQUOTE ==

Why do you speculate the shells were moved? Just to give yourself something else to question?

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

Says the only man in the history of the world who never made a mistake and never corrected anything. Tell us, why do pencils have erasers?

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

NASA? Did they use the Hubble telescope to point it at the shells in another galaxy?

Krusch asked? And they complied by pointing out all the engravings? Where did they say that? Do you have any documentation of what he asked them to do and what they said they did?

No, they didn't comply. And we know that -- because in the zip file you provided, Krusch himself identifies markings that weren't pointed out by the NARA.

For example, Krusch highlights markings he found on these photos that aren't noted by any NARA pointer:
CE 543_DSC5467_Highlighted_Q6_CroppedA.jpg
CE 545_DSC5486_Highlighted_Q7_Cropped.jpg

No pointer points to a ”DAY”.

None points to the markings Krusch found either, that looks like J DAY and some other marks.

So that means they did not point out every marking.

And that means your argument about what the NARA pointed out (and NARA not pointing out Day's markings) is hokum.

Moreover, the photos in the zip file don't show the entire surface of all the bullets, either, so your challenge to find Day's markings is impossible to comply with, because the markings could very well be on the portion not shown in his photos (or covered by the "NARA pointer").

”JD” ≠ ”DAY”

Your opinion doesn't count here. You didn't mark the shells. Krusch's opinion doesn't count. He didn't mark the shells. J.C.Day did mark the shells, and he found his marks. His is the only opinion that counts. You seem to still not understand what is evidence (J.C.Day's testimony affirming he found his mark on the shells) and what is simply irrelevant opinion (your arguments and Krusch's arguments).

Hank

 

[traxy]

I don’t know. It wasn’t many

It was something like 2 out of 178. Included in those 178 were dozens of trained secret service agents, military men and hunters. Almost none of them heard 5 shots.

But you're not suggesting 5 shots...you're suggesting six...or at least a sixth shot that was easily interpreted as a gunshot.

We'll get back to them in a second.

You do the math.

Sure! Let's do the math together, shall we?

Your dictabelt evidence has the first shot at Z175, as you yourself confirmed a few posts up. As shown in Hughes frame 648 (which is the equivalent of Z150), McLain is 174 feet away from where he needs to be as he rounds the corner from Main to Houston.

He needs to make up that 174 feet in 1.37 seconds (25 Zapruder frames at 18.3 frames per second) to be where he absolutely has to be in order for the dictabelt recording to have any validity.

Travelling 174 feet in 1.37 seconds would have him travelling at an average of 127 feet per second. Translated into miles per hour, McLain would have needed to AVERAGE 86.59mph over that 174 feet in order to arrive at the first microphone position when he needed to be there.

Your dictabelt is disproven.

I did the math.

 

[pgwenthold]

It was something like 2 out of 178. Included in those 178 were dozens of trained secret service agents, military men and hunters. Almost none of them heard 5 shots.

But you're not suggesting 5 shots...you're suggesting six...or at least a sixth shot that was easily interpreted as a gunshot.

We'll get back to them in a second.



Sure! Let's do the math together, shall we?

Your dictabelt evidence has the first shot at Z175, as you yourself confirmed a few posts up. As shown in Hughes frame 648 (which is the equivalent of Z150), McLain is 174 feet away from where he needs to be as he rounds the corner from Main to Houston.

He needs to make up that 174 feet in 1.37 seconds (25 Zapruder frames at 18.3 frames per second) to be where he absolutely has to be in order for the dictabelt recording to have any validity.

Travelling 174 feet in 1.37 seconds would have him travelling at an average of 127 feet per second. Translated into miles per hour, McLain would have needed to AVERAGE 86.59mph over that 174 feet in order to arrive at the first microphone position when he needed to be there.

Your dictabelt is disproven.

I did the math.

Whoopty doo! But what does it all mean?

 

[manifesto]

And the relevance of this *possibility* without you offering evidence it happened?

I’m stating the relevance in the text you are citing. Can’t you read?

 

[traxy]

Whoopty doo! But what does it all mean?

It means manifesto is backing a loser, and worse than that, backing a loser he hasn't even bothered to look into.

 

[manifesto]

Spoken like the drowning man imploring the waves. You wish to hang your hat on a variety of nonsense involving the firearm used and related issues and I'm not about to allow you to squirm away from your ignorance.

Here's the deal.

Professionals are expected to articulate facts in writing. It's also expected that someone discussing a subject professionally will use visuals to illustrate particular points, and may well use evidence or reference photos to back up their position.

That is exactly what I'm doing here. If you plan on sticking around as opposed to running away like your last pass through town you'd better get used to it.

What you have is an opinion based on ignorance and confirmation bias. Truth might be in you somewhere, but it isn't in evidence in this thread.

As far as throwing around the word "liar," or in your spelling "lier." I can't even turn it around on you.

You need to actually know something about the subject before you can lie about it.

So, I take it you will continue your obsession with ”guns” no matter how little relevance it has for the issue at hand?

To flaunt your ’pride’ in your love of, guns?

 

[manifesto]

It means manifesto is backing a loser, and worse than that, backing a loser he hasn't even bothered to look into.

Says Traxy, who started with a promise to show how the ”illistrator”, Dale Myers, are ”debunking” the HSCA acoustic evidence. But after a couple of well meaning corrections, resorts to the eyewitness account, claiming they are proving the science wrong.

Yes, who need science when there is exact and non ambigous laser perceptions reported by scared and bevildered witnesses who ’remember’ more exact than a dictabelt recording.

Bangbangbang!!! ........ Bangbang!!!

Yes, who needs science in a forum for scientific scepticism?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Says Traxy, who started with a promise to show how the ”illistrator”, Dale Myers, are ”debunking” the HSCA acoustic evidence. But after a couple of well meaning corrections, resorts to the eyewitness account, claiming they are proving the science wrong.

Yes, who need science when there is exact and non ambigous laser perceptions reported by scared and bevildered witnesses who ’remember’ more exact than a dictabelt recording.

Bangbangbang!!! ........ Bangbang!!!

Yes, who needs science in a forum for scientific scepticism?

You failed to give any reasons for dismissing the many scientific debunkings of the HSCA acoustical evidence and the numerous mistakes they made.

The one CT website you get all of your "knowledge" from let you down again.

 

[traxy]

Says Traxy, who started with a promise to show how the ”illistrator”, Dale Myers, are ”debunking” the HSCA acoustic evidence. But after a couple of well meaning corrections, resorts to the eyewitness account, claiming they are proving the science wrong.

Yes, who need science when there is exact and non ambigous laser perceptions reported by scared and bevildered witnesses who ’remember’ more exact than a dictabelt recording.

Bangbangbang!!! ........ Bangbang!!!

Yes, who needs science in a forum for scientific scepticism?

You must have missed the part where I "did the math" like you asked me to.

That's OK. I'll just post it again. Here is the math, no "scared and bewildered witnesses" required.

Your dictabelt evidence has the first shot at Z175, as you yourself confirmed a few posts up. As shown in Hughes frame 648 (which is the equivalent of Z150), McLain is 174 feet away from where he needs to be as he rounds the corner from Main to Houston.

He needs to make up that 174 feet in 1.37 seconds (25 Zapruder frames at 18.3 frames per second) to be where he absolutely has to be in order for the dictabelt recording to have any validity.

Travelling 174 feet in 1.37 seconds would have him travelling at an average of 127 feet per second. Translated into miles per hour, McLain would have needed to AVERAGE 86.59mph over that 174 feet in order to arrive at the first microphone position when he needed to be there.

Your dictabelt is disproven.

I did the math.