No.
What you're attempting to do is stack one unproven assumption on top of another until you feel like you've bought McLain enough time to be in the correct position, at which point you'll declare victory.
No. I’m showing point by point how Myers numbers are wrong or open to interpretation = Myers has NOT proved that McLain couldn’t have the time to reach the spot for the first shot.
The problem is, for your argument to hold water, you need to prove your assumptions and show your work.
What ”asumtion” are you talking about?
At this point I'm gifting them to you because it amuses me to watch the mental gymnastics you'll contort yourself into. If any of your assumptions are off, the entire house of cards you've built comes crashing down.
Ah, so now you are saying that you do not agree that the first shot was on Z-175? That Myers have not misplaced Hughes by 11 ft?
I kind of suspected that but heres the thing, I’m not the one needing to prove Myers wrong. You are the one who need to prove Myers right. If Myers proof of McLain NOT being on the spot for the first shot point by point is built on loose asumtions camoflaged as solid science which is junk science, ”epipolar geometry” which is ’line of sight’ and garbage in garbage out computer simulations, well, you are in deep trouble when defending his ”findings”, aren’t you?
That is, I do not need to prove his data wrong, only to prove that they are not founded on exact scientific measurments and therefore NOT proof of his claim.
I’m showing that very small variations in the data, within the boundaries of what is possible, in case by case creates big variations in the end results.
So, once you're done with your mental gymnastics, I'm going to ask you to go back and prove each of your points. You can start by proving the first shot occurred at Z175 by citing evidence other than DOn Thomas's dictabelt analysis. For the record, I did manage to track down which acoustic experts put the shot at Z160. It was Bolt, Beranek and Newman working on behalf of the HSCA.
"The acoustic experts at Bolt, Beranek and Newman (BBN) examined a number of potential matches between the 1963 Dallas police recording and their 1978 test firings. They eliminated all but four sound impulses because some of those impulses were deemed “false alarms” for a variety of reasons (i.e., some failed to score higher than the minimum coefficient threshold of 0.6, some could only have happened under impossible circumstances, etc.).
In the end, the HSCA acoustic experts found (i.e., they concluded) that there were four sound impulses that might be gunshots. [1] Synchronizing the last of the four impulses with the fatal head shot demonstrates that the first suspected gunshot was fired at the equivalent of Z160."
Don Thomas is the only person who puts a shot at Z175. Acoustic experts disagree. Don Thomas is an entomologist, for what it's worth.
Film analysis puts the first shot at Z160 as well, evidenced by multiple reactions on film, strengthened by witness testimony.
So dig yourself out of that hole first.
BBN was forced to wrongly interpret their data and science, by their customer, Robert Blakey, chief of the HSCA.
The stated reason for excluding the third shot from the five secured positives was that, according to Blakey, Oswald couldn’t possibly shoot and reload in one second and that the third shot therefore must have been a ”false alarm”.
This is not science founded on the acoustic evidence. This IS circular reasoning built on preconcived ideas = Oswald the assassin of JFK.
That aside, can you prove that the first shot is in Z-160? No you can’t, it’s at best a guestimate, an asumtion.
You need to prove this in order to prove the acoustic evidence for five shots wrong with your claim that NcLain couldn’t possibly have been in place for beeing the cop on the bike with the mike.
Next, you'll have to prove that Thomas's placement of Hughes is more accurate than Myers. Myers defends his placement of Hughes here using multiple references, and takes Thomas apart in the process.
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.ca/2008/04/photographic-proof-hb-mclain-and_9100.html
Again, this is Dale Myers stock and trade. Digital forensic video analysis is what he does for a living. He's written software for it. Don Thomas is an
entomologist.
Dig yourself out of that hole second.
Posting a link to where Myers allegedly prove this and that doesn’t suffice. You have to show how he does it here in the thread.
And no, Myers is not a scientist, Thomas is, and a very careful and meticulous one at that.
EVen gifting you with multiple assumptions, you still need McLain moving at an average of 41mph over 174 feet to be in the right spot.
No asumtions needed. Only proof of that Myers are using such instead of science when presenting his numbers.
I will list Donald Thomas observations point by point and thereby prove that:
1. Myers is building a house of cards presented as science.
2. McLain could within reasonable adjustments of Myers data have been on the spot for picking up the first shot. With relative ease.
I’ll be back on this in a stort while.
