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

[manifesto]

I presume you are talking about this film

[qimg]https://www.dropbox.com/s/omn692qsgi1aol0/JFK-Dorman-McLain.jpg?raw=1[/qimg]

This is certainly Officer HB Mclain.

If it certainly is, how do you explain that McLain at the same time stand still at the middle of Houston?

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)

Not testified. He claimed it in an interview.

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?

No, McLain can’t see Mrs. Kennedy when standing still in the middle of Houston if he is also the Dorman cop beacause this cop is arriving at the intersection at the time Mrs. Kennedy BEGINS climbing up on the trunk at the same time he is arriving at the intersection.

So. Did McLain stand still halfway through Houston or is he the Dorman cop? He can’t be both.

Which one is he?

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.

According to Myers, the Dorman cop arrives at the intersection at Z-367 while Mrs. Kennedy still haven’t climbed up on the trunk.

1. Are you disputing Myers numbers?

2. If not, how can McLain see Mrs. Kennedy on the limo trunk when she still has not climbed up on it while he, being the Dorman cop, is reaching the intersection? It is impossible.

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).

Yes I know how it works and no, Myers couldn’t have used this method when allegedly synchronizing Hughes with Zapruder since there is no overlapping film to do it from.

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.

No. Mrs. Kennedy had certainly began climbing up on the trunk when the Dorman cop reached the intersection, although still not up on it.

That makes it impossible for McLain to be the Dorman cop while at the same time standing still halfway through Houston seeing Mrs. Kennedy already on the trunk.

Impossible.

Garbage...you're just lying now.

I did not address the Dorman film BECAUSE IT IS IRRELEVANT!

You wrote:

She began climbing onto the trunk at about Z-356, and remained on the trunk until at least Z-466 before the limo disappeared under the triple underpass.

466 - 356 = 110 frames at 18 fps = 6.1 seconds. That is an eternity in this context; McLain could have stopped on Houston half-way between Main and Elm, looked to his left and seen Jackie start to climb onto the trunk (the 6.1 seconds begins) and then kicked off and accelerated to the corner of Elm to see Jackie still on the trunk.

Of course, manifesto handwaves all this away; ...

I answered:

The Dorman cop arrives at the intersection at the same time Mrs. Kennedy BEGINS climbing up on the trunk. Maybe you should actually think before posting next time?

No?

You are answering with changing the subject:

I'm not talking about the Dorman film, I'm talking about the Hughes film

[qimg]https://www.dropbox.com/s/y50o93jsyiszcsp/JFK-Hughes-McLain.jpg?raw=1[/qimg]

The motorcycle cop in the foreground is HB McLain... in that position, at approx H-660, there is no possible way he could have proceeded far enough forward for his allegedly open microphone to have recorded the THREE shots that were fired, even if he had not stopped (which he did).

You should be ashamed of yourself.

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.

No, on the contrary:

1. According to McLain he stood still at the middle of Houston seeing Mrs. Kennedy on the limo trunk, which if true, makes it impossible for him to also be the Dorman cop in the intersection while Mrs. Kennedy still is not up on the trunk.

2. Myers ”epipolar geometry” turned to be just plain eye-balling far from ”conclusively” refuting the acoustical evidence showing McLain to be the cop on the bike with mike.

Anything else?

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)

No. The white ticket book on the inside of the wind sheild was not unique for McLain, there were other cops who had the same arrangement.

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.

No, it doesn’t.

1. There is no photographic record from any of the five spots where the acoustical evidence says a bike with a mike picked up the sound from the five rifle shots.

2. There is no photographic record of McLain being anywhere else when a bike with mike picked up said sounds.

3. There is no photographic record allowing to conclusively exclude McLain from being the cop on the bike with mike.

4. There is no photographic record allowing to conclusively show that McLain was the cop on the bike with mike.

5. There is photographic record allowing to conclusively show that McLain either was further behind in the vicinity of car-10 when the first shot was fired, OR exactly where the acoustical evidence places him, in the vicinity of car-6 to pick up the sound from said first shot.

Ergo, the photographic evidence DOES NOT refute the acoustical evidence. The acoustical evidence still stands.

Anything else?

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

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

No. McLain is making this claim after he was giving sworn testimony to HSCA. I ask YOU, how can you claim that McLain was the Dorman cop AND at the same time standing still at the middle of Houston seeing Mrs. Kennedy on the limo trunk?

Spooky action at a distance?

No, I'm not!

Yes you did change the subject, pretending that something else was being discussed. Se above. Caught with your pants down.

No, it doesn't.

Yes, he is a liar because he said it himself, that he changed his testimony when he realized that it supported the acoustical evidence = conspiracy.

No, and no, and no.

Yes: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12278707&postcount=2224

Yes: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12278791&postcount=2230

... and yes: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12278794&postcount=2231

Yes, you are!

You haven’t got an honest bone in your body, do you?

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

You may add wtf you want, it doesn’t make your ”refutinginutiouns” any more convincing, since they are built on scientific fraud (i.e. ”epipolar geometry” that is not.)

No they don't.

Yes you do. If you are claiming that the photographic record refutes the acoustical evidence, you also have to show it.

It doesn’t suffice to blurt it out like a mighty self evident truth.

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.

If your consilience and null hypothesis is propped up with false evidence it is worth nothing, no.

Correct, you have shown nothing new!

I have showed that Myers is committing scientific fraud when trying to convince the public of having refuted the HSCA acoustical evidence, and that he do not refute it at all.

The HSCA acoustical evidence still stands.

Anything else?

 

[manifesto]

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.

Why is HSCA’s acoustical evidence, ”dubious”?

 

[manifesto]

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.

Is it now? Why?

 

[manifesto]

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.

If you are calling the two world leading teams in ballistic acoustics ”idiots” you really have to explain why.

- They provided the eyes and ears to US Navy’s nuclear submarines.

- They provided the systems (Boomerang) for US soldiers to be able to detect snipers in real time during urban warefare.

Idiots?

 

[smartcooky]

That's it. Posted today.

Great guys.

Just finished watching, and what a fascinating discussion, very informative even though much of it was going over old ground.

They give a fair bit of credit to Bob Baer for the way he went about his "Tracking Oswald" documentary (of course, Baer is a JFK conspiracy theorist who, unusually, is a firm believer that Oswald was the only shooter in Dealey Plaza).

 

[manifesto]

Just finished watching, and what a fascinating discussion, very informative even though much of it was going over old ground.

They give a fair bit of credit to Bob Baer for the way he went about his "Tracking Oswald" documentary (of course, Baer is a JFK conspiracy theorist who, unusually, is a firm believer that Oswald was the only shooter in Dealey Plaza).

It’s all crap, Baers crap included.

It is called ’limited hangout’.

 

[Tomtomkent]

If you are calling the two world leading teams in ballistic acoustics ”idiots” you really have to explain why.

- They provided the eyes and ears to US Navy’s nuclear submarines.

- They provided the systems (Boomerang) for US soldiers to be able to detect snipers in real time during urban warefare.

Idiots?

You don't seem to have understood the post you are responding to.

You are the one claiming the acoustic evidence on the recording, is evidence of multiple shooters.

You are the one ignoring the conditions placed on that interpretation by the study you cite.

You are the one failing to show those conditions were met.

You are the one failing to ignore years worth of further study casting doubt on the base assumptions made about the time and location of the recording, all of which would invalidate the conclusions.

At the very best, you are continuing to post your mangled understanding of probabilities, despite all the factors that make your figure no longer relevant, because your understanding of the paper is fatally flawed.

 

[smartcooky]

If it certainly is, how do you explain that McLain at the same time stand still at the middle of Houston?

Asked and answered.

Not testified. He claimed it in an interview.

No, he testified to this

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo2/jfk5/hscamcla.htm
TESTIMONY OF POLICE OFFICER H. B. McLAIN, DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT, DALLAS, TEX.
......
Mr. CORNWELL......the following exhibit, F-671, would be, again, a few frames later.

When viewing the entire film intact, you can then see that within a matter of seconds after the Presidential limousine turns in front of the depository, a police officer riding a motorcycle enters right in front of the photographer--and that is exhibit 671--right onto Houston Street from Main. Can you tell us, Officer McLain, would that have been you?
Mr. MCLAIN. Yes, sir.
Mr. CORNWELL. Do you have a memory of hearing any shots while you were in Dealey Plaza?
Mr. McLAIN. I only remember hearing one.
Mr. CORNWELL. And approximately where were you when you heard that shot?
Mr. McLAIN. I was approximately halfway between Main and Elm Streets on Houston.
Mr. CORNWELL. So you would have heard it sometime after the picture was taken in exhibit F-671, the last one on the right?
Mr. McLAIN. Yes, sir.
Mr. CORNWELL. And before you got to the corner and turned the corner from Houston onto Elm; is that correct?
Mr. McLAIN. That's correct.
Mr. CORNWELL. When you heard the shot, what, if anything, did you look at or what did you do?
Mr. McLAIN. I Just looked up the street and the only thing was a bunch of pigeons flew out behind the school book depository.
Mr. CORNWELL. So you heard the shot, your memory was, looking up, seeing the school book depository in front of you, and the pigeons fly off?
Mr. McLAIN. Yes, sir.

Oh dear, back to the drawing board for you

No, McLain can’t see Mrs. Kennedy when standing still in the middle of Houston if he is also the Dorman cop beacause this cop is arriving at the intersection at the time Mrs. Kennedy BEGINS climbing up on the trunk at the same time he is arriving at the intersection.

Previously explained by me, and that explanation ignored by you

So. Did McLain stand still halfway through Houston or is he the Dorman cop? He can’t be both.

Previously explained by me, and that explanation ignored by you

Which one is he?

Previously explained by me, and that explanation ignored by you

According to Myers, the Dorman cop arrives at the intersection at Z-367 while Mrs. Kennedy still haven’t climbed up on the trunk.

Previously explained by me, and that explanation ignored by you

1. Are you disputing Myers numbers?

2. If not, how can McLain see Mrs. Kennedy on the limo trunk when she still has not climbed up on it while he, being the Dorman cop, is reaching the intersection? It is impossible.

Yes I know how it works and no, Myers couldn’t have used this method when allegedly synchronizing Hughes with Zapruder since there is no overlapping film to do it from.

No. Mrs. Kennedy had certainly began climbing up on the trunk when the Dorman cop reached the intersection, although still not up on it.

That makes it impossible for McLain to be the Dorman cop while at the same time standing still halfway through Houston seeing Mrs. Kennedy already on the trunk.

Impossible.

All irrelevant. McLain heard the shot when he was on Houston, stopped or not, half way between Main and Elm, so he could not have been in position to record the first shot with his alleged open mic.

You wrote:

I answered:

You are answering with changing the subject:

No, I'm not.

Officer McLain is the Motorcycle cop turning into Houston on the Hughes film
Officer McLain is the Motorcycle cop just about to turn into Elm on the Dorman film
The first shot was fired between these events, so McLain could not have been in position to record the first shot with his alleged open mic.

His own testimony says that he was there
The video/photographic evidence says he was there

1. According to McLain he stood still at the middle of Houston seeing Mrs. Kennedy on the limo trunk, which if true, makes it impossible for him to also be the Dorman cop in the intersection while Mrs. Kennedy still is not up on the trunk.

She was getting up on the trunk beginning at Z-356, which is after McLain turned into Houston and before he is seen turning into Elm, which fit perfect with where McLain says he saw Jackie climbing onto the trunk.

2. Myers ”epipolar geometry” turned to be just plain eye-balling far from ”conclusively” refuting the acoustical evidence showing McLain to be the cop on the bike with mike.

No, read the full techical explanation of now he used EG to sychronise the relevant films taken in Dealey Plaza

http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/acoustics.htm

You can download the full document with exhibits here

http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/report_download.html

Judging by your efforts so far, I doubt that you have either the attention span or the ability to read and understand the whole document, but you should at least make the effort so that you can give yourself a chance, however slim that might be, to debate this topic from a position of knowing what you are talking about.

No. The white ticket book on the inside of the wind shield was not unique for McLain, there were other cops who had the same arrangement.

Even if that is true (and it isn't) none were close enough to have been mistake for McLain.

No, it doesn’t.

1. There is no photographic record from any of the five spots where the acoustical evidence says a bike with a mike picked up the sound from the five rifle shots.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

2. There is no photographic record of McLain being anywhere else when a bike with mike picked up said sounds.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

3. There is no photographic record allowing to conclusively exclude McLain from being the cop on the bike with mike.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

4. There is no photographic record allowing to conclusively show that McLain was the cop on the bike with mike.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

5. There is photographic record allowing to conclusively show that McLain either was further behind in the vicinity of car-10 when the first shot was fired, OR exactly where the acoustical evidence places him, in the vicinity of car-6 to pick up the sound from said first shot.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

Ergo, the photographic evidence DOES NOT refute the acoustical evidence. The acoustical evidence still stands.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

Again you are attempting to switch the burden of proof.

The BURDEN is upon YOU

No. McLain is making this claim after he was giving sworn testimony to HSCA. I ask YOU, how can you claim that McLain was the Dorman cop AND at the same time standing still at the middle of Houston seeing Mrs. Kennedy on the limo trunk?

Asked and answered.

Yes you did change the subject, pretending that something else was being discussed. Se above. Caught with your pants down.

No I didn't change anything YOU are lying about this. Stop telling porkers

Yes, he is a liar because he said it himself, that he changed his testimony when he realized that it supported the acoustical evidence = conspiracy.

Show your evidence that this is the reason he "changed his testimony". Maybe he remembered it differently after being thinking about it.

Yes: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12278707&postcount=2224

Yes: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12278791&postcount=2230

... and yes: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12278794&postcount=2231

You haven’t got an honest bone in your body, do you?

Two links to my answer to your question, which you claim are not answers to your question. Go figure... It shows you're getting desperate.

For the last time...

Officer McLain is the Motorcycle cop turning into Houston on the Hughes film
Officer McLain is the Motorcycle cop just about to turn into Elm on the Dorman film.

I know that you desperately want the cop in the Dorman film to be Officer JW Courson, because if it is him then it can't be McLain.... if the Dorman cop is McLain then your precious theory goes out the window. However, desperately wanting something doesn't make it so. Nor does doubling down on your handwaving away of the obvious.

I have showed that Myers is committing scientific fraud when trying to convince the public of having refuted the HSCA acoustical evidence, and that he do not refute it at all.

You aren't even capable of understanding the science of Myers' paper, let alone have any chance of debunking it. You've shown nothing, because you've got nothing, and you've always had nothing.

The HSCA acoustical evidence still stands.

Its debunked, dead, buried and consigned the ignominious graveyard of superseded theories along with Titius-Bode Law, spontaneous generation, phlogiston and luminiferous aether.

 

[manifesto]

You don't seem to have understood the post you are responding to.

You are the one claiming the acoustic evidence on the recording, is evidence of multiple shooters.

So did the two world leading teams on ballistic acoustics conducting the joint investigations.

You are the one ignoring the conditions placed on that interpretation by the study you cite.

Ignoring exactly which conditions? Name them.

You are the one failing to show those conditions were met.

Name them.

You are the one failing to ignore years worth of further study casting doubt on

Ignoring who’s ”years of study”?

the base assumptions made about the time and location of the recording, all of which would invalidate the conclusions.

No ”base asumtions”, no. Meticoulusly investigating the DPD dictabelt recording setting up very conservative criteria before preliminary screening and after that, doing tests on site to see if their preliminary screening matched any of the test-shots fired on Dealey Plaza.

It was five perfect matches, in perfect topographical order, in the time span of average speed of ca 11 mph = average motorcade speed on Elm Street.

On top of that, a sonar analysis of the rifle shot from the knoll showed the shooters position within a square yard and with a probability of 1/100 000 for being random static/noise.

When asked if the impulse patterns could have been recorded somewhere else Weiss (W&A) said that in case this had happened it had to be a perfect replica of the Dealey Plaza.

That is how confident he was of the validity of their findings.

At the very best, you are continuing to post your mangled understanding of probabilities,

Good. Show me ONE example of me showing signs of not understanding probabilities.

One.

despite all the factors that make your figure no longer relevant, because your understanding of the paper is fatally flawed.

Show me or, be quite.

 

[Tomtomkent]

No ”base asumtions”, no. Meticoulusly investigating the DPD dictabelt recording setting up very conservative criteria before preliminary screening and after that, doing tests on site to see if their preliminary screening matched any of the test-shots fired on Dealey Plaza.

It was five perfect matches, in perfect topographical order, in the time span of average speed of ca 11 mph = average motorcade speed on Elm Street.

On top of that, a sonar analysis of the rifle shot from the knoll showed the shooters position within a square yard and with a probability of 1/100 000 for being random static/noise.

When asked if the impulse patterns could have been recorded somewhere else Weiss (W&A) said that in case this had happened it had to be a perfect replica of the Dealey Plaza.

That is how confident he was of the validity of their findings.

Good. Show me ONE example of me showing signs of not understanding probabilities.

One.

Show me or, be quite.

Ok, here is where you fail to understand:

No ”base asumtions”, no.

Yes. There are base assumptions, because you cited the paper.
The tests showed five series of pulses, that were a close match to those expected by a rifle shot and matched the topography if the microphone was at set points, from which the distances and echo patterns matched.
*You have not shown the microphone was in the right place.
*You have not shown the motorbike COULD be in the right place.
*You have alluded to wriggle room and being close enough, which unfortunately, would invalidate your probabilities.
*You have not addressed any further study, peer review, or rebuttals cited.
*You have ignored the testimony given to the HSCA. Is this proof? "No."

All of this has been discussed, and ignored. At this point I am struggling to find reasons not to assume your ignorance is wilful.

 

[manifesto]

Asked and answered.

No. You are running away from the subject because you have been caught pants down.

You are claiming two contradicting facts:

1. McLain stopped halfway on Houston looking down the park seeing Mrs. Kennedy on the limo trunk, and can therefore not be the cop on the bike with the mike.

2. McLain is the Dorman cop and can therefore not be the cop on the bike with the mike.

As have been pointed out several times to you, this is impossible, since the Dorman cop arrives at the intersection at the time Mrs. Kennedy BEGINS to climb up on the limo trunk.

So, how about a decision? Dorman cop OR stopping halfway? You can’t have both.

No, he testified to this

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo2/jfk5/hscamcla.htm
TESTIMONY OF POLICE OFFICER H. B. McLAIN, DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT, DALLAS, TEX.
......
Mr. CORNWELL......the following exhibit, F-671, would be, again, a few frames later.
[qimg]http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo2/jfk5/5p627f671.jpg[/qimg]
When viewing the entire film intact, you can then see that within a matter of seconds after the Presidential limousine turns in front of the depository, a police officer riding a motorcycle enters right in front of the photographer--and that is exhibit 671--right onto Houston Street from Main. Can you tell us, Officer McLain, would that have been you?
Mr. MCLAIN. Yes, sir.
Mr. CORNWELL. Do you have a memory of hearing any shots while you were in Dealey Plaza?
Mr. McLAIN. I only remember hearing one.
Mr. CORNWELL. And approximately where were you when you heard that shot?
Mr. McLAIN. I was approximately halfway between Main and Elm Streets on Houston.
Mr. CORNWELL. So you would have heard it sometime after the picture was taken in exhibit F-671, the last one on the right?
Mr. McLAIN. Yes, sir.
Mr. CORNWELL. And before you got to the corner and turned the corner from Houston onto Elm; is that correct?
Mr. McLAIN. That's correct.
Mr. CORNWELL. When you heard the shot, what, if anything, did you look at or what did you do?
Mr. McLAIN. I Just looked up the street and the only thing was a bunch of pigeons flew out behind the school book depository.
Mr. CORNWELL. So you heard the shot, your memory was, looking up, seeing the school book depository in front of you, and the pigeons fly off?
Mr. McLAIN. Yes, sir.

Oh dear, back to the drawing board for you

Yes, oh dear, indeed. Where does he testify to have stopped halfway on Houston seeing Mrs. Kennedy on the limo trunk?

 

[RoboTimbo]

The HSCA acoustical evidence

Is crap. TS/DR.

Did you have anything else?

 

[RoboTimbo]

On top of that, a sonar analysis of the rifle shot from the knoll showed the shooters position within a square yard and with a probability of 1/100 000 for being random static/noise.

Now you just need a CT website to tell you what to think about having actual evidence for a rifle shot from the knoll. You haven't been able to move the needle on the null hypothesis.

You still have the burden of proof and you're failing miserably at it.

 

[manifesto]

Ok, here is where you fail to understand:


Yes. There are base assumptions, because you cited the paper.

These are not ”based assumtions”, these are scientific findings.

The tests showed five series of pulses, that were a close match to those expected by a rifle shot and matched the topography if the microphone was at set points, from which the distances and echo patterns matched.

You do not understand the basics of probability, do you? The probability (P) is a value shown by the scientific data. It is NOT conditioned on anything outside its scope, outside the acoustic data.

That is, even if it turns out that no bike with a stuck bike could have been at the right places at the right time, the P-value is still there.

It has happened before that freak events have occured in spite of riducoulusly low probability for actually happening.

Science is not absolute, it is all about probabilities, but a probability of less than 1/100 000 IS a scientific fact until proven otherwise.

That is, until it is proven that no stuck mike could have been at the right places at the right time, the science/probability behind the acoustic evidence stands.

*You have not shown the microphone was in the right place.
*You have not shown the motorbike COULD be in the right place.
*You have alluded to wriggle room and being close enough, which unfortunately, would invalidate your probabilities.

No, I have not ”alluded” to it, I am stating that there is enough wiggle room in the photographic data to conclude that McLain COULD have been at the right places at the right time.

That is enough.

*You have not addressed any further study, peer review, or rebuttals cited.

I have read most of the ’studies’ claiming to refute the acoustic evidence, and no, none of them have succeeded.

You beg to differ? Show me.

*You have ignored the testimony given to the HSCA. Is this proof? "No."

I have NOT ignored any witness testimony. Show me ONE I have ”ignored”.

All of this has been discussed, and ignored. At this point I am struggling to find reasons not to assume your ignorance is wilful.

I have not ignored anything. I have carefully been showing that the so called ”debunkings” of the HSCA acoustic evidence so far presented in the thread are all in error.

Everyone of them.

THAT is interesting.

 

[manifesto]

Is crap. TS/DR.

Why is that? Explain. Lol.

Did you have anything else?

Yes I have. Loads. Du you? Lol.

 

[bknight]

[Snip BS]
According to Myers, the Dorman cop arrives at the intersection at Z-367 while Mrs. Kennedy still haven’t climbed up on the trunk.

Don't you ever check facts before posting nonsense?

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

Clearly Jackie is on the trunk.

[SNIP BS]
2. Myers ”epipolar geometry” turned to be just plain eye-balling far from ”conclusively” refuting the acoustical evidence showing McLain to be the cop on the bike with mike.

You have absolutely no clue as to how he does his work, so quit commenting on it.

[SNIP more BS]

2. There is no photographic record of McLain being anywhere else when a bike with mike picked up said sounds.

Quite correct as I believe I stated about 10 pages ago, but you ignore that. No open mike was near any of the acoustical markers.

[SNIP BS]
Anything else?

Why do continue to attempt to breathe life into this corpse?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Why is that? Explain. Lol.

Done.

Yes I have. Loads. Du you? Lol.

I think everyone knows you have loads. LOL.

The ball is still in your court, which makes you upset for some reason.

 

[manifesto]

Don't you ever check facts before posting nonsense?

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

Clearly Jackie is on the trunk.

Not before the Dorman cop reach the intersection, no = McLain couldn’t possibly have seen her on the trunk standing still halfway through Houston.

You have absolutely no clue as to how he does his work, so quit commenting on it.

Show me how Myers could have used ”epipolar geometry” when synchronizing Hughes with Zapruder without overlapping sequenses.

It is impossible.

Quite correct as I believe I stated about 10 pages ago, but you ignore that.

No you did not. Show me. Link.

No open mike was near any of the acoustical markers.

How do you know that?

Why do continue to attempt to breathe life into this corpse?

It is not a corpse dude, you are. It is scientific proof of five rifle shots, four from behind and one, the fatal, from in front on the knoll.

I’m still waiting for any of you to prove me wrong.

 

[traxy]

Not before the Dorman cop reach the intersection, no = McLain couldn’t possibly have seen her on the trunk standing still halfway through Houston.

The cop in the Dorman film arrives at the intersection after Z411. She's already on the trunk.

Nearly everything McLain has said has been corroborated independently by other officers in the area and is fully supported by the visual record.

You have yet to provide evidence that McLain could have plausibly been at ALL 4 microphone markers at the appropriate times. We're all patiently waiting.

 

[smartcooky]

No. You are running away from the subject because you have been caught pants down.

I'm not running away from anything, I am confronting YOU head on and you are failing miserably.

You are claiming two contrading facts:

1. McLain stopped halfway on Houston looking down the park seeing Mrs. Kennedy on the limo trunk, and can therefore not be the cop on the bike with the mike.

2. McLain is the Dorman cop and can therefore not be the cop on the bike with the mike.

So, how about a decision? Dorman cop OR stopping halfway? You can’t have both.

Oh yes, I can have both, and you are wrong, the facts do not contradict. It is perfectly possible for Officer McLain to be the Motorcycle cop turning into Houston on the Hughes film and then a number of seconds later, for him to be the same Motorcycle cop just about to turn into Elm on the Dorman film. This is so elementary that I struggle to understand how anyone with an ounce of intelligence cannot understand.

As have been pointed out several times to you, this is impossible, since the Dorman cop arrives at the intersection at the time Mrs. Kennedy BEGINS to climb up on the limo trunk.

As has been pointed out several times to you, you are COMPLETELY WRONG about when Jackie starts to climb on the trunk. I'll explain this in baby steps for you so that you can follow, although you will need to do a few sums... I hope you will be able manage that.

1. McLain comes around the corner of Main and Houston 2.4 seconds after H648 (the frame in which the white SS car can be seen about to turn into Elm

2. The same white SS car can be seen turning into Elm on Z162 so McLain would be in Houston at about Z210.

3. Most interpretations put the first (missed) shot at somewhere between Z140 and Z162 (the point at which James Tague is struck by a piece of flying cement while standing under the end of the triple underpass). McLain will have missed hearing the first shot.

4. The second shot (Z-220-228) could have been heard by McLain. That is between 0.5 (Z220-210=10/18.3) and 0.9 (Z228-210=18/18.3) seconds after he turns into Houston.

5. However, it is most likely that it was the third (fatal) shot he heard. This was at Z312 (no one disputes this) so that is 5.6 (Z312-210=142/18.3) seconds after he turns into Houston. At the speed that the vehicles were travelling along Houston - 8.5 mph (12.5 fps), it takes over 9.2 seconds to traverse the 115 feet from the corner of Main & Houston to the corner of Houston & Elm.

6. Jackie was halfway up the trunk at Z356, that is 7.9 seconds after McLain turned onto Houston. So he would have seen her before reaching the corner of Houston and Elm even if he didn't stop. Add in the stop, and its even longer

7. Any way you slice it, all three shots were fired by the time McLain was 2/3 of the way down Houston. He could not possibly have been in position to record those gunshots

Yes, oh dear, indeed. Where does he testify to have stopped halfway on Houston seeing Mrs. Kennedy on the limo trunk?

You're right, he testified that the Motorcyle Cop in H648 was him.

However he later stated that he stopped. People who change their minds are not necessarily lying. Have you ever been asked something that you couldn't remember at the time, but suddenly you remember minutes, hours or even days later? Does that mean you were lying when you said you originally said you didn't remember?

People change their minds all the time. Ask any LEO and they will tell you that a good interviewer can get people to remember things they didn't previously remember. Its call "jogging the memory".