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

[manifesto]

Your guzinta's are way the hell off, or is it some type of Swedish math the world is unaware of?

20 miles per hour works out to 29.33 Feet per second.

Yes, and?

 

[manifesto]

I don't expect much from a poster who works the firearms angle but then attempts to weasel away from the subject when they discover that they're in over their head.

Still dwelling on the firearms flaunting your ’pride’ in your love of violence.

Name ONE issue pertaining to firearms where I have been ”in over [my] head and claiming something that have been proven wrong.

One.

 

[traxy]

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.

Using the word of an entomologist...

You have to prove that Thomas is right and Myers is wrong. Myers shows his work in the paper and in his response to Thomas. Thomas does not show anything.

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 never agreed. I let you run with that timeframe to see if you could make it work.

The only place on the planet the Z175 timing is suggested is in Thomas's dictabelt analysis. No one agrees with it. Try to find support for that timeframe that doesn't come from Thomas himself.

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.

You have yet to prove anything though. You're just making stuff up as you go. No proof of the Z175 shot placement. No proof that Thomas's positioning of Hughes is correct.

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.

There is more evidence of a shot at Z160 than there is for a shot at Z175.

What was Connally reacting to? He says a gunshot. His wife agrees. He looks in the direction of the depository.

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.

I don't have to prove anything. The preponderance of evidence is in my favor.

75% of earwitnesses heard 3 shots, almost none cited 5 or more.

Reactions in the Z film indicate multiple people reacting to an external stimuli starting around Z160.

Testimony from witnesses places the initial shot at Z160.

HB McLain says he was nowhere near where he needed to be for the dictabelty evidence to work.

The figure in the Dorman film is exactly where McLain would be had he kept his speed and placement within the motorcade consistent with the vehicles he'd been trailing for miles.

The figure in the Dorman film is exactly where McLain says he was when the shooting concluded.

The figure in the Dorman film has notes clipped to the same location on his windshield as McLain did.

THAT's called a convergence of evidence.

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.

The Hughes Camera Position

One of the principal reasons Mr. Thomas cites for dismissing my photographic work, and one of the four reasons mentioned at the beginning of his critique, is his claim that my estimates of the position of the motorcade vehicles on Houston Street and their speed as they head north are incorrect. According to Thomas, I “badly misplaced Hughes” when determining the location of his camera. Thomas writes:

“…Myers places Hughes 15.5 ft west of the center line of Houston Street and 8.8 ft south of the center line of Main Street. The first value is accurate but the second is not. It places Hughes in line with the traffic stripe separating the inner and middle east bound lanes of Main street (and Myers’ illustrations e.g. exhibit 83, show this). Actually Hughes was in line with the traffic stripe separating the middle from the outer lanes, which can be seen in the segment of the Hughes film of the oncoming motorcade on Main Street. This error results in a displacement of approx. 11 ft. from where Myers places him (see Fig. 6 for orientation)…”

Figure 4 below is Hughes frame H223, the first frame depicting the motorcade heading west on Main Street, coming toward Hughes’ position. Notice the two white road stripes south of the yellow center-line, separating the two eastbound lanes of travel and the parking lane. Hughes is obviously positioned exactly where I describe – i.e., directly in line with the white road stripe that is immediately south of the yellow center-line.

Subsequent frames demonstrate that Hughes’ maintains this position throughout his film sequences. Furthermore, a still image taken by Charles Bronson (See: Figure 5) shows that Hughes is standing with a group of spectators ringing the turn at Main and Houston.

If Hughes were standing 11 feet further south (as Thomas claims), he would be behind the line of spectators and thus would have an obstructed view of the motorcade. We know from his film that Hughes had an unobstructed view, and therefore was not standing further south in the crowd, as Thomas claims.

Bottom line? Thomas is wrong. There is no error in the placement of the Hughes camera.

And no, Myers is not a scientist, Thomas is, and a very careful and meticulous one at that.

Myers does forensic digital video analysis for a living.

Don Thomas studies bugs.

And even with your house of cards built on flimsy assumptions with zero evidence, you still need McLain to gun his motorcycle from 14mph to well past 41mph and slam on his brakes, all in under 3 seconds, to get him to the first spot in time.

Make another few flimsy assumptions, buy him another full second, he STILL had to gun his motorcycle from 14mph to well north of 31mph and slam on his brakes in under 4 seconds to get to the spot in time.

Get him up to 5 full seconds, which is nearly double where you're at right now, McLain STILL has to gun his motorcycle well past 24mph and slam on his brakes within 5 seconds.

Bear in mind, the motorcade he's following is slowing down to somewhere between 8 and 10mph during that stretch. McLain has been trailing the same vehicle for blocks. What earthly reason would he have for suddenly accellerating to over twice as fast as anyone else was moving in such a short time?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Junk science? You'll have to explain that. Be thorough and specific yet concise. As it stands, you've not made a case for that claim so the null hypothesis still stands.

manifesto, since you've not addressed this, I'll assume it was typical CT rhetoric with no substance behind it, much like your thoughtless denials of proven facts. The HSCA acoustical stuff has been thoroughly and comprehensively debunked. Thank you for agreeing.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Yes, and?

Well, for starters, your claim of his needing 3-5 seconds, while only giving him almost three seconds, means a potential deficit of over 2 seconds, in the region of being 60' away from the position required by those exact measurements required for the conditional probabilities you are trying to state are proof.

 

[traxy]

Yes, and?

174 feet from his target and moving at 29.3 feet pet second.

174 % 29.3 = 5.93 seconds

Moving at an AVERAGE SPEED of 20mph, more than double any of the other vehicles in the motorcade, he needs nearly 6 full seconds to reach the target zone.

Starting to see what an impossible task you've laid out for yourself?

 

[manifesto]

Well, for starters, your claim of his needing 3-5 seconds, while only giving him almost three seconds, means a potential deficit of over 2 seconds,

I’m giving him almost 3 seconds, for a starters. That is, this is only the beginning of a list of adjusments to Myers ”proven” data which added together makes it more than plausible that McLain could easily have reached the spot for the first shot in time for his mike to pick it up.

That is, I do not have to prove that he DID reach the spot in time, only that he COULD HAVE done it within the limits of the known facts of his movements. That Myers ”hard science” is nothing more than loose asumtions and therefore NOT proof of McLain being somewhere else than at the spot for the first shot.

in the region of being 60' away from the position required by those exact measurements required for the conditional probabilities you are trying to state are proof.

As I said, I do not need to state other numbers as proof, only that they are within the limits of what was possible.

It is those of you who are claiming that Myers prove that McLain couldn’t have reached the spot for the first shot, that has to show this is really the case.

So far, I have shown that:

1. Myers hasn’t proved that the first shot was in Z-160 and that Z-175 has as much or more, support in the scientific data. Adding almost a second.

2. Myers hasn’t proved that Hughes was standing where he states, and that 11 ft away has as much, or more, support in the scientific data. Adding at least 1.5 seconds.

That sums up to almost 3 seconds, 6 times the number, 0.5 seconds, Myers is stating McLain had to his disposal in order to reach the spot for the first shot.

For a starters.

 

[Tomtomkent]

174 feet from his target and moving at 29.3 feet pet second.

174 % 29.3 = 5.93 seconds

Moving at an AVERAGE SPEED of 20mph, more than double any of the other vehicles in the motorcade, he needs nearly 6 full seconds to reach the target zone.

Starting to see what an impossible task you've laid out for yourself?

I stand corrected. You figures suggest that at Manifesto’s best claim of 3 seconds, there is still a shortfall in the region of 90’.
And we can of course, the engine noise on the dictatape, and the witness testimony would all reflect the sudden memorable acceleration of a patrol bike racing through the escort... and those precise calculations of the sound waves would have to take the relative speeds of the bike into account IF it could be shown the open mic raced between its last marked position and the datum the acoustic evidence relies on, in the time allowed.

 

[pgwenthold]

174 feet from his target and moving at 29.3 feet pet second.

174 % 29.3 = 5.93 seconds

Moving at an AVERAGE SPEED of 20mph, more than double any of the other vehicles in the motorcade, he needs nearly 6 full seconds to reach the target zone.

Starting to see what an impossible task you've laid out for yourself?

I noticed this in manifesto's treatment (and from Thomas's, reported by Myers). They start with ranges. Distance can be X - y, speed can be Z - w, so if we look at the longest distance and the slowest speed, then the time could be as long F seconds. Call it 5 seconds. But hey, according to a botching of the dictabelt timing that time could be something like 6 seconds, and, you know, 5 seconds is pretty close to 6 seconds, so it's in the ballpark and possible.

Of course, the only reason you get 5 seconds in the first place is if you consider it at the extremes. So to go to 6 seconds, you have push your limits past their extremes. But that gets passed off casually, hoping that everyone misses the fact that they have swept their ranges completely under the rug.

Thomas does this, too, with shots from the SBD. Experts testing Oswald's weapon found that if you really push it, you can pull of back-to-back shots in 1.6 seconds. However, Thomas's timeline for gun shots requires that two of the shots from the SBD are separated by 1.1 s***. Hey, 1.1 seconds, 1.6 seconds, what's the difference? 1.6 seconds is almost 1.1, so it shows that it could happen. Of course, that ignores the fact that 1.6 seconds is the limit of how fast it could be done, not some average time with a range above and below. So you can't just claim that 1.1 seconds is almost 1.6 and therefore there could have been 2 shots in that time. Again, tried to sweep it under the rug and hope no one notices.

Of course, the HSCA DID notice, which is why they rejected that second noise as being a shot. But Thomas (and manifesto) think they can play this brush-it-off-and-hope-no-one-notices game.

 

[HSienzant]

Given that I know that the paper trail of Oswalds alleged purchase of said rifle is a fabrication from beginning to the end...

What you're stating is that you will ignore the evidence to maintain your beliefs. The evidence is clear and precise. The consilience of the evidence establishes Oswald's rifle was the one found in the Depository.

I posted some of that here in this post: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12270618&postcount=1855

You ignored it.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

However, Thomas's timeline for gun shots requires that two of the shots from the SBD are separated by 1.1 s***. Hey, 1.1 seconds, 1.6 seconds, what's the difference? 1.6 seconds is almost 1.1, so it shows that it could happen.

Apparently you can't abbreviate seconds without the auto-censor kicking in.

Hank

 

[pgwenthold]

Apparently you can't abbreviate seconds without the auto-censor kicking in.

Hank

I don't know if I did 1.1 s or 1.1 secs

We'll find out

Huh. Apparently neither

 

[Tomtomkent]

in the region of being 60' away from the position required by those exact measurements required for the conditional probabilities you are trying to state are proof.

As I said, I do not need to state other numbers as proof, only that they are within the limits of what was possible..

Then I assume you are happy to retract you previous post where you stated the conditional probabilities were called proof:

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.

 

[manifesto]

What you're stating is that you will ignore the evidence to maintain your beliefs. The evidence is clear and precise. The consilience of the evidence establishes Oswald's rifle was the one found in the Depository.

I posted some of that here in this post: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12270618&postcount=1855

You ignored it.

Hank

No, you are making a faulty statement in order to willfully mislead the public while licking up to power.

I’m in the process of exposing Dale Myers and his junk science at the moment. After that I’ll expose the rest of the junk science proclaiming ”debunking” the HSCA acoustical evidence over the years.

When this is done I promise to return to the fabricated paper trail allegedly showing that Oswald purchased the Carcano rifle allegedely used in the assassination of JFK. To soundly and utterly refute it and expose it for being just that, fabricated.

You are many. I am one. Line up in the queue and I attend to your needy needs one at a time. Be patient.

 

[Axxman300]

Still dwelling on the firearms flaunting your ’pride’ in your love of violence.

BStrong doesn't love violence, he is a qualified firearms instructor, and expert witness in court cases on the subject of guns, and ballistics.

You're intimidated by him because of his knowledge, not because he can shoot.

Name ONE issue pertaining to firearms where I have been ”in over [my] head and claiming something that have been proven wrong.

One

One - you still have yet to identify the model of Mauser you claim was found in the TSBD.

One - The bullets that killed JFK was 6.5x52mm Carcano rounds, so what kind of weapon fired them?

One - The rifling on the two bullets used in the assassination came from Oswald's Carcano.

One - Even in 1963, firearms sales required records keeping, which allowed the sale of the Carcano to be traced to Oswald.

One - A shot from the Grassy Knoll would have gone through JFK's skull and killed Jackie too.

One - Silenced weapons of 1963 would have been impractical for use in Dealey Plaza.

One - Nobody saw smoke or smelled gunpowder on the Grassy Knoll. They might think they did, but ammunition had been smokeless for over 70 years by then, and the ONE PERSON who claimed to smell gunpowder was 100 yards away. Someone with even a casual interest in firearms would know these claims are bunk.

So I named one, sure it's actually seven, but I'm using Swedish math.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I’m in the process of exposing Dale Myers and his junk science at the moment. After that I’ll expose the rest of the junk science proclaiming ”debunking” the HSCA acoustical evidence over the years.

Yes, of course you are. Except for that pesky reality that keeps beating you over the head and proving you wrong.

When this is done I promise to return to the fabricated paper trail allegedly showing that Oswald purchased the Carcano rifle allegedely used in the assassination of JFK. To soundly and utterly refute it and expose it for being just that, fabricated.

Yes, of course you will. I have to admire your persistence in the face of being continually proven wrong. It isn't your fault, though. You simply don't know enough about the topic to discuss it with people who do. Reading only CT websites will do that to a person.

On the contrary, I’ve read just about everything there is.

LOL. Everything there is from conspiraloon sites.

 

[HSienzant]

No, you are making a faulty statement

Show me.

in order to willfully mislead the public while licking up to power.

So still a mind-reader? Now you can assess what my motivations are long-distance?

I’m in the process of exposing Dale Myers and his junk science at the moment.

And before that you were 'exposing' the false paper trail - which you abandoned when I posted the evidence the microfilm wasn't lost and it was used to make the copies - which are admissible - the Warren Commission published as their Waldman exhibits.

Before that you were 'exposing' that J.C.Day lied, and before that 'exposing' that the evidence indicates a Mauser was found in the Depository. You abandoned all of those in pursuit of exposing your latest argument as nonsense.

After that I’ll expose the rest of the junk science proclaiming ”debunking” the HSCA acoustical evidence over the years.

There should be scare quotes around 'expose' and 'junk'. And they should be removed from 'debunking'. Like this:

After that I’ll "expose" the rest of the "junk" science proclaiming debunking the HSCA acoustical evidence over the years.

When this is done I promise to return to the fabricated paper trail

Begging the question. Waldman's testimony is admissible. The microfilm copies are admissible. You have no evidence of any fabrication. What you have is a strong desire to reject anything pointing to Oswald. So you will find some pretext - any pretext - to reject the solid evidence that has been available since September of 1964 for you to review.

allegedly showing that Oswald purchased the Carcano rifle allegedely used in the assassination of JFK. To soundly and utterly refute it and expose it for being just that, fabricated.

You are many.

I am one.

I am one.

Hey, so am I!

Line up in the queue and I attend to your needy needs one at a time. Be patient.

So you're taking this stuff in reverse order now? And the Mauser, which you brought up first, is now last? And the microfilm, which you jumped to thereafter, is also after the stuff you changed the subject to when you couldn't rebut the Mauser points or the microfilm points?

So you're saying you'll never get back to those points, because there will always be something new for you to change the subject to. Understood.

That "one at a time" nonsense sounds a lot like Robert Prey:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7713115&postcount=48

OK, Let's just discuss one, or one at at time which is what any jury would do.

Hank

 

[smartcooky]

He ignores all my posts. Why should yours be any different?

Oh, but I like CTs ignoring my posts. It means what I have posted stands unchallenged by them because they don't have the knowledge or the ability to refute what I have said... essentially; if they ignore me, then they've got nothin'

I’m in the process of exposing Dale Myers and his junk science at the moment. After that I’ll expose the rest of the junk science proclaiming ”debunking” the HSCA acoustical evidence over the years.

When this is done I promise to return to the fabricated paper trail allegedly showing that Oswald purchased the Carcano rifle allegedely used in the assassination of JFK. To soundly and utterly refute it and expose it for being just that, fabricated.

You are many. I am one. Line up in the queue and I attend to your needy needs one at a time. Be patient.

These are typical "one thing at a time" CT delaying tactics.

Throughout all your postings here, in poking all your imaginary holes in the null hypothesis, and with all your self-delusional and feeble attempts at debunking the official story, you have not once given us YOUR account of how you think it all went down on 22 Nov 1963 in Dealey Plaza.

Tell us how it all went down manifesto; give us a blow by blow, minute by minute timeline of events, of how JFK was shot from the Grassy Knoll or wherever. You must account for ALL the evidence that makes up the official story. You have to account for at least ALL of the following facts....

FACT 1. Lee Harvey Oswald owned the rifle found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository on Friday afternoon, November 22, 1963.

FACT 2. Oswald owned the handgun that was shown to have been used in the murder of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit.

FACT 3. Oswald was positively identified by witness Howard L. Brennan as the person firing a rifle at JFK on 11/22/63.

FACT 4. Marina Oswald admits to having taken pictures of Oswald with these weapons on his person,

FACT 5. Buell Wesley Frazier observed Oswald take a package into the Book Depository Building on the morning of November 22nd, 1963.

FACT 6. Oswald's claim this package contained "curtain rods" cannot be supported at all.

FACT 7. Oswald was seen working on the Depository's sixth floor that morning.

FACT 8. Oswald's palmprint [Warren Commission Exhibit #637] is found on his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle after the assassination.

FACT 9. It was proven that the alias "A.J. Hidell" [the alias used to purchase the rifle] was actually Oswald himself

FACT 10. The order form from Klein's Sporting Goods to purchase the mail-order rifle was positively proven to have been in Oswald's handwriting, and sent to a Dallas post-office box that was used by him.

FACT 11. No bullets or bullet fragments or spent shell casings other that those from Oswald Carcano were discovered anywhere in Dealey Plaza

FACT 12. The vast majority of Dealey Plaza witnesses said shots came from behind the President, in the direction of the TSBD.

FACT 12. The vast majority of witnesses said they heard exactly three shots fired. No more, no less.

FACT 13. Exactly three spent shell casings were found in the Sniper's Nest.

FACT 14. Every single one of the newsmen and reporters riding in the motorcade in Dealey Plaza, who were in a position to immediately report the shooting to the world via media outlets heard exactly three shots fired.

FACT 15. Every single one of these newsmen and reporters reported that the shots came from behind the motorcade... not one reported shots coming from the Grassy Knoll.

FACT 16. Oswald travels to Irving on 21 Nov 1963, to retrieve his "curtain rods". His rifle is found missing from Ruth Paine's garage the following day., and further, a package of actual curtain rods was still in that garage the day after the assassination.

FACT 17. Oswald left behind, presumably for wife Marina, his wedding ring and just about all the money he had ($170), on the morning of 22 Nov 1963, strongly suggesting that he didn't think he was coming back from work on.

FACT 18. Oswald was the only TSBD employee known to have been inside building at the time of the assassination, to leave work prematurely on 22 Nov 1963.

FACT 19. Oswald, in flight, shoots and kills Dallas patrolman J.D. Tippit on 10th Street in the Dallas suburb of Oak Cliff. Multiple witnesses confirm it was Oswald who shot Officer Tippit.

FACT 20. Oswald, just days after acquiring his Carcano weapon, attempts to murder retired General Edwin Walker in Dallas, on 10 Apr 1963. Marina Oswald herself testifies that "Lee told me...he just shot Walker".

FACT 21. Re-enactments showed that Oswald could easily have travelled, in 90 seconds or less, the distance across the sixth floor of the TSBD and descended the four flights of stairs in time to have been seen by policeman Marrion L. Baker on the building's second floor.

These are proven facts, and and as John Adams once said, "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."... In order to make your version of what really happened work, you will have to rigorously account for every one of these facts. "Nuh, didn't happen", out of hand dismissal without evidence, and hand-waving away inconvenient facts will not cut the mustard. Remember, by your own reasoning, if even ONE if these facts cannot be accounted for, then your whole house of cards comes crashing down around your neck.

By way of example, its not enough for you to use some specious and highly suspect dictabelt recordings to claim that there were five shots... you also have to account for why the vast majority of witnesses only heard three shots or less. If you cannot account for what the actual witnesses heard on the day of the assassination, then your dubious audio "evidence" is meaningless and irrelevant.


So have at it... give us YOUR version of what actually happened, no delaying tactics, no BS. Tell us now... put up or shut up.

 

[Agatha]

Please try to stay within several feet of the topic, whether using Swedish maths or conventional maths.

For the avoidance of doubt, signatures and avatars are not on topic.

Further, please do not make sockpuppet allegations in-thread; report any suspicions to the mod team.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha

 

[bknight]

All quiet on the western front? No paper trail proving Myers is a hoaxer? No pseudo science claims?