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

[bknight]

Already discussed a couple of pages back. Yes, they were treading a fine line between scientific integrity and their dependence on government funding and orders.

They had all eyes on them. From above and from below from the critical community. Blakey ’persuaded’ them to make compromise, excluding shot number three and move the fatal shot from the front, to the back. To ”please” his congressional overseers.

[snip BS]

I ask again, you have presented this allegation several times but have not cited any evidence. Do you have evidence, or just a wild speculation as to what happened?

 

[fibbermcgee]

"Evidence? We ain't got no evidence. We don't need no evidence. I don't have to show you any stinkin' evidence!"

 

[pgwenthold]

I ask again, you have presented this allegation several times but have not cited any evidence. Do you have evidence, or just a wild speculation as to what happened?

It's very well known why Blakely would only argue 4 shots and not 5. Because if it were really 5 shots, with 4 from the 6th floor of the SBD, then it would require that two of those shots happened within 1.1 seconds, and there is no way that could be.

And the whole "in order to appease the congressional overlords" crap comes down to the fact that they also couldn't invent extra shooters in the SBD, because they were bound by the facts. Similarly, they went with the fatal shot from the back because that is the only thing that made any sense considering the autopsy, which they actually had available to them.

It wasn't the "congressional overlords" that pressured him. It was reality. It may not constrain conspiracy loons, but the HSCA was bound by it. The fatal shot was obviously from the back. Everything shows that clearly.

 

[manifesto]

None of that information is needed to determine that the SS vehicle is in the same relative position in both films.

All that is required is a set of working eyes.



OK, what difference do you perceive in position?

I'm asking you for a third time. What is different about the relative positions of the SS follow up car in the 2 films. Describe the differences to me. You disagree that they show the same vehicle in the same relative position, but can't explain why.

The car immediately in front of the SS follow up car has just started its turn from Houston to Elm and is in the middle of the intersection in both clips. The SS follow up car has its wheels turned slightly to the left in both clips. Those are two striking similarities. I'm asking you for the differences.



None of this is remotely necessary to find a common frame between the two films.




We have, countless times already.

Your evasion of the simplest of questions shows that you know it to be true. You know as well as we do that the 2 images show the same point in time within a reasonable degree of accuracy, but you'll engage in weasel words and won't answer a simple question about what your eyes can see because you know exactly what I'm going to follow up with, and your whole house of cards will come down.

That's what conspiracy theorists are reduced to. Forcing yourself to doubt your own eyes to protect your chosen conclusion.

No. There is no evidence of exactly where- and the exact speed car-5 is traveling. The motorcade on Houston moved like a traffic jam and a couple of seconds is enough to refute your claim. You have to PROVE that there is no wiggle room here in order to PROVE the acoustical evidence wrong. And, no, this is not a game, this is exactly the point. It may look that car-5 synch Z-150 with H-648 but there is no PROOF this is the case. Here is where science comes in as an arbiter, but so far you have presented no such supporting your claim.

Case in point. Myers is naming his report ”epipolar geometry” in spite of no such is to be found in his critical ananysis of the time sequence from H-648 to the first shot. What do ”we” call that kind of behaviour in common language?

Myers ’half a second’ turns to ca 1.4 seconds when moving the first shot to Z-175 which gives only a needed couple of seconds wiggle room in position and speed of car-5 in order for McLain to reach the spot of the sound of the first shot.

You have to PROVE this wiggle room non-existent. Myers doesn’t do this in his report. Have you found additional evidence supporting this claim?

Show me.

 

[Axxman300]

It's very well known why Blakely would only argue 4 shots and not 5. Because if it were really 5 shots, with 4 from the 6th floor of the SBD, then it would require that two of those shots happened within 1.1 seconds, and there is no way that could be.

And the whole "in order to appease the congressional overlords" crap comes down to the fact that they also couldn't invent extra shooters in the SBD, because they were bound by the facts. Similarly, they went with the fatal shot from the back because that is the only thing that made any sense considering the autopsy, which they actually had available to them.

It wasn't the "congressional overlords" that pressured him. It was reality. It may not constrain conspiracy loons, but the HSCA was bound by it. The fatal shot was obviously from the back. Everything shows that clearly.

Correct, Blakey was a CTist, but also a government lawyer who had to work backward from the facts. The false dictablet information gave him what he believed to be an extra gunshot, and he ran with it.

What you see here is the typical fight that breaks out between competing CT's where one guy says four shots and another says five or more. Meanwhile the evidence only supports three.

 

[bknight]

It's very well known why Blakely would only argue 4 shots and not 5. Because if it were really 5 shots, with 4 from the 6th floor of the SBD, then it would require that two of those shots happened within 1.1 seconds, and there is no way that could be.

And the whole "in order to appease the congressional overlords" crap comes down to the fact that they also couldn't invent extra shooters in the SBD, because they were bound by the facts. Similarly, they went with the fatal shot from the back because that is the only thing that made any sense considering the autopsy, which they actually had available to them.

It wasn't the "congressional overlords" that pressured him. It was reality. It may not constrain conspiracy loons, but the HSCA was bound by it. The fatal shot was obviously from the back. Everything shows that clearly.

Ah man I was wanting manifesto to expose his complete understanding of the event.

 

[traxy]

You have to PROVE this wiggle room non-existent. Myers doesn’t do this in his report. Have you found additional evidence supporting this claim?

You've got this all wrong.

You don't get to claim Thomas's theory as the ultimate truth and demand that we disprove it. The Thomas theory has never been proven!

Here, a few questions to judge the validity of Thomas's work.

• What education and experience does Thomas have in acoustics that proves him capable of making this evaluation?
• What peers have reviewed Thomas's work?
• What publications have this work, or any other work done by Thomas in the field of acoustics, appeared in?
• What acoustic experts have lent their support to Thomas's specific analysis?

You are not an acoustics expert. You have no idea if Thomas's theory holds water. From what I can see, his theory is nothing more than a blog post written by an entomologist. It has as much claim to being "science" as the ice bullet theory, the poisoned darts in the umbrella theory, and the SS agent shot Kennedy theory. It does not get to lay claim to being "proven", no matter how much you'd like it to. Blog posts by inexperienced amateurs are exactly that until proven to be more.

It has a few MAJOR hurdles to overcome, the first of which being the visual record does not support it's main argument, and neither does the testimony of the key witness.

It's incumbent on YOU to provide supporting proof before the entomologist blog post will be taken seriously. So far all of your attempts have been laughable, and that's being kind.

Exhibit A

Myers ’half a second’ turns to ca 1.4 seconds when moving the first shot to Z-175 which gives only a needed couple of seconds wiggle room in position and speed of car-5 in order for McLain to reach the spot of the sound of the first shot.

Show me.

1.4 seconds + 2 seconds = 3.4 seconds.

174 feet over 3.4 seconds is an average speed of 51.17 feet per second.

51.17 feet per second is an average speed of 35 miles an hour!

35 MILES AN HOUR!

Since we know FOR A FACT that McLain did NOT average 35 miles an hour over that 174 foot stretch, we've just proven that he didn't have the wiggle room, using your own completely made up figures.

Even when you're pulling numbers out of your butt you STILL can't make it plausible.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Stuff?

Crap? Does that work better for you? The crap science from the HSCA which was soundly debunked repeatedly. That stuff. I think CTs still "believe" in it like its Santa Claus.

You are not very conversant with the subject matter, are you? You really don't know about all those comprehensive debunkings. Sad.

 

[Axxman300]

Ah man I was wanting manifesto to expose his complete understanding of the event.

It boils down to the CIA controlling everything and him being the lone hero standing up on the internet for truth and justice without actually having to stand up for anything.

 

[Axxman300]

Crap? Does that work better for you? The crap science from the HSCA which was soundly debunked repeatedly. That stuff. I think CTs still "believe" in it like its Santa Claus.

You are not very conversant with the subject matter, are you? You really don't know about all those comprehensive debunkings. Sad.

Technically Santa Claus had the day off on 11/22/63, and his ability to enter and exit buildings on any floor, and his FTL Reindeer-Drive sleigh make him a prime suspect. DPD obviously overlooked the empty plate of cookies, and half-consumed glass of milk.

Ho ho ho indeed.

 

[smartcooky]

No. There is no evidence of exactly where- and the exact speed car-5 is traveling.

Understanding failure on your part

You keep repeating the same falsehoods, I will repeat the facts for you

a. we do not need to know exactly where car-5 is; an approximation within a couple of car lengths is sufficient.

b. We do not need to know the speed of Car 5 at all. If necessary (and it isn't) this can be determined from the frame rate of the film.

The motorcade on Houston moved like a traffic jam and a couple of seconds is enough to refute your claim

Observation failure on your part

It is clearly visible on both the Hughes film and the Zapruder film that the cars in the motorcade move smoothly and continuously over the period in question, from Main to Houston to Elm.

You have to PROVE that there is no wiggle room here in order to PROVE the acoustical evidence wrong.

Understanding failure on your part

You are again trying to switch the burden of proof. WE ARE NOT HAVING IT!
If you think there is wiggle room to have McLain where you desperately wish him to be, the YOU MUST PROVE THIS WITH EVIDENCE. So far, all you have is flawed assumptions, logical fallacies, unsupported assertions, unsubstantiated claims and rubbish from conspiracy nutcase sources.

And, no, this is not a game, this is exactly the point. It may look that car-5 synch Z-150 with H-648 but there is no PROOF this is the case. Here is where science comes in as an arbiter, but so far you have presented no such supporting your claim.

The fact that Car 5 can been seen turning into Elm on TWO frames of video, one from the Hughes film, and one from the Zapruder film IS PROOF. They MUST be in the same place if they are both doing the same thing in the same place on the two films.

The arrow indicates the position of car 5 on the Hughes film-frame 648

The arrow indicates the position of car 5 on Zapruder film-frame 162

It is irrefutably THE SAME CAR IN THE SAME PLACE SHOT FROM TWO DIFFERENT ANGLES. Its undeniable proof positive that we know where the car was located within the time frame encompassed by the two films. Mclain has not even entered the Hughes film yet, but the frame rate of the two films acts as a timebase; by counting the number of frames from when he does enter the field of view, we can calculate where he must be when the shots are fired. Even if he did not stop (which he said he did) there would still not have been enough time to place his alleged open radio microphone in a position where you need him to be for the acoustical analysis to be valid.

Additionally, McLain testified that he stopped and that the shots fired were ahead of him, and then he looked to his left and saw Jackie climbing over the trunk. THE ONLY PLACE where he would need to look to his left is if he was still on Houston facing west. The shots were coming from ahead of him; in that direction is the SE corner of the TSBD.

The acoustical analysis is therefore flawed on is face... it has no scientific validity!

THE FACTS destroy your whole theory, so you do what all CTs do in those circumstances; evade the facts, handwave them away, or flat out deny the evidence right under your nose.

 

[manifesto]

You've got this all wrong.

You don't get to claim Thomas's theory as the ultimate truth and demand that we disprove it. The Thomas theory has never been proven!

Here, a few questions to judge the validity of Thomas's work.

What education and experience does Thomas have in acoustics that proves him capable of making this evaluation?

Not relevant. It is the ”evaluation” that stand or fall on its own merits. That said, Thomas is a scientist well versed in the scientific method, measurements and statistics. PhD with more than 100 peer reviewed papers published. Different subject, yes, but same process, methods and tools. Science.

Myers is an, illustrator.

How many peer reviewed papers has Myers published?

[*]What peers have reviewed Thomas's work?

The ”peers” in peer reviewed scientific papers are always anonymous, but ask the English peer reviewed scientific journal, Science and Justice, who have published Thomas work on the HSCA acoustic evidence, maybe someone on staff can give som specifics concerning the quality of their peers.

[*]What publications have this work, or any other work done by Thomas in the field of acoustics, appeared in?

See above.

[*]What acoustic experts have lent their support to Thomas's specific analysis?
[/LIST]

Define ”acoustic experts” and define ”lent their support”.

You are not an acoustics expert. You have no idea if Thomas's theory holds water.

I’m presenting Thomas scientific reading of BBN/W&A’s scientific findings. If you have any specific complaints, adress them specifically one at the time.

All the data is in the HSCA acoustics report.

From what I can see, his theory is nothing more than a blog post written by an entomologist.

Wrong. There are peer reviewed papers, a book, lectures and more popularized essays adressing the controversy stemming from his published findings.

It has as much claim to being "science" as the ice bullet theory, the poisoned darts in the umbrella theory, and the SS agent shot Kennedy theory. It does not get to lay claim to being "proven", no matter how much you'd like it to. Blog posts by inexperienced amateurs are exactly that until proven to be more.

Sorry, but you are completely and utterly in error. See above.

If you have any issues with Thomas scientific findings, adress them, one at the time.

It has a few MAJOR hurdles to overcome, the first of which being the visual record does not support it's main argument, and neither does the testimony of the key witness.

1. The visual evidence is by definition NOT the photographic evidence.

2. The photographic evidence doesn’t refute the acoustical evidence, since there is a couple of seconds in dispute, so far not resolved one way or the other. It may refute the acoustical evidence, it may not. Until this is scientifically established, the acoustical evidence stands.

It's incumbent on YOU to provide supporting proof before the entomologist blog post will be taken seriously. So far all of your attempts have been laughable, and that's being kind.

Wrong. You are the one trying to refute the acoustical evidence with allegedly countering photographic ditto. You are the one ”incumbent” to show that this is actually the case.

Exhibit A



1.4 seconds + 2 seconds = 3.4 seconds.

174 feet over 3.4 seconds is an average speed of 51.17 feet per second.

51.17 feet per second is an average speed of 35 miles an hour!

35 MILES AN HOUR!

”1.4 seconds + an additional couple of seconds” = 3-5 seconds = 21-29 mph.

Since we know FOR A FACT that McLain did NOT average 35 miles an hour over that 174 foot stretch, we've just proven that he didn't have the wiggle room, using your own completely made up figures.

As presented above, the more reasonable speed would be under 30 mph, but that said, how have ”we’ve” proven this FOR A FACT?

Even when you're pulling numbers out of your butt you STILL can't make it plausible.

So far it is you and your expert illustrator, Dale Myers, who’s doing the but pulling, calling it fancy scientificalisticully names.

Anything else?

 

[traxy]

Not relevant.

So the answer is no. Thomas has no training in acoustics and no relevant experience.

The ”peers” in peer reviewed scientific papers are always anonymous, but ask the English peer reviewed scientific journal, Science and Justice, who have published Thomas work on the HSCA acoustic evidence, maybe someone on staff can give som specifics concerning the quality of their peers.

These scientists had a rebuttal article posted in the very same journal.

R Linsker and RL Garwin
IBM T. J. Watson Research Center, P. O. Box 218, Yorktown Heights 10598, USA
H Chernoff
Statistics Department, Harvard University, Cambridge MA 02138, USA
NF Ramsey
Physics Department, Harvard University, Cambridge MA 02138, USA

https://fas.org/rlg/RL9b02_WithFigNums&Preamble_RL6818_JFKReply(+FullPageFigures).pdf

Define ”acoustic experts” and define ”lent their support”.

So none.

Sensimetrics Corporation are acoustics experts. They did a study of the dictabelt recording using digitized cleaned up versions and ran it through state of the art software in 2003. The result, the dictabelt does not contain gunshots.

Those are acoustics experts, and they most definitely do not endorse Thomas. Neither do the group of scientists that had their rebuttal published by Science & Justice.

Wrong. There are peer reviewed papers, a book, lectures and more popularized essays adressing the controversy stemming from his published findings.

And just as many studies showing the dictabelt evidence is garbage.

Thomas has no expertise in acoustics, no backing from acoustics experts and has had his own study rebutted in the very journal that published it, along with a host of other studies by experts that actually studied the recordings, in some cases the actual original dictabelt itself, and found that it had no merit.

That, plus the visual record showing in no uncertain terms that McLain could not have been where he needed to be, means your study is relegated to the waste bin of history.

You're going to have to do better.

 

[traxy]

Here is the full rebuttal of Thomas published by Science & Justice.

http://www.jfk-records.com/ScienceAndJustice_45(4)_207-226(2005).pdf

"Conclusions

We have re-analyzed the NRC report [3] and have studied the
Thomas article [5]. We have found errors in both articles. We have
for the first time determined a consistent set of speed correction
factors K for all relevant tracks, and shown that criticisms of
the integrity of Track 7 timing are unfounded. The Channel 2
recording time measurements using the Bowles copies (Tracks
2 and 3) are found to agree well with those using the FBI copy
(Track 7).
Thomas ([5], pp. 29–30) concludes that “the putative gunshots...
occur at the exact instant that John F. Kennedy was assassinated”
and that “... Sheriff Decker’s broadcast is only explained by the
overdub hypothesis.” We have identified specific errors that led
to Thomas’s incorrect conclusions."

 

[manifesto]

So the answer is no. Thomas has no training in acoustics and no relevant experience.

He had scientific training, but that is not the point. The point is that you need to adress his scientific findings, not him as a person.

These scientists had a rebuttal article posted in the very same journal.

R Linsker and RL Garwin
IBM T. J. Watson Research Center, P. O. Box 218, Yorktown Heights 10598, USA
H Chernoff
Statistics Department, Harvard University, Cambridge MA 02138, USA
NF Ramsey
Physics Department, Harvard University, Cambridge MA 02138, USA

https://fas.org/rlg/RL9b02_WithFigNums&Preamble_RL6818_JFKReply(+FullPageFigures).pdf

Yes, and? You implied that Thomas had published only blog posts without peer review, which I corrected with facts to the contrary.

Now you are changing subject in order to escape your faulty statement? You do this a lot, don’t you?

Is this honest?

So none.

Sensimetrics Corporation are acoustics experts. They did a study of the dictabelt recording using digitized cleaned up versions and ran it through state of the art software in 2003. The result, the dictabelt does not contain gunshots.

Those are acoustics experts, and they most definitely do not endorse Thomas.

I adressed this a couple of days ago. You missed it? Thomas was actually consulted by the producer and when he got a copy of the program scheduled to be aired in ”Court TV”, he imediately discovered a mega flaw in the Sensimetrics computerized analysis.

That is, the computer software was excellent but Sensimetrics adjusted the speed of the recorded upwards 5% in order to counter the 5% slower than real time speed of the dictabelt recording.

Thomas informed them that the adjustment was the other way around AND that this downward adjustement was already done on the recording used by them.

So, when running the computer program in the correct speed, it was a perfect match to the HSCA findings of five rifle shots in the exact same order, further corroborating the scientific strength in their results.

So, what happened? Court TV ignored Thomas and aired the show unedited anyway and after that, when Thomas critique went public, they went silent, never to air the program again, never retracting its ”findings”, never presenting the real story.

Neither do the group of scientists that had their rebuttal published by Science & Justice.

Already discussed a couple of days back and, no, they do not succeed in refuting neither the HSCA acoustic evidence or Thomas refined presentation of it.

You disagree? Explain why.

And just as many studies showing the dictabelt evidence is garbage.

Wrong. Just as many studies TRYING to show the dictabelt evidence is garbage, is the correct wording. None have actually succeeded. Instead they have further corroborated the acoustic evidence making it as solid as scientific evidence can be without turning into law of nature.

Thomas has no expertise in acoustics, no backing from acoustics experts and has had his own study rebutted in the very journal that published it,

That is how science works. Rebutal doesn’t equal proven wrong.

along with a host of other studies by experts that actually studied the recordings, in some cases the actual original dictabelt itself, and found that it had no merit.

As I said, many have tried, none have succeded. Aserting so, doesn’t magically makes it so.

That, plus the visual record showing in no uncertain terms that McLain could not have been where he needed to be, means your study is relegated to the waste bin of history.

Wrong. Instead of showing just how ”no uncertain” these ”terms” are, you are resorting to invoke a study (Sensimetrics) that are PROVEN wrong by their own software + invoking a ”rebutal” from NRC defending their review of HSCA’s acoustic evidence + ”a host of other studies by experts”, without a trace of a scientific argument to why all this is evidence of anything.

Are you defending crap with lots of more crap?

You're going to have to do better.

No, so far I’m doing quite well, thank you.

Enjoying it.

 

[BStrong]

"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!

More likely: cut and pasted paraphrasing Don Thomas from Mary Ferrell's site.

 

[Elagabalus]

...No, so far I’m doing quite well, thank you...

Not really. And we haven't even got to the fun stuff, yet. Like why did Oswald try to kill Officer McDonald in the Texas Theatre with the exact same gun used to kill Officer Tippit?

 

[bknight]

...
Sensimetrics Corporation are acoustics experts. They did a study of the dictabelt recording using digitized cleaned up versions and ran it through state of the art software in 2003. The result, the dictabelt does not contain gunshots.

I'm shocked. just shocked. I listened to that track and could never hear a gunshot, just a bunch of garbled noises, but then I could never see badge man or hard hat man at the grassy knoll.

...



And just as many studies showing the dictabelt evidence is garbage.

You're going to have to do better.

 

[pgwenthold]

More likely: cut and pasted paraphrasing Don Thomas from Mary Ferrell's site.

Do we know that manifesto is not Don Thomas?

He seems to be parroting a lot of Thomas's claims.

 

[manifesto]

Not really. And we haven't even got to the fun stuff, yet. Like why did Oswald try to kill Officer McDonald in the Texas Theatre with the exact same gun used to kill Officer Tippit?

1. Officer McDonald did 3-4 different contradicting statements regarding the incident. Which one of these have you found especially truthful?

2. How do you know that the same gun allegedly used by Oswald when arrested, was the same gun allegedly used by same Oswald when allegedly killing Tippit?