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

[Axxman300]

The folks at the 6th Floor Museum posted a new discussion by authors Philip Shenon and Dr. Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics discuss last year's document release:

https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/release

Sabato paid for a technical re-evalution of the dictaphone evidence and is certain that the HSCA findings are 100% wrong. In the video he mentions the technical service he hired to do the work.

Bottom line? The recording was not McLain but an officer at the Trade Mart.

Great conversation, I'm ordering both of their books. Both men feel that everything boils down to Oswald's visit to Mexico City and who he met down there, and how close the CIA followed him around.

Both men are convinced by the evidence that Oswald acted alone, and both say that there are questions about who he might have met in Mexico.

 

[manifesto]

Hasn't this already been answered?

Like... here:

No. Smartcooky is trying to answer a completely different question than the one I asked him. I asked:

- How can McLain be the Dorman cop arriving at the intersection while at the same time standing still in the middle of Houston?

Smartcooky suggest that McLain easily could have stood still at the middle of Houston seeing Mrs. Kennedy on the limo trunk AND start driving again reaching the intersection as the Dorman cop while Mrs. Kennedy is still on the trunk.


The problem is that the Dorman cop arrives at the intersection when Mrs. Kennedy BEGINS climbing up on the limo trunk. Which makes it impossible for McLain to BOTH stand still on the middle of Houston seeing Mrs. Kennedy on the trunk AND arriving at the intersection at the time she BEGINS climbing up on the trunk.

So, how do smartcooky responds to this, for his argument, devastating news? Changing subject as if something else was being discussed, in this case if McLain could have reached the spot for picking up the sound from the first shot.


Four conclusions from this:

1. Smartcooky is wrong when claiming that McLain could have stopped at the middle of Houston seeing Mrs. Kennedy on the trunk AND have enough time to reach the intersection while she was still on the trunk. Impossible.

2. Smartcooky is knowingly trying to change subject in order to avoid being caught pants down.

3. McLain is proven wrong when claiming above and surely knowingly so, which makes him a liar.

4. Several other members of the Mighty Church of the Lone Nut now comes swarmig to smartcooky’s assistance trying to cover up his/hers fail, damned be intellectual integrity and the true spirit of Scientific Skepticism.

Discusting.

It's quite clear which cop has been identified as McClain.

Is it? Explain.

If you want to show he can reach the right spot, to fit within the conditions of the acoustic evidence, for the pulse patterns to match a rifle shot to your oft quoted probability, you will have to actually show it yourself, not try and pick holes in conflicting evidence, or you won't convince posters here of your point.

Wrong. I have to show that McLain within a reasonable time frame COULD have reached the spot for picking up the sound from the first shot, in order to counter the claim that he COULDN’T.

That is, those who claim that the photographical record refutes the acoustical evidence have the burden of proof.

So far, no show.

 

[bknight]

Heads up! New Document Dump from the National Archives last week (4/26/18):

https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/release

Have fun.

I have looked and looked for the frame by frame matrix from Zapruder, would you post it again, please.

 

[BStrong]

The folks at the 6th Floor Museum posted a new discussion by authors Philip Shenon and Dr. Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics discuss last year's document release:

https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/release

Sabato paid for a technical re-evalution of the dictaphone evidence and is certain that the HSCA findings are 100% wrong. In the video he mentions the technical service he hired to do the work.

Bottom line? The recording was not McLain but an officer at the Trade Mart.

Great conversation, I'm ordering both of their books. Both men feel that everything boils down to Oswald's visit to Mexico City and who he met down there, and how close the CIA followed him around.

Both men are convinced by the evidence that Oswald acted alone, and both say that there are questions about who he might have met in Mexico.

Right about now a certain poster is waving their hands so furiously it would appear to an observer to either be someone trying to fend off a swarm of bees or someone infected with the St Vitus dance.

 

[bknight]

manifesto answer a couple of questions

Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
No, you are completely ignorant of the subject at hand. No one have said that the dictabelt contain gunshots audible to the human ear.

Sensimetrics software confirms the HSCA acoustic evidence with a perfect match, when runned with the correct speed.

They knowingly used a faulty speed (5%) in order to refute the acoustic evidence as part of the ongoing black propaganda covering up the real facts behind the assassination of JFK.

You of course have a citation for this allegation? Why not post it along with your comment, err is it speculation?

Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
No. You have stated that McLain had only half a second to reach the spot for the first shot. In respons I have showed you that, no, Myers doesn’t use ”epipolar geometry” in his meassurements, he uses, line of sight.

That is the difference between using science vs. using guesstimates tailored to confirm pre concived ideas.

- No secured position of Hughes.

- No secured frame in Zapruder for the first shot.

- No secured position of car-5 in the critical time sequence.

- No secured speed of car-5 in the critical time sequence.

- No secured common point of reference for secured synch between H-film and Z-film.

No way to secure exactly how many seconds McLain had to reach the spot to pick up the sound of the first rifle shot = no secured refutation of the HSCA acoustical evidence.

The evidence stands.

When HSCA announced that the dictabelt had recorded four rifle shots = conspiracy, the FBI made a statement shortly afterwards that it was bogus. Without even having read the report.

After that a long row of proclaimed ”debunkings” has created the illusion of sound scientific refutation of the findings, while none of it has actually done so.

THAT is interesting.

You of course have a citation to this allegation? Why not post it? Speculation is most likely in this instance, but I could be wrong.

 

[BStrong]

When someone believes that "acoustical" evidence of a dubious nature beats rifle, projectiles and the statements of the suspect's wife etc. you know what you're dealing with.

Anomaly hunting at the level in evidence isn't even bad science, it's hobbyist level fantasy.

It's akin to the individual who, in the event of a residential structure fire found to be caused by an electrical fault that results in a fatality found to be caused by smoke inhalation, criticizes the investigation for not pursuing the possibility of the fire being caused by spontaneous human combustion.

 

[manifesto]

The folks at the 6th Floor Museum posted a new discussion by authors Philip Shenon and Dr. Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics discuss last year's document release:

https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/release

Sabato paid for a technical re-evalution of the dictaphone evidence and is certain that the HSCA findings are 100% wrong. In the video he mentions the technical service he hired to do the work.

Bottom line? The recording was not McLain but an officer at the Trade Mart.

Great conversation, I'm ordering both of their books. Both men feel that everything boils down to Oswald's visit to Mexico City and who he met down there, and how close the CIA followed him around.

Both men are convinced by the evidence that Oswald acted alone, and both say that there are questions about who he might have met in Mexico.

Already shown being refuted, here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12278628&postcount=2208

That is, Sonolyst used the faulty timeline from RNC’s ”revision” of the HSCA acoustic evidence timeline and, naturally, couldn’t match the perceived speed of the bike with the mike with the shooting sequence outlined by said acoustic evidence.

So, instead of plotting it against the HSCA timeline of the actual shooting event, they plotted it against RNC’s timeline starting ONE MINUTE AFTER the real shooting sequence. Of course there will be no match one minute after the real event.

So, when plotted against the real timeline, it was a perfect match, slowing down considerably following the first shots, remaining slow through the shooting and accellerating at precisely the same time McLain is seen doing the same in the photographic record, after the limo had sped away to Parkland Memorial.

Again, a ”debunking” ending up a strong corroboration of the acoustic evidence showing five rifle shots, four from behind and one from in front on the knoll. In perfect topographical order and with an average speed between shots number 1-5 of ca 11 mph equaling that of the true average speed of the motorcade on Elm Street.


I ask again, how much evidence do you need to leave your Mighty Church? Is it ever going to be enough?

 

[manifesto]

When someone believes that "acoustical" evidence of a dubious nature ...

Why is it, ”dubious”?

 

[smartcooky]

No. Smartcooky is trying to answer a completely different question than the one I asked him. I asked:

- How can McLain be the Dorman cop arriving at the intersection while at the same time standing still in the middle of Houston?

I presume you are talking about this film

This is certainly Officer HB Mclain.

Smartcooky suggest that McLain easily could have stood still at the middle of Houston seeing Mrs. Kennedy on the limo trunk AND start driving again reaching the intersection as the Dorman cop while Mrs. Kennedy is still on the trunk.

The section of film in which we see him is less than two seconds long. We can tell he is at the northernmost end of the part of Houston Street between Main and Elm. We know this because he is about to turn left into Elm. McLain would still have had time to stop (as he testified) about 80 feet up Houston from the corner of Main, then restart and be at the corner in time to be seen in about to turn into Elm in this <2 second section of the Dorman film. I hope you realise that when these two seconds of the Dorman film shows Officer McLain, the shots have already been fired?

The problem is that the Dorman cop arrives at the intersection when Mrs. Kennedy BEGINS climbing up on the limo trunk.

You know this how? Explain.

Show us how you synchronised the footage of the Zapruder film from frame Z-356 (where Jackie begins climbing onto the trunk) with this two <seconds of the Dorman film. Did you carry out some epipolar geometry? Do you even know how? Do you even understand what it means (I don't mean parroting off what you read off a Google search, I mean truly understand what it means and how it works).

Which makes it impossible for McLain to BOTH stand still on the middle of Houston seeing Mrs. Kennedy on the trunk AND arriving at the intersection at the time she BEGINS climbing up on the trunk.

No, it doesn’t, because Jackie didn't BEGIN climbing up on the trunk until after the third (fatal head shot) shot was fired, and that happened when McLain was still on Houston.... facing north, and looking left (west) to see her doing that.

So, how do smartcooky responds to this, for his argument, devastating news? Changing subject as if something else was being discussed, in this case if McLain could have reached the spot for picking up the sound from the first shot

Garbage...you're just lying now.

I did not address the Dorman film BECAUSE IT IS IRRELEVANT! It has already been conclusively established that McLain was the Officer in both the Hughes Film turning right from Main into Houston, and in the Dorman film about to turn into Elm. The identifying features of his motorcycle (which McLain himself supplied - his clipped papers on the inside of the wind shield which allowed him to uniquely identify his machine) as well as his position in the motorcade on Houston Street (as shown in the Hughes and Dorman films) conclusively prove that he is the motorcycle officer in those frames of those films.

Now I am going follow manifesto's lead and say "no" a lot

Four conclusions from this:

1. Smartcooky is wrong when claiming that McLain could have stopped at the middle of Houston seeing Mrs. Kennedy on the trunk AND have enough time to reach the intersection while she was still on the trunk. Impossible.

No, it isn't. I'm not making this claim, It was Officer Mclain's worn testimony.

2. Smartcooky is knowingly trying to change subject in order to avoid being caught pants down.

No, I'm not!

3. McLain is proven wrong when claiming above and surely knowingly so, which makes him a liar.

No, it doesn't.

4. Several other members of the Mighty Church of the Lone Nut now comes swarmig to smartcooky’s assistance trying to cover up his/hers fail, damned be intellectual integrity and the true spirit of Scientific Skepticism.

No, and no, and no.

Discusting.

Yes, you are!

Wrong. I have to show that McLain within a reasonable time frame COULD have reached the spot for picking up the sound from the first shot

And you have utterly failed to do so... spectacularly I might add.

That is, those who claim that the photographical record refutes the acoustical evidence have the burden of proof.

No they don't.

You have shown quite clearly that you still do not understand the concept of consilience of evidence and the null hypothesis. Both are established and accepted, the burden is upon you to prove otherwise.

So far, no show.

Correct, you have shown nothing new!

 

[RoboTimbo]

five rifle shots, four from behind and one from in front on the knoll.

Now you just need compelling evidence for two extra shots besides the ones Oswald was proved to have shot.

Did you ever answer the questions about why Oswald murdered officer Tippitt and went on to try to murder more officers in the movie theater after fleeing the scene of his crime? Link?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Why is it, ”dubious”?

Because it was debunked so many times. Why do you think it's dubious? Duh.

 

[pgwenthold]

Why is it, ”dubious”?

Because if we try to call it ********, the autocensor takes over.

Therefore, "dubious" it is

 

[pgwenthold]

Bottom line? The recording was not McLain but an officer at the Trade Mart.
.

While that is nice and all, I think they overpaid for that analysis. That the open mic was at the Trade Mart is pretty clear to anyone but those with their fingers in their ears.

 

[pgwenthold]

Do you have proof that they never read it? Do you know that the FBI is not a single entity? There are thousands of agents, all college educated, and they have good technicians.

Prove that no FBI agent read the HSCA's reports before making their statement.

Actually, it is irrelevant. Let's consider for the sake of argument that it's true - that the FBI dismissed the crap without reading the report.

1) Doesn't matter, because ultimately, they were shown to be correct. The acoustic staff is crap.
2) Secondly, what the FBI said in response is irrelevant because no one in this thread has based their objections to the acoustic data on anything that the FBI said either then or since. It's been based on actual analysis of the evidence. This is such a CT thing to do, appeal to authority instead of looking at the evidence. manifesto figures that, since he would latch onto any expert or pseudoexpert to support his position, we must do the same. He, like other CTers, can't imagine that the conclusions of the FBI mean nothing without considering the actual evidence they used to draw them.

So, for the sake of argument, assume the FBI jumped to the conclusion without reading the report. All that would mean is that _their_ conclusion at the time means nothing. It does not mean that they could not come to a legitimate conclusion later, and it certainly does not mean that the HSCA acoustic analysis is correct. It just would mean that we can't base anything on what the FBI said.

Fortunately, we don't do that. No one cares what they FBI said in response, because it has no bearing on what we are talking about.

And that is even assuming they came to the conclusion without reading the report, which is a completely baseless claim.

 

[smartcooky]

The folks at the 6th Floor Museum posted a new discussion by authors Philip Shenon and Dr. Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics discuss last year's document release:

https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/release

Sabato paid for a technical re-evalution of the dictaphone evidence and is certain that the HSCA findings are 100% wrong. In the video he mentions the technical service he hired to do the work.

Bottom line? The recording was not McLain but an officer at the Trade Mart.

Great conversation, I'm ordering both of their books. Both men feel that everything boils down to Oswald's visit to Mexico City and who he met down there, and how close the CIA followed him around.

Both men are convinced by the evidence that Oswald acted alone, and both say that there are questions about who he might have met in Mexico.

Is this the discussion you are talking about?

 

[Axxman300]

I have looked and looked for the frame by frame matrix from Zapruder, would you post it again, please.

Here you go:

https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/

 

[Axxman300]

Is this the discussion you are talking about?

That's it. Posted today.

Great guys.

 

[Axxman300]

Already shown being refuted, here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12278628&postcount=2208

Your response is to post a link to your own nincompoopery instead of an independent source. Neat.

That is, Sonolyst used the faulty timeline from RNC’s ”revision” of the HSCA acoustic evidence timeline and, naturally, couldn’t match the perceived speed of the bike with the mike with the shooting sequence outlined by said acoustic evidence.

So, instead of plotting it against the HSCA timeline of the actual shooting event, they plotted it against RNC’s timeline starting ONE MINUTE AFTER the real shooting sequence. Of course there will be no match one minute after the real event.

If it was McLain, he wasn't where the HSCA says he was, and their study is crap.

So, when plotted against the real timeline, it was a perfect match, slowing down considerably following the first shots, remaining slow through the shooting and accellerating at precisely the same time McLain is seen doing the same in the photographic record, after the limo had sped away to Parkland Memorial.

Clearly not true. The voice tracks alone voided the evidence decades ago.

Again, a ”debunking” ending up a strong corroboration of the acoustic evidence showing five rifle shots, four from behind and one from in front on the knoll. In perfect topographical order and with an average speed between shots number 1-5 of ca 11 mph equaling that of the true average speed of the motorcade on Elm Street.

Which is impossible because the recording was made at the Trade Mart (probably).

I ask again, how much evidence do you need to leave your Mighty Church? Is it ever going to be enough?

I used to be in your "church" and I was molested by lies.

If only you understood how foolish you and the rest of the JFK CT-Brownshirts sound while you spin your impossible theories you'd leave the internet.

 

[Axxman300]

While that is nice and all, I think they overpaid for that analysis. That the open mic was at the Trade Mart is pretty clear to anyone but those with their fingers in their ears.

This is the sad state of affairs today.

Some idiot claims something impossible happened and experts are forced to waste money explaining how dumb the claim is, even though the idiot will just claim the science was rigged by the CIA/FBI/MI6?EIEIO.

 

[BStrong]

Why is it, ”dubious”?

For starters, there is a difference between "Acoustics" and "Acoustical." and somebody citing it as evidence that doesn't know the difference might not be taken seriously. by folks that do know the difference.

Bow about an explanation of why an open microphone can capture sound pressure levels inaudible to the human ear that suggest gunfire? in your own words.