RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
How are you going to prove the HSCA findings since they have subsequently been debunked so many times?
Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories VI: Lyndon Johnson's Revenge
- Thread starter BStrong
- Start date
- Status
How are you going to prove the HSCA findings since they have subsequently been debunked so many times?
I have showed you the evidence, it is in the report of the HSCA acoustical investigation.
Is it anything in specific you would like to argue?
Do it.
You have the right to dismiss what ever you like. But, you do it on your own peril.
According to whom?
So, why did the HSCA deside to do a scientific investigation of the channel one recording if they already had ”evidence from first principles”?
The HSCA scientific acoustical investigation PROVE it with a probability of less than one in a hundred thousand for being wrong.
Refute this evidence, or be quiet.
I’ll do that. No worries.
My standards are equal those of scientific scepticism, a concept you are hiding behind misleading your fellow citizen concerning State Crimes Against Democracy.
Stop doing this.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Done. The Warren Commission found that Oswald acted alone.
That probability only comes into play if McLain is in the exact spots he has to be at the exact right times. If he isn't, that probability goes out the window.
So the way you confirm the dictabelt findings and cash in on that probability is by proving McLain was where they needed him to be.
You haven't.
Moreover, even with all the available photo and video evidence, you can't even suggest a realistic scenario that allows him to be at those spots in time. Nothing you've attempted has even come close. You've been floundering at this point for 4 or 5 days now.
Axxman300
Philosopher
Firecrackers leave evidence. It would have been found quickly, plus there would have been smoke, and the turn onto Elm Street is on film from three different angles, and there is no smoke.
You are not very good a this.
No there isn't. People only heard three shots. Nothing about a loud sound.
The dictabelt recordings are inconclusive.
Nope. He said he was about to make the turn when he heard a shot, and only one.
Axxman300
Philosopher
It didn't prove anything. McLain was not where the researchers wanted him to be to make their science fiction story work. The dictabelt evidence has a problematic chain of evidence, and by your standards should be inadmissible.
Difficult to do when (elements within) your Government have destroyed, fabricated and covered up the real evidence since day one, still counting.
No. I’m pointing out evidence of conspiracy, cover up and framing of the patsy, Lee Harvey Oswald.
No. The paper trail is a proven fabrication.
No. The paper trail is a proven fabrication and no, the handgun in question was not shown to have been used in the murder of Tippit.
No. Brennan could not identify Oswald in a line up the same day as the shooting. His description of the rifle man in the window did NOT match Oswald and the clothes did NOT match Oswalds at the time of the shooting.
She changed her testimony at least three times concerning just this specific case, not mentioning all the other instances of changed testimony, lying, inconcistensies, not remembering, remembering, contradictiibs, etc. In an internal memo Fredda Scobey of the WC staff, is complaining of Marina as a witness, claiming her testimony reads ”like a nightmare” and demanding that she should be cross examined in order to weed out the lies.
Of course she wasn’t. Being cross examined.
Same thing with the HSCA staff. Marina was NOT a reliable witness, period.
No. No one saw Oswald bring a package into the TSBD that morning. Frazier saw Oswald walking towards the TSBD with a bag in his hand stuffed under his armpit. IF the bag had a broken down Carcano in it, it would have extended above the shoulder and above Oswalds ear. Impossible to have been stuffed under the armpit.
Oswald said it contained his lunch, since it was his, lunch bag.
Wrong. Frazier claimed that Oswald said it was ”curtain rods”. Oswald claimed it was his lunch.
Oswald worked on most of the floors on a daily basis.
Allegedly lifted by proven sworn serial liar Lt. Day, not photographed before lifting it. No trace of it when investigated by the FBI HQ the night of the assassination. An ’old’ print very easy to plant. Sent to the FBI HQ almost a week after Lt. Day ’lifted’ it and no, Day never signed the affidavit within he make his claim.
Shall I continue?
How?
No. It was one in favor, two against making a positive identification. Photographed handwrititing is impossible to identify with any reasonable degree of certainty.
The box was rented in his own name. The receiver of the rifle was ”A Hidell” who had no access to the box = the rifle would have been sent back with a tag that said, wrong adress.
Not reported discovered, that is.
Wrong. The vast majority of reporting witnesss said shots came from in front of the president, from the picket fence on the knoll.
Correct. Bangbangbangggg ..... bangbanggggg ....
Maybe, maybe not.
See above.
They where way back in the motorcade on Houston and Main, IF it is true what you are saying. I haven’t checked.
According to Frazier, yes. According to Oswald it was to see his kids beacause he wasn’t wellcome that weekend since the Paine children was having a birthday party.
When moving back to Dallas from New Orleans, Ruth Paine took Marina with baby and all of Oswalds belonging in her station wagon. According to the WC Oswald was staying behind in New Orleans a couple of days before taking the bus to Mexico City allegedly trying to get a visa to Cuba.
When interviewed by the WC neither Marina, Ruth Paine or Michael Paine rememdered a big old rifle in Oswalds belongings when storing it in their garage. The alternative, that Oswald should have brought the rifle on his travels to Mexico and back to Dallas is at best a silly suggestion.
So, how did the rifle end up rapped in a blanket in Paines garage? Teleportation?
If so, what does it proves?
The couple was in the process of being divorced, already separated. That said, funny thing with Oswalds wallet is the fact it showed up at no less than three places the day of the assassasination:
1. In his pocket when searched by the DPD in the police car after being arrested in the Texas Theater.
2. On the scene of the Tippit murder, picked up next to the fallen officer and filmed by a TV news channel.
3. In Marinas room in the Paines houshold when searched by the DPD a couple of hours after the arrest of Oswald.
Some wallet?
Wrong. There were no roll call and lots of employees left the building shortly after the shooting not coming back that day.
Name them.
Marina was NOT a reliable witness. So said the staff of the Warren Commission. So said the staff of the HSCA.
”It reads like a nightmare”
In theory, yes. Without anyone seeing or hearing him rushing down the stairs and without a trace of have made a 90 second rush after killing the most popular and powerful man in the world, well ... not even breathing a little bit breathless?
That said, no, Baker and Truly did not confront Oswald in the second floor lunch lunch room. They were more or less coerced to conform to the official story line as it evolved in response to the unfolding events.
Oswald was where he testified he was: ”out with Bill Shelley in front”. Where were Bill Shelley at the time of the shooting? At the steps of the TSBD front entrance.
DPD chief investigator Capt. Will Fritz said sworn under oath that they did not take notes when qustioning Oswald before he was silenced by Jack Ruby in the care of said DPD.
That was a lie. They did take notes. Discovered by chance in Fritz’ belongings after he passed away: ”out with Bill Shelley in front”.
Wrong. These are proven factoids and disinformation picked from a vast field of, c r a p, put out there by members of the Mighty Church of the Lone Nut in its ongoing State Crime Against Democracy, covering up the assassination of JFK in a coup d’etat, 22 nov, 1963.
Correct. The Truth is a tremendous force of nature. Impossible to supress forever. Sooner or later it always prevails.
Se above. Your house of cards just got blown down. A little puff of fresh air and down it went.
State your reasons for discarding the DPD dictabelt recording as proof of five rifle shots in the Dealey Plaza at the time of the shooting.
One at the time.
Done.
Wrong. It is perfectly reasonable to argue that some of the shots was tightly spaced together and therefore could easily be mistaken for one single shot. Add to that the shock and the loud reverberations and you have a plausible explanation for the percived three shots which was actually five.
This has to be weighed against the scientific proof of five rifle shots recorded on the DPD dictabelt.
See above, smartcookie.
It doesn’t look good for you so far, does it.
Axxman300
Philosopher
We've posted the pictures and videos showing McClain in position behind the 7th car in the motorcade. The last shot is fired as he reaches the corner.
Nope. Dealey Plaza is smaller than it looks on film. A gunman would be visible in most of the photographs taken, and EVERYONE would have seen him.
No. It was never proven, and it was physically impossible.
The Autopsy team at Bethesda.
Plus, had you bothered to read, you'd know that the majority of the pathologists who reviewed the autopsy material supported the original autopsy findings
The majority of witnesses on the record are not credible. Many have changed their stories over the years as conspiracy became fashionable, and profitable.
In fact, if I wanted to get out of debt I would write a JFK Conspiracy book because a fool and his money are soon parted.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
You've never proved that the HSCA findings were accurate. The WC found Oswald acted alone.
You still have the burden of proof.
HSienzant
Philosopher
You said you would prove all this was wrong. You're again confusing conspiracy allegations and conspiracy arguments with proof.
Do you remember me citing the testimony of J.C.Day, William Waldman, and Harry Holmes to establish that the rifle found in the depository with the serial number C2766 was the one shipped to Oswald's post office box 2915?
You must remember that -- I asked you numerous times if you had any questions for those three men.
You avoided those posts like they were radioactive.
Asked to post the evidence proving Oswald didn't shoot JFK, you don't. Instead, you just say "No" a lot, and then offer argument, not evidence. Your saying "No" does not change the facts. Your arguments don't change the facts.
The facts still point to Oswald shooting JFK alone and unaided.
Hank
Last edited:
Axxman300
Philosopher
Not really. RFK was the AG, things that were kept secret were done at his behest to protect his brother's public image (for the most part).
And failing badly. The actual evidence from the newly released assassination document s shows otherwise. Both the CIA and FBI were working hard to tie Oswald to the Soviets and or Castro.
In your mind, but not in the real world.
Sure it was. The ballistics show the casing dumped by Oswald were fired from the same gun THEY TOOK OUT OF HIS HAND WHEN HE TRIED TO KILL A SECOND COP.
Doesn't matter.
A young woman frightened to death because of something her husband did gave conflicting testimony to men who didn't speak her native language?
Strange.
Not true, she just undermines your fantasy view of the world.
Frazier is wrong. Frazier also has an axe to grind with the DPD and the Warren Commission over the way he was mistreated by both parties. Including DPD trying to frame him as a co-conspirator to the murder of JFK (which undermines your frame -up theory).
Oswald had stalked the motorcade route in the weeks prior to the assassination at night, he was seen in two different locations. This was a man without a car, yet took the bus to attempt to kill General Walker. It is not unreasonable to think he could have slipped into his place of employment and stashed the rifle in advance.
More likely the case is that Frazier is wrong about the size of the package either because while Oswald was walking to the building he was revving his engine to make sure the battery didn't drain, or he wants to stick it to history. He doesn't believe Oswald did it, but there is a good reason for him not to. Frazier was the one who got Oswald the job at the TSBD, and drove him to work on the day LHO killed Kennedy with the murder weapon in the back seat of the car.
Frazier was a kid, raised to trust authority, and had never been in trouble. His mistreatment by DPD detectives left him disillusioned, and angry, and scared.
But mostly on the 6th floor where the packaging of book orders was done.
Yes, you have yet to provide evidence of Day lying. We still need the numbers of those court dockets where he was tried for perjury. Frankly you think all Americans are liars.
Historians (real hsitorians) would disagree.
Not back then. No.
Nope, only 12%
Maybe in your world this is a majority.
Not a problem for a man who walked everywhere.
Lie.
Except he wasn't on the steps. This is an ancient CT canard long debunked. Oswald was a pathological liar, it's why Marxism appealed to him.
Oh this nonsense.
Why kill a man who was looking at an uphill battle to be re-elected? Why would the CIA kill a man who had finally turned it loose to do all of the things it would become infamous for in the 1960' and 70's?
What? That's right, under JFK the CIA expanded its scope. Not only the CIA, the Army and Navy were granted their own dedicated special operations units for the first time specifically to realize Pax Americana using covert military action. Outwardly the Kennedy Administration build up the nations armed forces to back up his strategy of "Flexible Response".
Kennedy built up the CIA and the Military, so why would they turn on him?
And in 54 years the truth is that Oswald killed JFK. Alone.
Because ditabelts are good for voice recordings. The microphones on the transceivers have a limited range for picking up sound.
Not without evidence, and there is no evidence of five shots being fired.
There is no evidence.
Last edited:
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Prove it, where is the evidence. Show this evidence and explain it to us!
Prove it, where is the evidence. Show this evidence and explain it to us!
Prove it, where is the evidence. Show this evidence and explain it to us!
Prove it, where is the evidence. Show this evidence and explain it to us!
Prove it, where is the evidence. Show this evidence and explain it to us!
Prove it, where is the evidence. Show this evidence and explain it to us!
Prove it, where is the evidence. Show this evidence and explain it to us!
Prove it, where is the evidence. Show this evidence and explain it to us!
Prove it, where is the evidence. Show this evidence and explain it to us!
Prove it, where is the evidence. Show this evidence and explain it to us!
Prove it, where is the evidence. Show this evidence and explain it to us!
Prove it, where is the evidence. Show this evidence and explain it to us!
Prove it, where is the evidence. Show this evidence and explain it to us!
Prove it, where is the evidence. Show this evidence and explain it to us!
Prove it, where is the evidence. Show this evidence and explain it to us!
Absolute, bare-faced lies. The vast majority of witnesses said the shots came from behind the president, and they pointed to the TSBD as the source of teh gunshots.
Prove it, where is the evidence. Show this evidence and explain it to us!
Prove it, where is the evidence. Show this evidence and explain it to us!
Prove it, where is the evidence. Show this evidence and explain it to us!
It didn't end up there, it ended up in the sixth floor of the TSBD, where Oswald left it after using it to kill JFK!
Prove it, where is the evidence. Show this evidence and explain it to us!
Prove it, where is the evidence. Show this evidence and explain it to us!
Prove it, where is the evidence. Show this evidence and explain it to us!
Oswald never testified, he was killed before ever appearing in court
Prove it, where is the evidence. Show this evidence and explain it to us!
Prove it, where is the evidence. Show this evidence and explain it to us!
Prove it, where is the evidence. Show this evidence and explain it to us!
Because...
1. the vast majority of witnesses heard three and only three shots fired.
2. the vast majoriry of witnesses point to the TSBD as the source of those shots
3. three and only three casings were found at the TSBD
4. only two bullets were found
If you say 5 shots were fired, where are the other bullets? The angle from the picket fence towards JFK was downwards, so...
1. Bullets et that passed through JFK would be embedded in the back seat of the limo. No bullets were found there.
2. Bullets that missed him left and right would be embedded in the bodywork of the car, or on the seat to his left, or hit Jackie. No bullets were found there and Jackie wasn't hit.
3. Bullets that missed him high would have either hit bystanders on the inside of Dealey Plaza or been embedded in the grassy soil on the other side. A metal detector would have found them easily. Despite extensive searches, no bullets were found here, and no bystanders were hit. (the only bystander who may have been hit was James Tague, and he could only have been hit by bullet fragments from shots that came from behind the motorcade.
Prove it, where is the evidence. Show this evidence and explain it to us!
Prove it, where is the evidence. Show this evidence and explain it to us!
You posts are full of unbridled speculation, unsupported assertions and pure fantasy. You were going to offer proof of these things, but you have got nothing. Saying "no" and or "wrong" is not proof. Insulting people is not proof
On the contrary, it looks great for me.
You have been asked to prove your claims... you haven't. All you have done is lots of nay-saying.
You have been asked to tell us YOUR proposal for a timeline of how the shooting went down in Dealey Plaza... you haven't, not because of some spurious reasons regarding cover ups. You haven t because you can't; you are utterly incapable of doing so because you don't know enough about the subject. If you try to outline a timeline, you know there will be something you won't take into consideration because you won't know about it, and a well read assassination researcher like Hank is going catch you out and yank the rug out from under you.
HSienzant
Philosopher
True but meaningless. Brennan offered a legitimate excuse for not identifying Oswald initially. He said he didn't know if it was a conspiracy or not, and if so, his identifying the shooter might jeopardize his life and that of his family.
Since conspiracy theorists accept the claims of people like Beverly Oliver who came forward six years later (or Ed Hoffman or Gordon Arnold, and dozens others who came forward with the excuse that they feared for their lives because of the conspiracy), it seems less than honest to discard Brennan's change of ID when he gave the same reason as numerous other supposed witnesses they do accept.
Both those statements are totally false. You'd know that if you actually read the testimony instead of relying on conspiracy sites for your 'facts'.
For example, it's undisputed that about 90 seconds after the shooting, Officer Baker was face to face with Oswald in the second floor lunchroom.
Officer Baker, who stood only a few feet away from Oswald in the Depository, said this about Oswald: "The man I saw was a white man approximately 30 years old, 5'9", 165 pounds"
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/baker_m3.htm
Meanwhile, Brennan gave essentially the same description on the day of the assassination of the shooter he saw:
Consistent with Brennan, and therefore it reinforces (doesn't conflict with) Brennan's ID of "... a white man in his early 30's, slender, nice looking, slender and would weigh about 165 to 175 pounds."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/brennan1.htm
White man --- check
165 pounds vs 165-175 pounds --- check
approximately 30 vs early 30's --- check
Brennan said slender --- check
Baker said 5-9 --- check
So it is false to say "His [Brennan's] description of the rifle man in the window did NOT match Oswald."
It matched as well as Baker's did (they both described Oswald in nearly identical terms), and as I pointed out, it's undisputed that Baker did see Oswald in the depository. So why didn't Brennan -- who didn't see him face-to-face from a few feet away but from 40 yards away -- see Oswald as well?
It is equally false to say Brennan's description of "the clothes did NOT match Oswalds at the time of the shooting".
First of all, Oswald admitted in custody he changed his clothing at the rooming house:
"During this conversation he told me he reached his home by cab and changed both his shirt and trousers" (bottom of this page):
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0314b.htm
That means he wasn't wearing his arrest shirt during the shooting but a different one. In Oswald's bureau drawn at the rooming house a tan shirt was recovered.
Brennan said the shooter's shirt looked "khaki colored" -- khaki is defined as a dull yellowish brown -- e.g., a tan shirt recovered vs a khaki colored shirt observed -- check. (The green fatigues the military wears is called "olive drab" not "khaki". Khaki is in the light brown family -- e.g. TAN).
Just like Brennan said.
And Brennan insisted on this when shown the rust-brown (reddish-brown) shirt Oswald was arrested in - that the shirt he saw Oswald in was different than the arrest shirt.
== QUOTE ==
Mr. BELIN. I am handing you what the court reporter has marked as Commission Exhibit 150 [the rust-brown arrest short].
Does this look like it might or might not be the shirt, or can you make at this time any positive identification of any kind?
Mr. BRENNAN. I would have expected it to be a little lighter--a shade or so lighter.
Mr. BELIN. Than Exhibit 150?
Mr. BRENNAN. That is the best of my recollection.
Mr. BELIN. All right. Could you see the man's trousers at all? Do you remember any color?
Mr. BRENNAN. I remembered them at that time as being similar to the same color of the shirt or a little lighter. And that was another thing that I called their attention to at the lineup.
Mr. BELIN. What do you mean by that?
Mr. BRENNAN. That he was not dressed in the same clothes that I saw the man in the window.
Mr. BELIN. You mean with reference to the trousers or the shirt?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, not particularly either. In other words, he just didn't have the same clothes on.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
== UNQUOTE ==
Brennan confirmed that Oswald changed his clothes, just like Oswald admitted in custody.
That is one astute witness.
No, it does matter. You're conceding as true conspiracy mythology from the conspiracy corner that Manifesto is just repeating here. It's false that Brennan's "description of the rifle man in the window did NOT match Oswald and the clothes did NOT match Oswalds at the time of the shooting."
Totally false. Part of the problem is Manifesto is simply repeating false arguments from conspiracy authors to sell books (and more than likely, he's never researched them to determine whether they are actually true or not). The other part of the problem is lone gunman defenders are too quick to concede those points as not being important. There is no reason to concede them. Ask him to prove his statements. He can't.
You got it. The above would suffice for 99% of all the assertions posted here by conspiracy theorists. They don't have any evidence.
Hank
Last edited:
HSienzant
Philosopher
You use the highlighted word a lot. I honestly believe you don't know what it means.
None of your allegations are proven. You don't have the evidence to prove them. You would know this if you read the actual testimony instead of getting your arguments from conspiracy sites. Or if you read this thread, which has seen these same arguments offered by other CTs in the past, and shown exactly how and why the CT claims are false.
You're not special. You're just echoing the same arguments all CTs argue, and without doing any independent research to verify whether those claims are true.
Hank
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
I missed seeing this earlier so I will address it now. So this is your claim (each "-" = approx 0.25 seconds)
BANG-------BANG----BANG-------------------BANG---BANG
Correct?
And yet you claim this
Sorry, but 5 shots over a period of 8.5 seconds is NOT "tightly spaced", even if the closest two are 0.7 seconds apart. I can easily distinguish shots less that 0.2 seconds apart, and so can you, as this little video will show...
Six shots in less than 1 second, so the spacing is less than 0.2 seconds, and yet you can count all 6 and easily tell them apart. In order for shots to merge to sound like one shot, they have to be fired in the order of a few milliseconds apart
Now, even if we presume
a. That the dictabelt chain of custody is not fraught with breaks (it was)
b. That the officer's open mic was in the right place (it wasn't)
Then five shots at the spacing you are claiming would be easily distinguishable as separate shots. There is simply no way that five shots at those spacings would run together and be mistaken as three shots by the vast majority of the ear witnesses.
81% said there were three shots
12% said there were only two
2% said there was only one
(total 95% said three or less)
only 5% said four or more
The sheer overwhelming number of accounts of the ear witnesses as to the number of shots fired, together with the fact that your own claimed shot spacing could not possibly have resulted in the aural merging of gunshots, totally debunks the dictabelt testing.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
As I noted at the time and manifesto promptly ran away from answering.
Does anyone NOT recognize a game player?
Wow...just wow...
That entire rebuttal was full of lies, half truths, misstatements and flat out ignorance of the facts.
If you actually know as much about this case as you claim to, you should be embarrassed.
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
- Messages
- 21,821
There is another problem.
The claim of the dictabelt analyzers is that the echo impulses are unique to the location of where the shot occurred. Therefore, when maniesto tries to claim that the dictabelt shows that "4 of the shots came from behind" that is completely dishonest. The impulses, in fact, are unique not for "shots from behind" but for shots FROM THE 6th FLOOR of THE SBD! In fact, those are the shots for which there is a "high degree of correlation" in the dictabelt recording. Not just some random position behind Kennedy, but specifically for the 6th floor of the SBD.
Make no mistake, manifesto's statement that there was "4 shots from behind" is not an accident, because there is no way that the 4 impulses could be 4 shots from the SBD. As manifesto describes, the timing sequence of them is way to compact to come from the same weapon. Experts showed that, if pressed, Oswald's weapon could be fired twice in 1.6 seconds. But the time between SBD specific impulses on the dictabelt is only 1.1 seconds. This is why the original analysis asserted only 4 shots. They knew damn well that a claim of 5 shots was completely impossible (which also shows that they acknowledge that there can be false positives in the recording, btw).
No, the dictabelt analysis did NOT show 4 shots "from behind." If you accept the premise of the dictabelt analysis, then you must conclude that it shows 4 shots _from the 6th floor of the SBD_. Manifesto is, once again, trying to sweep this inconvenient fact under the rug and pretend that no one notices.
But I noticed it. And I'm not going to let it go without being pointed out.
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
- Messages
- 21,821
Maybe they were really long gun shots.
You know
Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnggggggggggggggggggg
......................................Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnggggggggggggggggggg
...........................................................................Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnggggggggggggggggggg
They all run together that way!
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
100% agree.
However it wasn't my intent to go into the complexity of arguing against the directionality that could or could not be determined by a single open mic possibly recording gunshots. My intent was to show something far more simple... that there is no way that five shots over 8.6 seconds (with the closest two shots being 0.7 second apart) could be mistaken as three or fewer shots by 95% of the witnesses who heard them.
This fact alone completely pole-axes any chance that the dictabelt analysis has any value, even if we pretend all the other problems with it do not exist.
- Status