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

[Axxman300]

Lots of witnesses reporting what they thought were fireworks before they heard the rifle shots. Acoustical data showing loud noise before the first shot.

You say that this is stupid? Define stupid.

Stupid is citing a well debunked source for acoustical evidence.

Stupid is willinly misreading witness reports because it is obvious that they confused the sound of Oswald's rifle with a firecracker.

Stupid is thinking professional hitmen would use firecrackers as a diversion that would tip off the Secret Service, and jeopardize what has to be the dumbest assassination plan in the history of black ops.

That's how you define it.

 

[Axxman300]

1. There is witness testimony (FBI informant) saying that Ruby was talking of the president upcoming motorcade as ”fireworks”.

No. No reliable witnesses can put Ruby in Dealey Plaza.

2. There is witness testimony of seeing Ruby on and around the Houston/Elm in the relevant time frame.

There is only one, and she is unreliable.

3. There are multiple witnesses reporting what they at the time thought were fireworks just before they heard what the thought was the first rifle shot.

What they heard was the first shot.

4. I’m not claiming that it actually was fireworks, I’m claiming it could be a reasonable probability.

Which is technically the same thing.

5. I’m claiming it is a possibility that the conspirators used fireworks in order to confuse and divert the public and that Jack Ruby, in case this happened , would be a prime suspect.

You have to understand that someone would have seen him light the firecracker, and throw it which no one did. The big problem with having Jack Ruby in Dealey Plaza is that most of the DPD knew him. Why risk being being observed at the scene of the crime if it's you job to kill Oswald?

Your lack of operational logic is breath-taking,

 

[traxy]

Since the overwhelming consensus is that the "fireworks/firecracker" explanation for the first loud noise is completely idiotic, we're back to the original question.

What was the loud noise that Connally interpreted as gunfire?

 

[smartcooky]

No. In order to synchronize the two films with ”epipolar geometry” there have two be two overlapping films/photos of exactly the same object at exactly the same time and if the object is moving, one have to know its speed at the time of the epipolar snapshot.

1. There is no undisputed common object filmed at exactly the same time by Zapruder and Hughes and Myers doesn’t use ”epipolar geometry” to establish its (car-5) exact position.

2. The exact speed of, in this case car-5, is not known at the relevant time frame.

That is, adding almost a second for the first shot (Z-175) another one and half for Hughes/car-5’s position and a couple of more seconds adjusting for speed and suddenly you have ample time for McLain to reach the spot for picking up the sound of the first shot.

And, very important, it is YOU who have to prove that McLain couldn’t possibly have had the time to reach said spot within reasonable speed if you want to refute the acoustical evidence.

"Epipolar Geometry" eh, ... so you Googled a fancy buzzword, the meaning of which you clearly have no understanding of... (be careful now, you are talking to someone who synchronises video professionally for things such as weddings, funerals and special events).

Epipolar geometry is used to synchronise stereo vision between two cameras in the same or adjacent plane. Its is completely unnecessary when synchronising two poor quality videos where all you are trying to measure approximate relative timing of events between the first and second films. For that kind of job, you need only two things.

1. To know the frame rates of the two videos.
2. A single point of overlap between the two videos where a single moving object can be located in the same physical place on both films.

Dale Myers has both of these, because the makes and models of the cameras used, and the types of film they shot are all known, and he uses the white SS car as the located physical object in the area of overlap.

NOTHING ELSE IS NEEDED, certainly not epipolar geometry!

 

[manifesto]

The SS car is one of the overlapping objects. I've provided you a capture of it at the same spot in both films.

No, you have presented no OVERLAPPING pictures needed tu make a REAL ”epipolar geometrical” analysis with stereo imaging and thereby pinpointing the exact position of Hughes, which is needed to make a correct triangulation desiding exactly where car-5 is positioned in H-648.

Myers uses the term ”epipolar geometri” without actually using it as a method. He uses ”animations” in a black box and simple line of sight.

What are we calling that in common language?

He is also using a snapshot in desiding the speed of car-5 at critical time period by inference from a faulty measurement of the average speed of the motorcade when on Houston Street and assumes a coaches-in-train modell instead of the correct one, an accordion ditto, where the different vehicles can move from between standstill to way over the average depending on where in the motorcade they are at different times.

All this together create enough uncertainties to completely undermine Myers numbers with conclusions and give the plausability to ample time for McLain to reach the critical first spot, and that is enough to conclude that the acoustic evidence still stands, not refuted by Myers or anyone else.

1. No secured position of car-5 when Hughes stops filming.

2. Faulty average motorcade speed at Houston in the relevant time period.

3. Faulty assumtion of average = all vehicles exactly the same speed at all times on Houston. Coaches in a train instead of in an accordion fasion.

This added together gives McLain around 6 seconds wiggle room to be the cop on the bike with the mike which by the way corroborates by Hughes himself when writing a letter to his family the day of the event:

"About five seconds after I quit taking pictures we heard the shots."​

Prove him wrong.


And, btw, you can’t cite xx number of pages in a report, you have to explain from those pages how you come to the conclusion that what’s there is correct.

Affirming that you belive them to be correct and nothing more, do not suffice when trying to refute a report of a scientific investigation.

 

[traxy]

Do you agree that the image I posted earlier shows the white SS follow up car at relatively the same position at the intersection of Houston and Elm, plus or minus a few frames?

Just a simple yes or no.

 

[manifesto]

Since the overwhelming consensus is that the "fireworks/firecracker" explanation for the first loud noise is completely idiotic, we're back to the original question.

What was the loud noise that Connally interpreted as gunfire?

I do not know. I know it was reported by multiple witnesses as NOT being gunfire. I know that BBN included a 6th suspect pattern before the five detected rifle shots, but that it was a false positive having too few spikes (echoes) in its impulse pattern. That it was loud but not as loud as a rifle shot. And, most important, it didn’t match any of the testshots at any of the microphones on Houston or Elm.

This makes it more than plausible that Connally, IF he is reacting to a loud noise in Z-160 (assumtion), it has not have to be from a rifle shot.

 

[manifesto]

Do you agree that the image I posted earlier shows the white SS follow up car at relatively the same position at the intersection of Houston and Elm, plus or minus a few frames?

Just a simple yes or no.

Define a ”few” frames.

 

[traxy]

Define a ”few” frames.

Within 10 frames.

 

[manifesto]

Within 10 frames.

Don’t know. Do you?

 

[traxy]

I do not know. I know it was reported by multiple witnesses as NOT being gunfire. I know that BBN included a 6th suspect pattern before the five detected rifle shots, but that it was a false positive having too few spikes (echoes) in its impulse pattern, but not as loud as a rifle shot.

This makes it more than plausible that Connally, IF he is reacting to a loud noise in Z-160 (assumtion), it has not have to be from a rifle shot.

What loud noise would Connally and others mistake for gunfire?

What do you suppose the odds are of a loud, gunfire-like noise randomly going off less than a second before a gunman opens fire on the president? A million to one? A billion to one?

 

[traxy]

Don’t know. Do you?

I'm asking you specifically. You've seen the pictures, I've posted them for you. Does the white SS car look to be in the same spot in both images (+/- 10 frames)? Look at the blue car immediately in front of it. Look at where it is in its turn.

Use your eyes and answer the question. Is that a reasonable position to take, yes or no.

 

[manifesto]

I'm asking you specifically. You've seen the pictures, I've posted them for you. Does the white SS car look to be in the same spot in both images (+/- 10 frames)? Look at the blue car immediately in front of it. Look at where it is in its turn.

Use your eyes and answer the question. Is that a reasonable position to take, yes or no.

It has to be more than ”reasonable” if you are claiming its position refutes the acoustical avidence.

 

[traxy]

It has to be more than ”reasonable” if you are claiming its position refutes the acoustical avidence.

All Im asking for is reasonable. Does the white SS follow up car look to be in the same position in both images. Yes or no.

 

[RoboTimbo]

It has to be more than ”reasonable” if you are claiming its position refutes the acoustical avidence.

What acoustical evidence?

 

[manifesto]

What loud noise would Connally and others mistake for gunfire?

What do you suppose the odds are of a loud, gunfire-like noise randomly going off less than a second before a gunman opens fire on the president? A million to one? A billion to one?

There were lots of reported vehicle back firings, common in motorcade where they stop and go, stop and go. And, there is the multiple witness reports and the short loud impulse pattern just before the detected rifle shots and, the fact that Connally could have ’reacted’ or ’acted’ for some other reason or non reason in Z-160.

Lots of uncertinties.

 

[manifesto]

All Im asking for is reasonable. Does the white SS follow up car look to be in the same position in both images. Yes or no.

I do not know the number of frames who has to be included in your ”reasonable”, which is kind of, the point.

 

[Axxman300]

This added together gives McLain around 6 seconds wiggle room to be the cop on the bike with the mike which by the way corroborates by Hughes himself when writing a letter to his family the day of the event:

"About five seconds after I quit taking pictures we heard the shots."​

Prove him wrong.

Easy. Nobody can calculate time accurately without instrumentation (stop watch, etc). That's why time estimates are not treated with equal weight as the physical (like the photographs of McLain on Houston when the last shot is fired).

 

[manifesto]

What acoustical evidence?

What trolling? What stalking?

What?

 

[Axxman300]

There were lots of reported vehicle back firings, common in motorcade where they stop and go, stop and go. And, there is the multiple witness reports and the short loud impulse pattern just before the detected rifle shots and, the fact that Connally could have ’reacted’ or ’acted’ for some other reason or non reason in Z-160.

Lots of uncertinties.

Nope.

First sound was confused as a backfire/fireworks, followed by two more shots from the 6th Floor of the TSBD. We know that 3 shots were fired and this means that first bang was the initial shot.