Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories VI: Lyndon Johnson's Revenge
- Thread starter BStrong
- Start date
- Status
Traxy, you need to prove that McLain couldn’t possibly have reached the spot:
1. Prove that the first shot was fired at Z-160.
2. Prove that Hughes was positioned exactly where Myers says he was.
3. Prove that the motorcade on Houston Street was traveling at the average speed that Myers said it was.
4. Prove that the motorcade moved like coaches in a train, not as an accordion.
5. Prove that the cop in the Dorman film is McLain and not Courson.
If you can’t do this, the scientific acoustic evidence stands.
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
You seem to misunderstand the nature of the evidence you have cited many times.
It describes impulses with a high probability of being a rifle shot IF and ONLY IF it were recorded by a microphone in the right spot at the exact moment that the calculations stand.
It doesn't matter how often you try to cite probabilities, they are CONDITIONAL and you are the one who cited the work that makes it clear they are conditional.
Therefore the onus is on YOU to prove those conditions are met, and not to expect it to be assumed those conditions were met.
As has been pointed out before, these are offering you the best possible odds, by not taking into account factors identified in the decades since, that alter the odds away from your favour.
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
Additionally: Note evidence of how and why, Traxy reached his conclusion, HAS been posted several times now, and no effective rebuttal offered other than a refusal to acknowledge it.
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
- Messages
- 21,821
Traxy says: Here's the math. Even if we assume the first shot is at Z175, which disagrees with every assessment ever made and does not make sense in terms of Connally turning his head, but even if we assume it is true for the sake of argument, then it would require McLain to average an unrealistic speed between his last known position and his required position when the first shot was fired.
manifesto response: A-HA! So you agree that the first shot was Z175? But can you prove he wasn't in the right spot?
HSienzant
Philosopher
Sigh. You still haven't gotten the hang of the logical fallacy thingie, have you?
You're again attempting to shift the burden of proof.
Nobody needs to prove your allegations are wrong.
You should know that by now.
Hank
No, it is you who doesn’t.
No. It shows:
- each and every five impulse pattern has a P more than 0.95 = significance
- the fourth pattern, from the knoll, has a P less than 1/100 000 for being random noise
- the order in the topographical sequence: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 = 1/125 for being random
- the average speed of the moving microphone, ca 11 mph equals that of the average speed of the motorcade at the time of the shooting.
The possibility of all this happening by chance is almost non existent = countering evidence has to be as good in order to prevail.
Not in the way you are trying to frame it, no.
If the bike with the mike is within reasonable distance, shown by the photographic evidence, before an after the shooting, it is up to you to prove that it wasn’t.
Hughes, wrote to his family the same day, that the shooting started ”ca 5 seconds after he stopped filming”. That gives McLain 6 seconds to reach the spot picking up the first shot.
No, this is not proof, but it shows that this is a possibilty that has to be countered with evidence showing the opposite.
Myers is claiming that his ”epipolar geometry” + computer simulations are proving that McLain only had half a second to reach the spot, but I see no proof of this in his report. He is making a series of assumtions, calling it ”epipolar geometry” when it is not, and demanding that the reader trust him when he claims that the ”computer modelling” are doing the rest.
It brings to mind another, more recent computer animation, NIST’s modelling of the ”probable” initiation sequence of the collapse of WTC 7.
That is, you can ”prove” anything with a computer animation.
As has been pointed out before, these ”factors” has to be proven identified, before accepted as such.
Asertions and magical affirmations doesn’t.
The proof is in the acoustical evidence. Show me the proof that refutes the acoustical evidence.
Axxman300
Philosopher
Here's an easy clickable Zapruder Film frame reference key to help folks who don't have time to look this stuff up:
https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/
Just so everyone can follow along.
https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/
Just so everyone can follow along.
Axxman300
Philosopher
Not the same. 9-11's conspiracy has been documented, and confessed to, and even warned about in advance.
We knew it was Al Qaeda by sundown on September 11 from the names of the hijackers.
Just like we knew it was Oswald by sundown on November 22. In 54 years nobody's proven his innocence, nobody has found a second shooter, and nobody has linked Oswald to a conspiracy.
We know there are real conspiracies because they eventually fall apart. The bigger the conspiracy, the more moving parts, the faster it is revealed.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Remember what you've been told you won't be allowed to do.
The CT believer sites will let you get away with it but they're pretty gullible.
Told exactly what exactly by whom?
Yes I know that people like you have polarized the public opinon since day one after the assassination of JFK. Making a reasoned civilized public dialouge almost impossible.
Black propaganda.
Axxman300
Philosopher
McLain is in position by the 7th car (White Ford Mercury Comet Caliente) visible in this film at the 40 second mark:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kA0t5zvaW70
Still in position visible at the 24 second mark on the Martin Film:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAMyZH2vnbQ
The Motorcade diagram and technical details including photographic and film references can be found here:
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/M Disk/Motorcade Route/Item 15.pdf
McLain's info is on Page 19.
He was not where the HSCA gang thought he was, the results are incorrect.
Axxman300
Philosopher
Many of us were born AFTER the assassination. It's more of a ghost story than a polarizing event.
No it was not a polarizing event, it was polarized by design and still is.
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
And all of these are Conditional on the microphone being at a set spot at a set time. Until that is shown to be true, which it has not been, they are meaningless.
No. The chances of these being coincidences if the prerequisite conditions are met, is very small.
If the prerequisite conditions are not met, those pulses are no longer significant and could be unrelated, because they could be from any number of causes unrelated to rifle shots.
It doesn't matter on the way you are trying to frame your citation, the document is in evidence, and we can read for ourselves the way the document YOU cited states the conditions of the test. Conditions YOU are unable to show happened.
No. You are claiming those probabilities are accurate, so YOU are required to show the conditions were met. And no, I will not accept your opinion of a reasonable distance. The conditions of probability were met, within the parameters tested for, or not.
Why are those parameters there? Because the hypothesis of the analysis, the picture it builds on what is an echo, and what surface it reflected of, relies upon them.
If they are not met, then unrelated impulses from untold number of sources could be giving the illusion of fitting the picture. Given we now have reasonable grounds to doubt which microphone was open, there is no reason to assume the leeway for a "reasonable distance".
And all you have to do is validate that, and explain how it fits with other evidence in which his position is marked, that does not allow the interval.
One man's estimation of a time he remembers is less convincing evidence than the photographic and filmed records, that already corroborate differing testimony.
No. You have to support your proposed possibility with evidence. They are not assumed until disproven. The burden of proof is on your shoulders, not your critics.
And he is supporting your proposals with more comprehensive evidence than yours. He is showing the maths, that can be checked, and his methodology.
Computer animations are only as good as the data.
Unfortunately for you, their data is better quality, and supported by more evidence than yours.
Why does this only apply to your critics? Why are you not meeting this standard for the assertion that there was a microphone in the right place to meet the conditions of a paper you have cited?
So no, you haven't magically conjured up 6 seconds for McLain to get to where he needed to be, and your typical CT response is to retreat into your shell and attempt to shift the burden of proof.
So predictable. So weak.
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
The assassination of JFK is the predictable result of an individual on the margins that had ambition but no talent.
He joined the Marines and wasn't appointed Commandant of The Marine Corps, so he took his marbles and ran away to the Soviet. The Soviets didn't put him in charge of the KGB and didn't name him Premier of the Soviet Union so he split from the Soviet with a wife he couldn't support.
After his return to the US and a bit of minor local celebrity as someone who had lived in the Soviet he had dead-end jobs and nobody was paying him the attention he believed he deserved.
He acquired a rifle and a handgun. If he was around today he'd probably be a school shooter. We've had a bunch of examples and they tend to be of a type. LHO fits right into that demographic.
He took a shot at Gen. Walker, missed, and true to the stereotype went after bigger game when the opportunity presented itself.
I believe he didn't expect to survive the shooting and wanted to go out in a blaze of (**********-up) glory. Because he didn't know anything about how the Secret Service worked he may have believed that the instant he fired on the motorcade he would have been on the receiving end of sustained machinegun fire - even though he wasn't a Marine grunt he may have participated in or witnessed a company level mad-minute exercise and mistakenly believed that was what he would be facing.
That's my condensed version of what I believe happened.
If you're up to the task, can you articulate exactly what you believe happened that day? no cribbing from CTist sites, just your own words.
Prove that McLain had less than 2-3 seconds to reach the spot. The photographic evidence proves he had to be either in the vicinity of car-6 (the Mayor’s) or in the vicinity av car-10. There is no middle ground, no near miss, it is either or.
You are claiming that McLain is the cop in the Dorman film. Interesting, since McLain are claiming he stopped his bike in the middle of Houston Street looking through the Dealey Plaza watching Mrs. Kennedy climb up on the back of the limo after the fatal shot.
Problem is, the cop in the Dorman film arrives at the Houston/Elm intersection exactly when this happens.
Was he in two places at the same time?
Courson is saying he arrived at the same intersection exactly the same time as the Dorman cop, watching down Elm Street how Mrs. Kennedy is crawling on the back of the limo.
1. McLain is proven wrong when claiming he was at the middle of Houston when Mrs. Kennedy whent up on the back of the limo.
2. Courson is on exactly the spot he is claiming IF the Dorman cop is Courson.
Some kind of memories has a tendency to stick some do not. An event of this kind tends to stick. So, why is McLain mistaken? Well, you tell me. Maybe because he is proven biased to the official mythos of the Mighty Church of the Lone Nut?
Any ideas?
Last edited:
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
The Important Event = Zero Defects is a fallacy. Especially in law enforcement:
26 July 2010.
I was rear-ended by a passenger vehicle and my 2004 Yamaha R1 was totaled.
The officer in the above photo wrote the accident report.
When I eventually received a copy of the report, the officer has written "V1 (motorcycle) was out from under V2 (passenger vehicle) when I arrived."
Obviously that wasn't true.
This was a zero stress situation, and the officer got it wrong. He wasn't trying to screw anybody or cover something up, he just got it wrong.
I've reviewed reports written by other officers related to cases I was involved with and simple compass points were reversed, vehicle tags were misreported sometimes (even with attached photos in a case file) and in some cases times reported where noted as PM when the correct time was AM.
26 July 2010.
I was rear-ended by a passenger vehicle and my 2004 Yamaha R1 was totaled.
The officer in the above photo wrote the accident report.
When I eventually received a copy of the report, the officer has written "V1 (motorcycle) was out from under V2 (passenger vehicle) when I arrived."
Obviously that wasn't true.
This was a zero stress situation, and the officer got it wrong. He wasn't trying to screw anybody or cover something up, he just got it wrong.
I've reviewed reports written by other officers related to cases I was involved with and simple compass points were reversed, vehicle tags were misreported sometimes (even with attached photos in a case file) and in some cases times reported where noted as PM when the correct time was AM.
- Status