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

[pgwenthold]

I know he did not have it on from the recording made by his stuck microphone before, during and after the shooting at the Dealey Plaza. The probability for this NOT being the case is so ridiculously low it begins to close in on long heralded scientific truths like the one that the sun allways rises in the east.
.

This is stupid.

The probability of those shots being there depends on the ASSUMPTION (and that's what Barger said) that there was a mic in the right place.

You can't use the assumption that there was a mic in the right place to prove that there was a mic in the right place.

 

[Tomtomkent]

I’m not sure of what you are trying to say here. Are you saying that in order for the recording to pick up rifle shots there had to be a mike on the right spots at the right time to make this possible? Of so, yes, that is the point with the test shots with arrays of microphones around the Houston/Elm intersection, to find out if there was a mike at the right spots at the right time to pick up the sounds.

Are you disputing Thomas’ reading of the scientific data? BBN/W&A was under tremendous pressure to conform to the officialdom conveyed by their boss, Robert Blakey, so they where extremely conservative in the presentation of the conclusions from their investigations. But, the science is still there.

BBN stated that the shot from the knoll had a 50/50 probability of being a positive and therefore needed additional sonar analysis to get more precise data and probability coifficient.

1. No, it was not 50/50, it was more than 95% (0.8) for being a positive.

2. The sonar analysis gave a less than 1/100 000 for being a false positive.

BBN/W&A discussed the issues of cross talk, discountinous recording and timing in their report and, no, the Decker cross talk doesn’t prove that the five impulse patterns had to have been recorded a minute after the shooting.

Instead, the Fisher cross talk, the one closest to the actual event, strengthens the acoustical evidence, synchronizing the five patterns exactly in the correct time frame for being recorded at the Dealey Plaza at the time of the shooting.

In fact, all the so called ”debunkings” of the acoustical evidence, has instead corroborated it further, making it an unasailable scientific fact.

Of course they didn’t, they were dependent on their masters for most of their scientific funding an orders of their products.

They were very careful trying to tread the fine line between scientific integrity and pragmatic politics.

They were no fools.

Again, you seem happy to quote their work, but don’t seem to understand it.

The issue is not that a mic has to be in the right position to hear a rifle shot.

The issue is that the impulses that they identify as rifle shots, rely on calculated timings based on sounds travelling distances within time frames.

Move the microphone and any statement of which surface, or kind of surface the sound reacted to changes.

There is no distinction between those impulses and others beyond the coincidences of timing.

If the mic is in the wrong place all those measurements become meaningless, and any number of sources could cause the same patterns, because, by necessity, we do not have fixed points or surfaces to consider.

The probability you keep mentioning is only valid if very rigid factors are proven.

They are not proven.

Even at the time there was considerable doubt of which mic was open, before cross talk confirmed it, because the engine was at the wrong speed, bells tolled and there were no sirens.

Given we have good evidence that the necessary mic was several cars lengths away, the “proven” gunshots are not proven.

You have not convinced anybody that there were five shots, and if you wish to do so, you need to start understanding the benchmarks expected for it to be conceded as a probability. That includes understanding how the probability you cite is altered by later evidence.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I know he did not have it on from the recording made by his stuck microphone before, during and after the shooting at the Dealey Plaza.

LOL, circular reasoning is another fallacy in the CT bag of tricks?

The probability for this NOT being the case is so ridiculously low it begins to close in on long heralded scientific truths like the one that the sun allways rises in the east.

Have you forgotten how little your opinion is worth?

How do you KNOW he wasn’t?

You've been told you won't be allowed to switch the burden of proof. Your claim, your burden.

The null remains intact.

 

[manifesto]

This is stupid.

The probability of those shots being there depends on the ASSUMPTION (and that's what Barger said) that there was a mic in the right place.

No. The probability is NOT dependent on an assumtion of anything. The probability stands alone. W&A said that IF the five impulse patterns were not recorded at Dealey Plaza, it has to been recorded at a place mimicing Dealey Plaza exactly, rifle shots and all, OR being random noise for which the probability is less than one in a hundred thousand times 0.05 x 5 times the topographical order in the data = 1/125.

The chance for all this being random is on a pair with Scientific Proof if such has ever existed.

Du you understand?

You can't use the assumption that there was a mic in the right place to prove that there was a mic in the right place.

- The proof of A mike being in the right place is in the science of the acoustical evidence.

- The proof that it must have been McLain is in the process of elimination building on the existing photographic record.

You have to counter this with one or both of the following:

1. Refute the acoustical evidence with a probability stronger than the evidence in the HSCA reports from its joint acoustical scientific investigiation.

2. Prove that McLain couldn’t possibly be at the right spots at the right time for his mike to pick up the sounds from the five rifle shots as shown by the acoustical evidence.

Can you do this?

1 or 2 or both.

 

[RoboTimbo]

No. The probability is NOT dependent on an assumtion of anything. The probability stands alone. W&A said that IF the five impulse patterns were not recorded at Dealey Plaza, it has to been recorded at a place mimicing Dealey Plaza exactly, rifle shots and all, OR being random noise for which the probability is less than one in a hundred thousand times 0.05 x 5 times the topographical order in the data = 1/125.

The chance for all this being random is on a pair with Scientific Proof if such has ever existed.

Du you understand?

- The proof of A mike being in the right place is in the science of the acoustical evidence.

- The proof that it must have been McLain is in the process of elimination building on the existing photographic record.

You har to counter this with one or both of the following:

1. Refute the acoustical evidence with a probability stronger than the HSCA the evidence in the reports from the joint acoustical scientific invistegiation.

2. Prove that McLain couldn’t possibly be at the right spots at the right time for his mike to pick up the sounds from the five rifle shots as shown by the acoustical evidence.

Can you do this?

1 or 2 or both.

What do you think of all the debunkings which have been done since the HSCA made their mistakes which all the less knowledgeable CTs repeat?

Were you even aware of them or is that something else you didn't know?

 

[OKBob]

How does ”the consilience of evidence points to” Oswald killing JFK?

The null hypothesis, represented chiefly by the Warren Report, which I don't have time to type in here. You're chasing your tail because you don't understand three basic concepts that we've been asking you to learn: consilience, null hypothesis, burden of proof. Until you grasp these, you'll continue to pound your fist and demand that we carry your burden

 

[OKBob]

"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest."

Typical attempt to seize the moral high ground. Begged question, too, since you haven't established any "truth." And you get huffy when we point out that you're an example of CT.

 

[manifesto]

LOL, circular reasoning is another fallacy in the CT bag of tricks?

No. Reasoning from the science in the HSCA acoustical joint investigation’s report.

Have you forgotten how little your opinion is worth?

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove breach of rule 0 and rule 12.

You've been told you won't be allowed to switch the burden of proof. Your claim, your burden.

I responded to the claim that McLain was not in the right position on the right time for his mike to pick up the sound from the five impulse patterns.

Hence my request for supporting evidence.

The null remains intact.

Yes, in your brain it will remain intact

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove breach of rule 0 and rule 12.

 

[manifesto]

The null hypothesis, represented chiefly by the Warren Report, which I don't have time to type in here. You're chasing your tail because you don't understand three basic concepts that we've been asking you to learn: consilience, null hypothesis, burden of proof. Until you grasp these, you'll continue to pound your fist and demand that we carry your burden

I fully grasp the meaning of these three concepts and, no, they are not in any way an excuse for not presenting evidence of Oswald killing JFK

You are using these concepts as euphemisms for, c r a p.

Stop doing that

 

[manifesto]

Typical attempt to seize the moral high ground. Begged question, too, since you haven't established any "truth." And you get huffy when we point out that you're an example of CT.

No. It was a reminder to BStrong, that he should try to walk the talk.

 

[OKBob]

I fully grasp the meaning of these three concepts and, no, they are not in any way an excuse for not presenting evidence of Oswald killing JFK

You don't understand them at all. Every time you mention them, you either garble them or dismiss them out of hand.

 

[traxy]

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.

Hey manifesto, are you planning on addressing this at any point, or are you just going to ignore it?

 

[traxy]

2. Prove that McLain couldn’t possibly be at the right spots at the right time for his mike to pick up the sounds from the five rifle shots as shown by the acoustical evidence.

Can you do this?

1 or 2 or both.

Point 2, done. McLain could not have been at the first microphone spot by Z175.

If McLain isn't at that spot at that time, the entire dictabelt excercise falls on its face.

Moreover, there is a high probability that McLain never even made it to that spot before the assassination was already over. If McLain kept the same lane and same relative position in the motorcade after the turn from Main to Houston and mirrored the speed of the rest of the vehicles in the motorcade, slowing down to 8mph at the Houston - Elm intersection, then McLain is the rider shown in the Dorman film and was nowhere near the 4th mic position either.

The math is done.

 

[bknight]

Manifesto, I have asked several questions that you ignored. Post 1833

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.

And post 1835

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.

Yhy will you not enlighten us on my questions?

 

[RoboTimbo]

No. Reasoning from the science in the HSCA acoustical joint investigation’s report.

Which is a silly thing to do since it's been debunked so many times. Even the CTs have to either acknowledge that or run away from it. Which have you chosen?

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove breach of rule 0 and rule 12.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited response to rule breach

I responded to the claim that McLain was not in the right position on the right time for his mike to pick up the sound from the five impulse patterns.

So, running away is going to be your choice.

Hence my request for supporting evidence.

Attempting to shift the burden of proof. Your claim, your burden. You've been told you won't be allowed to shift the burden.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove breach of rule 0 and rule 12.

.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove response to breach

 

[OKBob]

I know that you are only listening to your masters voice. You have been trained for this and this only.

And this is what Hofstadter referred to as the paranoid style in [American] politics.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I fully grasp the meaning of these three concepts

The evidence says that you have no clue what they mean. You should go back to your one CT website where you get your "knowledge" and put those questions to them.

and, no, they are not in any way an excuse for not presenting evidence of Oswald killing JFK

You haven't read the Warren Commission report at all, have you? Most CTs haven't.

You are using these concepts as euphemisms for, c r a p.

Stop doing that

Well, no. We're using them to show how far down the rabbit hole CTs get.

In your own words, what do "consilience", "burden of proof" and "null hypothesis" mean?

How do they apply to the JFK assassination?

 

[manifesto]

And this is what Hofstadter referred to as the paranoid style in [American] politics.

Hofstadter is a catch all for you and your kind to wave everytime someone have suspicions of state crimes against democracy.

Considering this is an on going state of affairs in the USA and all over the world, this is, to say the least, a very strange posture.

To lick up to power is a very prominent part to this posture. To listen to your masters voice.

 

[RoboTimbo]

And this is what Hofstadter referred to as the paranoid style in [American] politics.

And he exemplifies it in his very next post.

manifesto, you need to get busy answering all those outstanding questions. You haven't advanced your case one bit. The null hypothesis doesn't even know you exist yet.

 

[manifesto]

You don't understand them at all. Every time you mention them, you either garble them or dismiss them out of hand.

No, I request evidence and/or good arguments of how this concepts are applied on the issues at hand.

Keep repeting them without such an explanation is like chanting a religious mantra trying to trancend the boundaries of material reality itself.

A fully legitimate endevour for those who feel the calling, but not in a forum for scientific scepticism.

Or?