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

[smartcooky]

Not according to your pal, Dale Myers:

In conclusion, the Dorman sequence D456-D496, depicting McLain’s arrival at the corner of Elm and Houston, synchronizes to the period 2.84 to 5.25 seconds after the last shot; the equivalent of Zapruder frames Z365 to Z409. [Exhibit 77] Consequently, Robert Groden’s claim that the Dorman sequence showed McLain arriving at the Elm and Houston corner at the time of the first shot – just as the acoustic evidence had predicted – is demonstratively false.​

Are you now suddenly disputing Myers’ ’science’?

Nope, you are just misreading what Myers has said

"Robert Groden’s claim that the Dorman sequence showed McLain arriving at the Elm and Houston corner at the time of the first shot – just as the acoustic evidence had predicted – demonstratively false"

You're assuming he means McLain is not the Dorman cop, but that is not what he is saying. Myers still maintains it is McLain, but he is disputing Groden's timing of his arrival there.

Has it now? Courson is testifying that he arrives at the intersection at the same time that Mrs. Kennedy is climbing up on the limo trunk = the Dorman cop.

You have shown numerous times that you are wrong about the timing of Jackie climbing in the trunk

And, IF McLain is the Dorman cop, how can he at the same time being standing still halfway on Houston seeing Mrs. Kennedy on the limo trunk? That is, how can he be at two places at the same time?

Asked and answered several times.

How is it that you fail to understand such a simple concept? If Person "A" films me riding into "H" Street, and then no-one films me again until a number of seconds later, when Person "B" films me riding out of "H" Street, how is it not possible for me to be both people, even if I stopped for a second or two part way along "H" Street while I was not being filmed by anyone? Explain to me how the "me" riding out of "H" Street has to be someone else.

If McLain could have been at the spot for picking up the sound from the first shot, all the rest of the FIVE SHOTS falls neatly in place.

That is, you have to prove that he couldn’t possibly have been at the right place of said first shot.

There you go switching the burden of proof again. YOU HAVE TO PROVE he was at the right spot. So far, all the evidence says he wasn't.

 

[smartcooky]

Ah, trying to reframe the question again, are we?

Nope

No, the question still is how McLain kan be standing still halfway on Houston seeing Mrs. Kennedy on the trunk while at the same time arriving at the Houston/Elm intersection when same Mrs. Kennedy still haven’t climed up on the trunk.

I can't help you if you refuse to accept you are wrong (and demonstrably so) about the timing of Jackie climbing on the trunk.

Since this impossible you have to make up your mind. Was McLain the Dorman cop or was he at that time standing still halfway on Houston?

Its not impossible. This has been explained to you several times, you just wilfully refuse to understand.

You can’t have both. Chose ONE.

Yes, I can have both. This has been explained to you several times, you just wilfully refuse to understand.

It is really simple, smartcooky, you have to explain how McLain could have arrived at the intersection at Z-356 (Dorman cop) while at the same time be standing still further behind on the middle of Houston.

Do it. Explain.

This has been explained to you several times, you just wilfully refuse to understand.

Exactly, he changed his mind when he realized that his sworn testimony supported the acoustic evidence and therefore scientific evidence of a conspiracy in the assassination of JFK.

And your evidence that this was the reason he changed his statement is?

Yes they are if they do it because they discover that their first sworn testimony supports a chain of event not to their liking.

Except that you have not shown that this is the case. State your source and show the evidence for this. Explain

The question is WHY they are changing their mind and in the case of McLain there is no need of speculating, he state it himself.

Did he? Please link to any statement he made that said he changed his mind because his original statement fitted a theory he didn't like.

So, what version of events are you supporting?

1. McLain is the Dorman cop.

2. McLain stops halfway through Houston.

You can’t have both. Which is it?

Yes I can have both. McLain is the Dorman cop, and he stopped in Houston. keep in mind that his statement about stopping part way down Houston is corroborated by two other people; Officer JW Courson and Officer M Baker who were both on Houston street behind him.

 

[manifesto]

Nope, you are just misreading what Myers has said

"Robert Groden’s claim that the Dorman sequence showed McLain arriving at the Elm and Houston corner at the time of the first shot – just as the acoustic evidence had predicted – demonstratively false"

I’m not arguing that Groden was correct, he wasn’t, I’m showing you that, according to Myers, the Dorman cop is arriving at the intersection at Z-356, ca 2 seconds after the fatal head shot.

So, how can McLain be sitting still halfway through Houston Street seeing Mrs. Kennedy on the limo trunk while at the same time being the Dorman cop at the end of same Houston Street at the time Mrs. Kennedy BEGINS climbing up on same limo trunk.

You can’t have it both ways. Which is it? Dorman or standing still?

You're assuming he means McLain is not the Dorman cop, but that is not what he is saying. Myers still maintains it is McLain, but he is disputing Groden's timing of his arrival there.

No, I know that Groden is wrong when claiming that the Dorman cop is McLain arriving at the intersection at the time of the first couple of shots.

I also know that Myers is wrong when claiming that the Dorman cop is McLain arriving at the intersection at the time a couple of seconds after the last shot.

Both are wrong. It’s not McLain in either version, the Dorman cop is officer Courson arriving at the intersection at the exact time frame he testified he did.

At the time of the Dorman cop sequence, McLain is further down Elm Street beyond the spot where his stuck mike picked up the sound from the fifth rifle shot.

You have shown numerous times that you are wrong about the timing of Jackie climbing in the trunk

Have I? I’m using the same numbers that your hero Dale Myers are using.

Are they wrong, you say?

Asked and answered several times.

How is it that you fail to understand such a simple concept? If Person "A" films me riding into "H" Street, and then no-one films me again until a number of seconds later, when Person "B" films me riding out of "H" Street, how is it not possible for me to be both people, even if I stopped for a second or two part way along "H" Street while I was not being filmed by anyone? Explain to me how the "me" riding out of "H" Street has to be someone else.

No.

1. If McLain is the Dorman cop he arrives at the intersection at the same time Mrs. Kennedy BEGINS to climb up on the limo trunk.

2. If McLain is truthful when he claims he stopped halfway on Houston seeing Mrs. Kennedy on the limo trunk he can’t be the Dorman cop since at that time Mrs. Kennedy only have BEGUN climbing up on the trunk AFTER she is already on the trunk.

Unless you are trying to invert space-time?

There you go switching the burden of proof again. YOU HAVE TO PROVE he was at the right spot. So far, all the evidence says he wasn't.

Wrong. The acoustic evidence IS proof of him being at the right spot. If you are claiming that the photographic evidence is refuting the acoustic ditto, YOU need to prove it.

The only thing I need to prove is that there is possible for him to have been at the right spot. That he within known parameters could have been at the right spot.

I believe you should read up on your beginners course in epistemology.

This is basic stuff.

 

[RoboTimbo]

The acoustic evidence

Has been debunked. Numerous times. Thoroughly and comprehensively. Don't CTs know anything about the assassination beyond what they are told to think?

The null hypothesis is still that Oswald shot JFK with his M/C. Do you have any hypothesis that can displace the null? Doesn't it suck to not be able to refute that?

 

[traxy]

Wrong. The acoustic evidence IS proof of him being at the right spot.

You've got it backwards. Thompson's interpretation of the acoustic evidence is DEPENDENT on McLain being at the right spot. In order to satisfy that dependency, you need to prove it.

The only thing I need to prove is that there is possible for him to have been at the right spot. That he within known parameters could have been at the right spot.

Since you've utterly failed at doing this, I guess we can safely ignore the conclusions of Thompson's analysis.

You've tried a few times now and fallen spectacularly on your face. Care to try again?

 

[smartcooky]

I’m not arguing that Groden was correct, he wasn’t, I’m showing you that, according to Myers, the Dorman cop is arriving at the intersection at Z-356, ca 2 seconds after the fatal head shot.

So, how can McLain be sitting still halfway through Houston Street seeing Mrs. Kennedy on the limo trunk while at the same time being the Dorman cop at the end of same Houston Street at the time Mrs. Kennedy BEGINS climbing up on same limo trunk.

You can’t have it both ways. Which is it? Dorman or standing still?

No, I know that Groden is wrong when claiming that the Dorman cop is McLain arriving at the intersection at the time of the first couple of shots.

I also know that Myers is wrong when claiming that the Dorman cop is McLain arriving at the intersection at the time a couple of seconds after the last shot.

Both are wrong. It’s not McLain in either version, the Dorman cop is officer Courson arriving at the intersection at the exact time frame he testified he did.

At the time of the Dorman cop sequence, McLain is further down Elm Street beyond the spot where his stuck mike picked up the sound from the fifth rifle shot.

Have I? I’m using the same numbers that your hero Dale Myers are using.

Are they wrong, you say?

No.

1. If McLain is the Dorman cop he arrives at the intersection at the same time Mrs. Kennedy BEGINS to climb up on the limo trunk.

2. If McLain is truthful when he claims he stopped halfway on Houston seeing Mrs. Kennedy on the limo trunk he can’t be the Dorman cop since at that time Mrs. Kennedy only have BEGUN climbing up on the trunk AFTER she is already on the trunk.

You clearly are not going to accept the fact that you are wrong about the time Jackie climbs onto the trunk. There is no point going any further with this, its just a not-so-merry go round.

Wrong. The acoustic evidence IS proof of him being at the right spot. If you are claiming that the photographic evidence is refuting the acoustic ditto, YOU need to prove it.

The only thing I need to prove is that there is possible for him to have been at the right spot. That he within known parameters could have been at the right spot.

Absolutely not!

In any scientific theory dependant upon physical attributes (as this one is) you must prove the attributes are real before you have any chance of proceeding to prove the theory is valid. This theory is no different, IT IS DEPENDANT UPON PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES, in this case those attributes are;

1. the existence of an open microphone on one of the motocycles
2. the presence of that open microphone located in all four of the required locations at the correct times.

I believe you should read up on your beginners course in epistemology.

This is basic stuff.

I believe you should read up on your beginners course in the scientific method....this is basic stuff.

 

[manifesto]

You've got it backwards. Thompson's [sic] interpretation of the acoustic evidence is DEPENDENT on McLain being at the right spot. In order to satisfy that dependency, you need to prove it.

Wrong. The acoustic evidence proves that the recording contains five rifle shots with P = 1/100 000, of not being such.

You have two options refuting this:

1. Prove that the acoustic evidence in itself is in error.

2. Prove that some other type of evidence, in this case the photographic records, proves that the acoustic evidence is in error.

So, when stating that the photographic record proves the acoustic evidence wrong, you have the burden of proof.

So far, you have tried to show that McLain couldn’t have been the cop on the bike withe the mike, using Myers ”epipolar geometry”-evidence. Problem is that Myers doesn’t use ”epipolar geometry” in his effort to prove the acoustic evidence in error, he is using eye-balling CALLING IT ”epipolar geometry”, which lend itself to two conclusions:

1. Myers is shamelessly commiting scientific fraud in order to misslead his audience to think he have scientific proof of what he is claiming.

2. To eye-ball measurements from which he draws when making inferences about the critical unknowns (speeds, positions) is NOT conclusive evidence of anything, it’s just an opinion from subjective inferences.

That said, no one knows the exact measurements since there is no known data to do conclusive measurements from. This leaves it an open question if McLain COULD have been on the right spot at the right time. That is, there is enough wiggle room for him being so.

That is enough to conclude that, no, the existing photographic record does NOT conclusively refute the HSCA acoustic evidence.

Period.

Since you've utterly failed at doing this, I guess we can safely ignore the conclusions of Thompson's [sic] analysis.

You've tried a few times now and fallen spectacularly on your face. Care to try again?

You are confusing ”ganging up” with science and strong arguments.

That is not scientific skepticism, it’s the opposite.

 

[traxy]

Wrong. The acoustic evidence proves that the recording contains five rifle shots with P = 1/100 000, of not being such.

Lol, you clearly never took a logic course and have no idea how Boolean Conditions work. Let me break it down for you. This is an IF - THEN - ELSE statement:

IF the impulses are in fact gunfire and not random static (which multiple studies have concluded)

AND

IF the first shot occurred at exactly Z175 (and wasn't arbitrarily placed there by Thomas to make the rest of the impulses line up in a meaningful way)

AND

IF McLain had an open microphone

AND

IF McLain was in all 4 locations at exactly the correct time

THEN the conditions are met to give you your probability.

ELSE the acoustic interpretation of Don Thomas is garbage.

You have to satisfy every single IF statement to make your probability true.

Right now we're focused on McLain’s position. So far you have yet to suggest any way that he could logically be where he needed to be.

So, let's go.

 

[RoboTimbo]

That is enough to conclude that, no, the existing photographic record does NOT conclusively refute the HSCA acoustic evidence.

You are confusing child-like denial with evidence. The HSCA acoustic crap has been repeatedly and thoroughly debunked. Did your CT website tell you anything else to think?

Like: why did Oswald go on to murder Officer Tippitt? Don't you know what to think about that?

 

[traxy]

In any scientific theory dependant upon physical attributes (as this one is) you must prove the attributes are real before you have any chance of proceeding to prove the theory is valid. This theory is no different, IT IS DEPENDANT UPON PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES, in this case those attributes are;

1. the existence of an open microphone on one of the motocycles
2. the presence of that open microphone located in all four of the required locations at the correct times.

I'd argue there are 2 more conditions that need to be met.

3. The impulses on the recording have to be proven to have only been caused by gunfire and not any other more plausible explanation.

4. The shooting absolutely has to have started at Z175.

 

[smartcooky]

Like: why did Oswald go on to murder Officer Tippitt? Don't you know what to think about that?

Of course he doesn't. The Loony Tunes JFK CT website he uses as a source has yet to tell him what to think about that!

 

[manifesto]

You clearly are not going to accept the fact that you are wrong about the time Jackie climbs onto the trunk. There is no point going any further with this, its just a not-so-merry go round.

So, when does she climb up onto the trunk?

Absolutely not!

In any scientific theory dependant upon physical attributes (as this one is) you must prove the attributes are real before you have any chance of proceeding to prove the theory is valid. This theory is no different, IT IS DEPENDANT UPON PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES, in this case those attributes are;

1. the existence of an open microphone on one of the motocycles

Yes, the DPD dictabelt recording is from a stuck mike on a DPD motorcycle covering the time sequence of the shooting at Dealey Plaza (ca 5 minutes). IF there is echo patterns from five rifle shots during the relevant time sequence the stuck mike have to have been in the right positions at the right time.

That is, if it was zero photographic or other secondary evidence of the shooting, the correct inference is that the acoustic evidence stands, given the extremely low probability for being wrong P = 1/100 000.

That said, there is a photographic record showing a candidate mike (McLain) being within reach for picking up the sound from the first shot, and being at the right spot after the last shot. On top of that, there is no photographic record showing said mike anywhere else during the shooting sequence.

To sum up:

- The acoustic evidence shows with P = 1/100 000 for being wrong, that an open mike picked up five rifle shots at Dealey Plaza at the time of the shooting.

- The photographic record shows that this mike COULD HAVE belonged to McLain, since he was within reach of being at the right spots at the right time.

That is, the photographic record do not have to prove the acoustic evidence being correct, only show that it doesn’t prove the acoustic evidence being wrong.

And, you have the burden of proving this, claiming that the photographic record refutes the acoustic evidence. Until this happens, the acoustic evidence stands.

2. the presence of that open microphone located in all four of the required locations at the correct times.

FIVE required locations, that is. Since there is no photographic record showing any of the five spots, the conclusions have to be made through inference. That is, proving that McLain (the open mike) couldn’t possibly have been in the right spots at the right time.

Until this is done, the acoustic evidence stands.

I believe you should read up on your beginners course in the scientific method....this is basic stuff.

Agree this is basic stuff and I have to ask you again, what on earth are you doing in a forum dedicated to scientific skepticism?

 

[manifesto]

Lol, you clearly never took a logic course and have no idea how Boolean Conditions work. Let me break it down for you. This is an IF - THEN - ELSE statement:

IF the impulses are in fact gunfire and not random static (which multiple studies have concluded)

The probability of the five impulse patterns being random static and not five rifle shots is P = 1/100 000, which translates to being an established scientific fact. And no, no ”multiple studies” has shown this being incorrect.

None.

AND

IF the first shot occurred at exactly Z175 (and wasn't arbitrarily placed there by Thomas to make the rest of the impulses line up in a meaningful way)

The probability of the five impulse patterns being rifle shots doesn’t rest on the first shot being fired at Z-175, no. This is secondary inferences made by among others, Donald Thomas.

AND

IF McLain had an open microphone

Wrong. The scientific probability for an open mike picking up the sounds from five rifle shots IS P = 1/100 000 for not being so, no matter what is proven down the line. Even if it turns out that the five impulse patterns are random static, the probability for that to be the case was/is 1/100 000. It is not conditioned on secondary data, like a photographic record. It is a scientifically established value.

AND

IF McLain was in all 4 locations at exactly the correct time

On what scientific data are you excluding the third impulse pattern from being a match to a rifle shot from behind the president limo?

THEN the conditions are met to give you your probability.

No, you haven’t grasped the basics in how probability ”P” works. The acoustic evidence as a P-value is NOT conditioned on anything outside its scope, it is an independent value derived from the scientific investigation of the ca 5 minutes DPD dictabelt recording of channel one from a stuck mike on a DPD motorcycle covering the time sequence during the assassination of JFK.

The ”P” is unconditional of anything else exept the studie from where its value is extracted.

That is, it is still possible that the five impulse patterns are random static, but if the P-value is correct, the probability for this being so, still is 1/100 000.

ELSE the acoustic interpretation of Don Thomas is garbage.

Is this what you are calling ”Boulean Conditions”?

As in Dale Myers calling eye-balling, ”Epipolar Geometry”?

Same same?

You have to satisfy every single IF statement to make your probability true.

No. You and your hero Dale Myers are claiming that the photographic record are refuting the acoustic evidence of five rifle shots. That makes it YOU who have the burden of also showing the conclusive evidence of this.

Right now we're focused on McLain’s position. So far you have yet to suggest any way that he could logically be where he needed to be.

So, let's go.

No. YOU are claiming that he couldn’t possibly have reached the spot for picking up the sound of the first rifle shot detected on the dictabelt recording. That makes it YOU who have to show that this is conclusively the case.

And no, Dale Myers doesn’t show this by calling his eye-balling ”epipolar geometry”, it only shows that he have zero intellectual integrity when committing scientific fraud in order to fool his audience.

Are you a fool, Traxy?

 

[smartcooky]

So, when does she climb up onto the trunk?

I'll repeat it for you.... again. Perhaps I will get through your shield of selective deafness this time.

1. McLain comes around the corner of Main and Houston 2.6 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

If that was all too confusing for you I will summarize the facts...

a. Officer McLain turned the corner into Houston 2.6 seconds (48 Z frames) after H648/Z162.
b. That puts McLain entering Houston at Z210 (Z162 + 48)
c. For the acoustic theory to work, the shooting has to start at exactly Z175
d. At Z175, McLain was making the turn from Main into Houston

ergo: McLain was at least the length of Houston away from Elm... he had to be beyond the turn into Elm when the shooting started.

Yes, the DPD dictabelt recording is from a stuck mike on a DPD motorcycle covering the time sequence of the shooting at Dealey Plaza (ca 5 minutes). IF there is echo patterns from five rifle shots during the relevant time sequence the stuck mike have to have been in the right positions at the right time.

Its four rife shots according to the HSCA , but otherwise correct

That is, if it was zero photographic or other secondary evidence of the shooting, the correct inference is that the acoustic evidence stands, given the extremely low probability for being wrong P = 1/100 000.

Wrong. The echo patterns being recordings of the gunshots is CONDITIONAL ON THE OPEN MIC BEING IN ALL THE RIGHT PLACES AT ALL THE RIGHT TIMES. That has not yet been shown in evidence.

That said, there is a photographic record showing a candidate mike (McLain) being within reach for picking up the sound from the first shot, and being at the right spot after the last shot. On top of that, there is no photographic record showing said mike anywhere else during the shooting sequence.

No. The HSCA was wrong. They made assumptions that were wrong. They drew conclusions that were wrong. They used 1976 techniques to analyse 1963 radio technology. What we have now is a million times more sophisticated and more accurate than even the best technology available in 1976. The HSCA findings have been superseded and thoroughly debunked.

To sum up:

- The acoustic evidence shows with P = 1/100 000 for being wrong, that an open mike picked up five rifle shots at Dealey Plaza at the time of the shooting.

Its four rifle shots, and its only if the open mic was in the right places at the right times.

- The photographic record shows that this mike COULD HAVE belonged to McLain, since he was within reach of being at the right spots at the right time.

No, it doesn't. It actually shows the opposite, as has been explained to you several times.

That is, the photographic record do not have to prove the acoustic evidence being correct, only show that it doesn’t prove the acoustic evidence being wrong.

If you cannot prove that the said motorcycle was in the right places at the right times, then the acoustic theory fails.

And, you have the burden of proving this, claiming that the photographic record refutes the acoustic evidence. Until this happens, the acoustic evidence stands.

No. YOU have the burden to prove that the said motorcycle was where YOU claim it was.

FIVE required locations, that is. Since there is no photographic record showing any of the five spots, the conclusions have to be made through inference. That is, proving that McLain (the open mike) couldn’t possibly have been in the right spots at the right time.

Until this is done, the acoustic evidence stands.

Inference is not evidence

I have proved beyond any reasonable doubt that McLain was at the latest, making (or about to make) the turn from Main into Houston when the first shot was fired... ergo, the acoustic theory fails on it face.

Agree this is basic stuff and I have to ask you again, what on earth are you doing in a forum dedicated to scientific skepticism?

I might ask you the same question. All your contributions so far are faith-based dogma, using Loony Tunes JFK CT websites the source for your Holy Scripture.

 

[Tomtomkent]

The probability of the five impulse patterns being random static and not five rifle shots is P = 1/100 000, which translates to being an established scientific fact. And no, no ”multiple studies” has shown this being incorrect.

None.

The probability of the five impulse patterns being rifle shots doesn’t rest on the first shot being fired at Z-175, no. This is secondary inferences made by among others, Donald Thomas.

Wrong. The scientific probability for an open mike picking up the sounds from five rifle shots IS P = 1/100 000 for not being so, no matter what is proven down the line. Even if it turns out that the five impulse patterns are random static, the probability for that to be the case was/is 1/100 000. It is not conditioned on secondary data, like a photographic record. It is a scientifically established value.

On what scientific data are you excluding the third impulse pattern from being a match to a rifle shot from behind the president limo?

No, you haven’t grasped the basics in how probability ”P” works. The acoustic evidence as a P-value is NOT conditioned on anything outside its scope, it is an independent value derived from the scientific investigation of the ca 5 minutes DPD dictabelt recording of channel one from a stuck mike on a DPD motorcycle covering the time sequence during the assassination of JFK.

The ”P” is unconditional of anything else exept the studie from where its value is extracted.

That is, it is still possible that the five impulse patterns are random static, but if the P-value is correct, the probability for this being so, still is 1/100 000.

Is this what you are calling ”Boulean Conditions”?

As in Dale Myers calling eye-balling, ”Epipolar Geometry”?

Same same?

No. You and your hero Dale Myers are claiming that the photographic record are refuting the acoustic evidence of five rifle shots. That makes it YOU who have the burden of also showing the conclusive evidence of this.

No. YOU are claiming that he couldn’t possibly have reached the spot for picking up the sound of the first rifle shot detected on the dictabelt recording. That makes it YOU who have to show that this is conclusively the case.

And no, Dale Myers doesn’t show this by calling his eye-balling ”epipolar geometry”, it only shows that he have zero intellectual integrity when committing scientific fraud in order to fool his audience.

Are you a fool, Traxy?

Please don’t call others a fool, when you are trying to use a stated probability to prove requisite conditions.

You are getting the most basic principles of science and maths backwards.

 

[manifesto]

I'll repeat it for you.... again. Perhaps I will get through your shield of selective deafness this time.

If that was all too confusing for you I will summarize the facts...

a. Officer McLain turned the corner into Houston 2.6 seconds (48 Z frames) after H648/Z162.
b. That puts McLain entering Houston at Z210 (Z162 + 48)
c. For the acoustic theory to work, the shooting has to start at exactly Z175
d. At Z175, McLain was making the turn from Main into Houston

ergo: McLain was at least the length of Houston away from Elm... he had to be beyond the turn into Elm when the shooting started.

You did not answer my question. I’ll try once more:

- So, when does she [Mrs. Kennedy] climb up onto the trunk?

Keen to give an answer?

Its four rife shots according to the HSCA , but otherwise correct

Yes, it is four shots according to Blakeys editing of the BBN/W&A joint investigion of the acoustic evidence, yes. But if you look inside their report it says five matching impulse patterns to five test shots from rifle firing from TSBD and the knoll. All five with a binary correlation of 0.6 - 0.8 which spells, s i g n i f i c a n c e.

The reason for excluding the third shot is stated as it couldn’t possibly have been a rifle shot since it was only 1.1 seconds after the second shot and therefore couldn’t have been fired by Oswald since it took a minimum of 1.6 seconds to reload and shoot again (it actually took 2.2 seconds).

This is not derived from the acoustic evidence on the dictabelt, this is circular reasoning a la Robert Blakey, who had a mental blockage in his cognitive faculties making it impossible for him to alter his religious conviction that Oswald assassinated JFK. Preconcieved ideas trumphs the science.

No, there is no scientific reason to exclude the third shot, only irrational politicio/religious beliefs.

Wrong. The echo patterns being recordings of the gunshots is CONDITIONAL ON THE OPEN MIC BEING IN ALL THE RIGHT PLACES AT ALL THE RIGHT TIMES. That has not yet been shown in evidence.

It doesn’t matter if you are screaming, it is still bad thinking. No, the acoustic evidence stands on its own legs, so to speak. That is, it doesn’t need conclusive evidence from other sources in order to show a conclusive P-value.

If you are disputing its findings you basicly have two options:

- Show that the studie in itself is in error, that some mistake have been made.

- Show other types of evidence, for instance in the photographic record, that conclusively shows that the conclusions drawn from the acoustic evidence is in error.

That is, even if it turns out that the five rifle shots are just random static, the P-value for this doesn’t change. Freak statistical events have happened before and will happen again.

No. The HSCA was wrong. They made assumptions that were wrong.

What assumtions? Name them one by one and explain how they are wrong.

They drew conclusions that were wrong.

Agree. The HSCA = Robert Blakey drew conclusions not supported by BBN/W&A’s report, correct.

Anything else?

They used 1976 techniques to analyse 1963 radio technology. What we have now is a million times more sophisticated and more accurate than even the best technology available in 1976. The HSCA findings have been superseded and thoroughly debunked.

Good. Where can I find these studies based on these ”million times more sophisticated technology”, and could you please sum up their findings?

Its four rifle shots,

So, you agree with Blakey that Oswald couldn’t possibly have been able to fire, reload, and fire again in 1.1 second and that the third shot should be named a ”false positive” because of this?

Really?

and its only if the open mic was in the right places at the right times.

The scientific investigation of the ca five minutes long DPD dictabelt recording from cha-1 covering the assassination of JFK shows an open mike on a police motorcycle being at the right places at the right times with a probability for not being so P = 1/100 000.

Until someone proves otherwise, this is scientific proof of five rifle shots being fired at Dealey Plaza when the actual shooting took place.

Do you have similar or even stronger evidence to the contrary?

Show them.

No, it doesn't. It actually shows the opposite, as has been explained to you several times.

This is the key issue so far, correct. You have to show that McLain couldn’t possibly have reached the spot for his mike to pick up the sound from the first shot.

I’m still waiting.

If you cannot prove that the said motorcycle was in the right places at the right times, then the acoustic theory fails.

Wrong. The acoustic evidence PROVE that some bike with an open mike, picked up the sound from five rifle shots during the actual shooting in the Dealey Plaza.

If you have evidence to the contrary, you have to present them.

No. YOU have the burden to prove that the said motorcycle was where YOU claim it was.

Again, the acoustic evidence proves that SOME bike with an open mike picked up the sound from five rifle shots = was where it had to be in order for this to happen.

If you have conclusive evidence to the contrary, refuting the acoustic evidence, you have to present it here.

I can’t do it for you. Until you do this, the acoustic evidence stands.

Inference is not evidence

I have proved beyond any reasonable doubt that McLain was at the latest, making (or about to make) the turn from Main into Houston when the first shot was fired... ergo, the acoustic theory fails on it face.

No, you have not. You have presented your own private estimates guided by a firm belief in the Mighty Church of the Lone Nut.

Let me know when you have conclusive scientific evidence of McLain NOT being able to reach the spot for picking up the sound from the first shot.

And no, you will not find it in Dale Myers travesty on real science. You have to look elsewhere.

I might ask you the same question. All your contributions so far are faith-based dogma, using Loony Tunes JFK CT websites the source for your Holy Scripture.

I’m using the scientific report produced by the two at the time world leading expert teams in ballistic acoustics.

You are using a report written by an illustrator committing proven scientific fraud when calling his private eye-balling ”epipolar geometry”.

So, so far, who is the ”faith based dogma”-person? You, or me?

Shape up.

 

[Tomtomkent]

But if you look inside their report it says five matching impulse patterns to five test shots from rifle firing from TSBD and the knoll. All five with a binary correlation of 0.6 - 0.8 which spells, s i g n i f i c a n c e.

And what do those values mean if the microphone was not in the right place at the right time? If the microphone fails to be at any, or all, the required positions?

You can keep repeating the above, but it will only further convince the rest of us participating in the thread that you don't understand it.

Those values are significant *if* certain circumstances are correct.
The study makes no secret of this fact, and states the conditions plainly.

 

[manifesto]

Please don’t call others a fool, when you are trying to use a stated probability to prove requisite conditions.

You are getting the most basic principles of science and maths backwards.

The scientific investigation of the dictabelt recording shows evidence of a bike with a stuck mike picking up the sound from five rifle shots fired in Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination. It shows that the bike with the mike WAS at the right places at the right times to pick up said sound.

To state that the acoustic evidence for this is ”conditioned” on a bike with an open mike actually being at the right places at the right times is to state a tautology.

- ’The evidence of a bike with an open mike at the right places at the right times is conditioned on this being so.’

Shape up.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Wrong. The acoustic evidence PROVE that some bike with an open mike, picked up the sound from five rifle shots during the actual shooting in the Dealey Plaza.

No. It really doesn't.
It does not claim to be proof, nor does it state that any old bike, anywhere in the plaza, with an open mic, will do.

It recognises sets of pulses that it believes will match, with a degree of accuracy, the patterns of rifle shots, if an open mic was picking up sounds, from set waypoints, at exact times, where topographical features matched the behaviour of the sound waves.

There are, however, caveats. The most basic of which you are not able to show was met.

 

[Tomtomkent]

The scientific investigation of the dictabelt recording shows evidence of a bike with a stuck mike picking up the sound from five rifle shots fired in Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination. It shows that the bike with the mike WAS at the right places at the right times to pick up said sound.

To state that the acoustic evidence for this is ”conditioned” on a bike with an open mike actually being at the right places at the right times is to state a tautology.

- ’The evidence of a bike with an open mike at the right places at the right times is conditioned on this being so.’

Shape up.

Firstly, I think the term you intended to put in quotation marks was conditional up, not conditioned on.

Secondly, for the tautology to be true, you would first have to be correct about what the report actually claims, and what it proves.

Try answering the following:

Did the test first establish the location of the microphone then identify pulses that were rifle shots, then test those shots match the location?

Or did it first identify likely rifle shots, then establish the location of the microphone to validate those shots?

Or did it establish first, the likely gunshots, then deduce the circumstances that were required for those pulses to be gunshots based on how they best matched the topography?

Then explain how much wriggle room you think there is for the location of the microphone. Is it meters? Tens of meters? Hundreds?

How much do you think the probability changes in this wriggle room? A few percent? A fraction of a percent? Tens of percent?