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

[smartcooky]

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

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

Asked and answered

Here
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12281176&postcount=2314

And here
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12280226&postcount=2280

And here
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12280224&postcount=2279

And here
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12280188&postcount=2276

And here
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12280046&postcount=2268

And here
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12278662&postcount=2213

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.

Significance requires the motorcycle with the open mic to be in the right places at the right times. So far, NO ONE has provided any e v i d e n c e that this is the case.

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).

All irrelevant, since only three shots or less were heard according to over 90% of the witnesses

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.

A conclusive P value is dependent on the motorcycle with the open mic being in the right places at the right times. So far, NO ONE has provided any e v i d e n c e that this is the case.

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.

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

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

Anything else?

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

There are no studies, because they are unnecessary... we have something much better than using 55 year old worn copies of copies of copies of obsolete dictabelt recordings. What we have is the ability to employ modern, sophisticated computer graphic imaging techniques to use the amateur films as the basis for creating a very accurate 3D computer graphical representation of what actually happened in Dealey Plaza in 11/22/1963. This was not possible in 1976. They had to guess where McLain was at the time of the first and subsequent shots. The work of Dale Myers, an award winning digital animator who actually uses these techniques (not a bug watcher outside of his field, and out of his depth) allows us to KNOW where McLain and all the other players were. His paper conclusively shows that the guesswork of the HSCA's acoustics experts was a long, long way in error.

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?

No, I'm saying the original HSCA findings claimed four shots. I still think its fiction! Your fifth shot is more fiction. I know that there were only three shots fired, and all three were fired from the sixth floor of the TSBD by Lee Harvey Oswald.

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.

The P value is dependent on the motorcycle with the open mic being in the right places at the right times. So far, NO ONE has provided any e v i d e n c e that this is the case.

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

Only if the motorcycle with the open mic is in the right places at the right times. So far, NO ONE has provided any e v i d e n c e that this is the case.

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.

The acoustic evidence is only valid if the motorcycle with the open mic is in the right places at the right times. So far, NO ONE has provided any e v i d e n c e that this is the case.

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.

Again, this is only true if the motorcycle with the open mic is in the right places at the right times. So far, NO ONE has provided any e v i d e n c e that this is the case.

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.

Its your burden to prove that the motorcycle with the open mic being in the right places at the right times. So far, NO ONE has provided any e v i d e n c e that this is the case.

 

[manifesto]

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

Que?

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

No, it doesn’t matter when adressing the faulty logic of your argument. Try again.

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?

- Before testing they made a preliminary screening of the recording stating five strict criteria as filter for possible candidates.

- When finding five impulse patterns that fitted the five criteria, they desided to do testing on the ground in Dealey Plaza.

- They placed arrays of microphones from the end of Houston through the intersection continuing down Elm Street based on the only possible area for motorcycles to have been able to pick up the sounds from the candidate rifle shots.

- They did test shootings with a Carcano rifle from the snipers nest in TSBD and from the picket fence on the knoll, because these two positions was most frequently named as the source of the shots reported by witnesses.

- After test shooting they matched five test shots to the five candidates on the dictabelt with a binary coefficient of 0.6-0.8 for each match where 0.6 is a significant match according to scientific standard.

- Most important, the matching shots followed the pattern-sequence on the dictabelt in perfect topographical order, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. And, the average speed between pattern one to five was ca 11 mph, equaling the average speed of the motorcade on Elm Street.

- Faced with the political implications of a shot from in front on the knoll, they decided to make additional sonar analysis of said shot and contacted W&A from Queens College, NY.

- W&A reviewed the earlier findings by BBN and found it correct and after doing a sonar analysis of the shot from the knoll decided that it was a certain match = 95%.

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

Max 9 ft. It is stated in the report.

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

There are instances where more than one microphone matched a rifle shot which is expected since the bike with the mike couldn’t be pinponted exactly where it was when picking up the sound. So, they picked the mike with greatest binary coefficient = closest to where the stucked mike had picked up the sound.

 

[manifesto]

That was not your contention,

Yes, that exactly was and is my ”contention”. It is impossible for McLain to stand still halfway through Houston seeing Mrs. Kennedy on the limo trunk and after that be the Dorman cop arriving at the intersection when same Mrs. Kennedy is just beginning to climb up onto said trunk.

You have to make a choice. McLain stops halfway on Huouston OR McLain is the Dorman cop.

No matter what you chose, McLain is a liar.

and it doesn't matter if the Dorman MC was McLain or anybody.

Yes it does:

1. It shows McLain being a liar.

2. If McLain is NOT the Dorman cop, Courson is and that in turn positions McLain exactly where the stuck mike is positioning him, down Elm Street beyond the spot where said mike is picking up the sound from the last rifle shot fired at JFK.

The stuck mike was not at the scene of the assassination, something I suggested many pages before and yo ignored it.

Based on what?

Now others with more modern techniques and going or all the testimony, listening to all the tape precludes any open mike in Dealey Plaza.

What?

But there are overlapping sequences, you just refuse to understand or how it is done.

No, there is no undisputed overlapping film between Hughes and Zapruder and therefore no possibility to conclusively synchronize them and see how many seconds McLain had at his disposal from the Main/Houston intersection to the spot for picking up the sound of the first shot.

It could be anything in between at least 1 to 6 seconds, well within the limits for McLain being able to reach the spot without racing his machine.

I'm currently but, but rest assure I link it this afternoon.

Yes, do that.

See above.

See what?

You sling insults well but ad hominem.

I respond in kind.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Que?

You are talking about what probabilities mean.
You should know the difference between "conditioned" by, and "conditional upon". It is rather basic.

No, it doesn’t matter when adressing the faulty logic of your argument. Try again.

It most certainly does matter if the tautology is a correct phrasing of my argument or not.
It most certainly does matter if you understand the argument you are trying to phrase as a tautology, or not.
If you don't understand the argument, you are not basing your 'logic' upon it.

- Before testing they made a preliminary screening of the recording stating five strict criteria as filter for possible candidates.

- When finding five impulse patterns that fitted the five criteria, they desided to do testing on the ground in Dealey Plaza.

- They placed arrays of microphones from the end of Houston through the intersection continuing down Elm Street based on the only possible area for motorcycles to have been able to pick up the sounds from the candidate rifle shots.

So they are covering a wide spread of locations, because they are unaware of the location of the open mic.

- They did test shootings with a Carcano rifle from the snipers nest in TSBD and from the picket fence on the knoll, because these two positions was most frequently named as the source of the shots reported by witnesses.

So the tests are limited in scope. They are ONLY looking for the conditions in which a positive match can be made. They are not looking for all possible explanations of the impulses.

- After test shooting they matched five test shots to the five candidates on the dictabelt with a binary coefficient of 0.6-0.8 for each match where 0.6 is a significant match according to scientific standard.

And this is where YOUR understanding fails.
You are claiming those matches prove the impulse patterns are significant, ergo the motorcycle recorded them in the right place, at the right time.

This is both foolish and wrong.

The results show that *IF* a motorcycle was as at five set points, at five set times, the impulses match a rifle with a high level of significance.

The 1 in 100,000 you keep quoting is based on the probability of a rifle being the cause of the sound at each of those points stacked together.

You seem to be claiming it is a conclusion of the report that the open mic WAS at each location, for each shots.

This is exactly wrong.

Each impulse pattern becomes significant ONLY when the base assumptions, (that the open mic was recording during the shooting and not sixty seconds later, that the open mic was in each of the five positions, at each significant time) is proven. They are not.

They can not be assumed to be correct, based on the report. The report does not claim they can be assumed. The report does not claim to prove the base assumptions were correct.

You have not shown ANY base assumption to be correct.

- Most important, the matching shots followed the pattern-sequence on the dictabelt in perfect topographical order, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. And, the average speed between pattern one to five was ca 11 mph, equaling the average speed of the motorcade on Elm Street.

And this, again, poses a further problem to you.
The probability you cite relies heavily on the base assumptions matching the topography.

There is little or no wriggle room.

The findings are ONLY significant when they can be matched to the topography.

You seem to claim this means a rifle is the ONLY plausible explanation. Not so. It is the only SIGNIFICANT explanation, but if the base assumptions of that significant can not be met, there are an untold number of insignificant explanations. It could, to all intents and purposes, be anything.

Indeed, without the base assumptions being proven, the impulses are indistinguishable from other impulse patterns on the same recordings, and could have been caused by any of the other plausible sources.

- Faced with the political implications of a shot from in front on the knoll, they decided to make additional sonar analysis of said shot and contacted W&A from Queens College, NY.

- W&A reviewed the earlier findings by BBN and found it correct and after doing a sonar analysis of the shot from the knoll decided that it was a certain match = 95%.

Which still relies on the base assumptions.
They can only test if the rifle *would be* a viable source of the impulses *if* the statements in the initial report are correct.

Max 9 ft. It is stated in the report.

And if you are unable to show (not assume) a microphone was within 9' of each and every waypoint?
So far, you have been unable, even with your best efforts to show the officer in question had the time required to reach the first waypoint, from the position known from multiple sources of filmed footage.

There are instances where more than one microphone matched a rifle shot which is expected since the bike with the mike couldn’t be pinponted exactly where it was when picking up the sound. So, they picked the mike with greatest binary coefficient = closest to where the stucked mike had picked up the sound.

And you claimed the location of the microphone was a scientific finding?
How can you, in good conscience, claim to understand the fudging of the figures to give the highest possible significance, and also claim it was it was a finding of the test that the microphone *was* in the right place, at the right time?

 

[Tomtomkent]

A brief fable about the importance of base assumptions:

Once upon a time there was well known trophy hunter who, with exclusive coverage from a popular British newspaper, was going to prove the existence of the Loch Ness monster.

He set baited traps, and arranged cameras to watch the few areas that a predatory animal the size of Nessie, would have to, by necessity of survival, visit often.

After some days, large marking in sand and mud were found, that looked, to the hunter's eyes, like footprints.

Now, science can tell a lot from footprints. By careful measurements, one can calculate the size, body length, weight and probable height of the creature. The hunter, and his associates were able to extrapolate, all of these and more. The probability of there being an unknown apex predator in the Loch, with a size and weight not unlike that of a dinosaur was so large it was a certainty, far more certain than any other outcome...
*IF* the marks were footprints.

That is to say, *if* the base assumption, that there was a single creature leaving those tracks, was correct.

Then a problem arose. The prints were all left by the same foot.
Not a creature with four, feet, but... the same foot, with the same toes, and the same markings on the sole.

It was discovered, eventually, that locals had "borrowed" an umbrella stand made from an elephant's foot from the pub, and left the tracks.

How is this relevant?

Because, in the scenario of the acoustic evidence, our sauropod is the placement of the motorcycles, and the start time of the recording. Our footprints are the impulse patterns deemed to be significant.

Significance was not determined by the calculations. The calculations were made based on tests that assumed significance. In other words: it was assumed the footprints were left by Nessie, and the tests were done to find where he had to be standing at the time, to leave those prints.

It can not be assumed the motorcycle was in the right place *because* the acoustic pattern then fits the five shots.

It must be *shown* a motorcycle was within nine feet, for pattern to match five shots with such a high probability.

Getting this back to front, and claiming it is logical, is intellectually dishonest. It is misrepresenting the data, and doing a did-service to those who compiled it.

 

[RoboTimbo]

And no, no ”multiple studies” has shown this being incorrect.

I'm sure you agree this is an idiotic thing to say since multiple studies have proved the HSCA got it wrong.

You still have the burden of proof.

 

[smartcooky]

You are talking about what probabilities mean.
You should know the difference between "conditioned" by, and "conditional upon". It is rather basic.


It most certainly does matter if the tautology is a correct phrasing of my argument or not.
It most certainly does matter if you understand the argument you are trying to phrase as a tautology, or not.
If you don't understand the argument, you are not basing your 'logic' upon it.



So they are covering a wide spread of locations, because they are unaware of the location of the open mic.

So the tests are limited in scope. They are ONLY looking for the conditions in which a positive match can be made. They are not looking for all possible explanations of the impulses.


And this is where YOUR understanding fails.
You are claiming those matches prove the impulse patterns are significant, ergo the motorcycle recorded them in the right place, at the right time.

This is both foolish and wrong.

The results show that *IF* a motorcycle was as at five set points, at five set times, the impulses match a rifle with a high level of significance.

The 1 in 100,000 you keep quoting is based on the probability of a rifle being the cause of the sound at each of those points stacked together.

You seem to be claiming it is a conclusion of the report that the open mic WAS at each location, for each shots.

This is exactly wrong.

Each impulse pattern becomes significant ONLY when the base assumptions, (that the open mic was recording during the shooting and not sixty seconds later, that the open mic was in each of the five positions, at each significant time) is proven. They are not.

They can not be assumed to be correct, based on the report. The report does not claim they can be assumed. The report does not claim to prove the base assumptions were correct.

You have not shown ANY base assumption to be correct.



And this, again, poses a further problem to you.
The probability you cite relies heavily on the base assumptions matching the topography.

There is little or no wriggle room.

The findings are ONLY significant when they can be matched to the topography.

You seem to claim this means a rifle is the ONLY plausible explanation. Not so. It is the only SIGNIFICANT explanation, but if the base assumptions of that significant can not be met, there are an untold number of insignificant explanations. It could, to all intents and purposes, be anything.

Indeed, without the base assumptions being proven, the impulses are indistinguishable from other impulse patterns on the same recordings, and could have been caused by any of the other plausible sources.



Which still relies on the base assumptions.
They can only test if the rifle *would be* a viable source of the impulses *if* the statements in the initial report are correct.


And if you are unable to show (not assume) a microphone was within 9' of each and every waypoint?
So far, you have been unable, even with your best efforts to show the officer in question had the time required to reach the first waypoint, from the position known from multiple sources of filmed footage.


And you claimed the location of the microphone was a scientific finding?
How can you, in good conscience, claim to understand the fudging of the figures to give the highest possible significance, and also claim it was it was a finding of the test that the microphone *was* in the right place, at the right time?

Thank you for that very erudite and comprehensive explanation (I'm guessing you are some sort of statistics analyst?)

If I understand you correctly, this whole acoustical study looks an awful lot like some sort of technical "Texas Sharpshooter" fallacy.

You have a small grouping of four or five holes in the barn door (the recording), you had no idea where the shots were landing (you don't know where the motorcycles are) but you draw a circle around the grouping (place microphones in the correct places) and claim you're a great shot.

 

[manifesto]

You are talking about what probabilities mean.
You should know the difference between "conditioned" by, and "conditional upon". It is rather basic.

Of course I do, but you wrote:

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

So, why do you write ”up”? If your intention is to convay the word ”upon”? Playing games?

It’s ”conditioned upon”, btw, if you are uncertain of what I mean.

It most certainly does matter if the tautology is a correct phrasing of my argument or not.
It most certainly does matter if you understand the argument you are trying to phrase as a tautology, or not.
If you don't understand the argument, you are not basing your 'logic' upon it.

You are claiming that the acoustic evidence is conditioned upon a mike actually being at the right places at the right times.

This is the equivalent of stating 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.’

If not, explain.

So they are covering a wide spread of locations, because they are unaware of the location of the open mic.

They knew the aproximate area where the open mike had to have been traveling in order to pick up sounds of rifle fire at the time period around the shooting at the president traveling down Elm Street.

So the tests are limited in scope.

Limited by known parameters, yes.

They are ONLY looking for the conditions in which a positive match can be made.

Wrong. Before preliminary screening in the laboratory they used five strict criteria stemming from known facts of the assassination and Dealey Plaza. After this they screened the whole ca 5 minutes long recording, finding five impulse patterns matching all five criteria.

Next step was to see if these five impulse patterns, who passed the preliminary screening, was actually echo patterns from rifle shots fired in Dealey Plaza.

They are not looking for all possible explanations of the impulses.

Do you know of any at the time plausible sounds on Dealey Plaza that could be mistaken for rifle shots? Any ideas?

And this is where YOUR understanding fails.
You are claiming those matches prove the impulse patterns are significant, ergo the motorcycle recorded them in the right place, at the right time.

This is both foolish and wrong.

The results show that *IF* a motorcycle was as at five set points, at five set times, the impulses match a rifle with a high level of significance.

Wrong. Same logical falacy as above.

The scientific results from the investigation of the dictabelt show that the open mike on the bike picked up the echo patterns from five rifle shots in Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination of JFK.

To condition this with *IF* is like saying that the acoustic evidence shows that the open mike picked up the sound from five rifle shots *IF* the open mike picked up the sound from five rifle shots.

IT IS a tautology!

The 1 in 100,000 you keep quoting is based on the probability of a rifle being the cause of the sound at each of those points stacked together.

- P = 1/100 000 for the shot from the knoll being random static/noise.

- Binary correlation of 0.6 - 0.8 of each and every one of the other four shots = significant match.

- The five impulse patterns was in perfect topographical order = 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.

- The average speed between the first and the last pattern = 11 mph = the motorcade.

It is these factors taken together that pretty much states a scientific established fact.

You seem to be claiming it is a conclusion of the report that the open mic WAS at each location, for each shots.

This is exactly wrong.

Each impulse pattern becomes significant ONLY when the base assumptions, (that the open mic was recording during the shooting and not sixty seconds later, that the open mic was in each of the five positions, at each significant time) is proven. They are not.

Same tautolgical reasoning again.

- The acoustic evidence that shows that the open mike was att the five places at the right times to pick up the sounds from the five rifle shots is significant ONLY if this is so.

Don’t you get it?

They can not be assumed to be correct, based on the report. The report does not claim they can be assumed. The report does not claim to prove the base assumptions were correct.

You have not shown ANY base assumption to be correct.

The only assumtion was that the ca five minutes long recording could contain sounds from the shooting since it covers the time period. It starts ca 2 minutes before the shooting and stops ca 3 minutes after.

The following scientific joint investigation showed that this was the case. Five rifle shots were detected with more than statistical significance. See above.

And this, again, poses a further problem to you.
The probability you cite relies heavily on the base assumptions matching the topography.

There is little or no wriggle room.

The findings are ONLY significant when they can be matched to the topography.

Correct. If the topographical order in the data had been all over the place the conclusion would have been that the individual matches was false positives = random static/noise.

Considering the very low probability for this being the case it would have been a statistical anomaly worthy of Guinness Book of World Records.

You seem to claim this means a rifle is the ONLY plausible explanation. Not so. It is the only SIGNIFICANT explanation, but if the base assumptions of that significant can not be met, there are an untold number of insignificant explanations. It could, to all intents and purposes, be anything.

No it couldn’t. The only known candidate is static and this has to be weighed according to meassured probability, which is hysterically low. See above.

Indeed, without the base assumptions being proven, the impulses are indistinguishable from other impulse patterns on the same recordings, and could have been caused by any of the other plausible sources.

No. You are showing severe signs of lacking in two essential conditions:

1. Basic understanding of logic = tautology.

2. Basic understanding of the HSCA acoustic evidence as shown in its report.

Shape up, or be silent.

Which still relies on the base assumptions.
They can only test if the rifle *would be* a viable source of the impulses *if* the statements in the initial report are correct.

Wrong. They found five patterns matching their five criteria stipulated in their preliminary screening. To see if these five patterns really was five rifle shots and if so, from where they had been fired, they did testing on the ground in Dealey Plaza showing that this actually was the case.

Science, not ”base assumtions”.

And if you are unable to show (not assume) a microphone was within 9' of each and every waypoint?

The binary correlation in each of the five matching rifle shots shows this being the case.

So far, you have been unable, even with your best efforts to show the officer in question had the time required to reach the first waypoint, from the position known from multiple sources of filmed footage.

I have showed you two things:

1. Myers committed scientific fraud when calling his eye-balling ”epipolar geometry”.

2. The lack of secured synchronisation between Hughes and Zapruder makes it impossible to conclusively determine the exact time frame at McLains disposal for reaching the spot where the open mike according to the acoustic evidence picked up the sound from the first rifle shot.

It could be anywhere in between at least 1 to 6 seconds and therefore giving McLain ample time to reach the spot in time.

That is, the photographic record does not conclusively refute the acoustic evidence.

And you claimed the location of the microphone was a scientific finding?
How can you, in good conscience, claim to understand the fudging of the figures to give the highest possible significance, and also claim it was it was a finding of the test that the microphone *was* in the right place, at the right time?

What ”fudging” of what ”figures”? What on earth are you talking about?

The acoustic evidence says that the open mike picking up the sound on the ca 5 minutes long dictabelt recording is picking up the sounds from five rifle shots during the critical time period of the assassination.

This translates to that the acoustic evidence shows that the open mike was at the right places at the right times picking up the sound from the five rifle shots.

Your ”conditioned upon” is a nonsense tautology. Your ”base asumtions” stems from ignorance of how the investigation was done.

Shape up, dude. I mean it.

 

[manifesto]

I'm sure you agree this is an idiotic thing to say since multiple studies have proved the HSCA got it wrong.

You still have the burden of proof.

Your little blue smileys stalking me in the thread are signs of an idiot, aren’t they?

 

[bknight]

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.

Actually a better conditional is IFF(If and only If) the condition(s) is/are met.

 

[manifesto]

Actually a better conditional is IFF(If and only If) the condition(s) is/are met.

You too are jumping on to the tautological band wagon with a double tautology:

- The acoustic evidence shows that the open mike picked up the sounds from five rifle shots in Dealey Plaza If and only If the open mike picked up the sounds from five rifle shots i Dealey Plaza.

It is so only if it is so.

Lol.

 

[RoboTimbo]

<TS DR>

The acoustic evidence

Has been debunked numerous times. The ball is still in your court.

 

[bknight]

manifesto

Originally Posted by bknight View Post
That was not your contention,
Yes, that exactly was and is my ”contention”. It is impossible for McLain to stand still halfway through Houston seeing Mrs. Kennedy on the limo trunk and after that be the Dorman cop arriving at the intersection when same Mrs. Kennedy is just beginning to climb up onto said trunk.

You have to make a choice. McLain stops halfway on Huouston OR McLain is the Dorman cop.

No matter what you chose, McLain is a liar.

Look at the following comment NO open mic was in Dealey Plaza

Quote:
and it doesn't matter if the Dorman MC was McLain or anybody.
Yes it does:

1. It shows McLain being a liar.

2. If McLain is NOT the Dorman cop, Courson is and that in turn positions McLain exactly where the stuck mike is positioning him, down Elm Street beyond the spot where said mike is picking up the sound from the last rifle shot fired at JFK.

You are beating a dead horse, the recent findings preclude an open mic in Dealey Plaza.

Quote:
The stuck mike was not at the scene of the assassination, something I suggested many pages before and yo ignored it.
Based on what?

Based on listening to the whole loop not just a few seconds, reading all the statements from all the MC, Give it up the dictabelt didn't record any shots. False science in the 70's is false science.

Quote:
Now others with more modern techniques and going or all the testimony, listening to all the tape precludes any open mike in Dealey Plaza.
What?

Read above it is fairly easy reading

Quote:
But there are overlapping sequences, you just refuse to understand or how it is done.
No, there is no undisputed overlapping film between Hughes and Zapruder and therefore no possibility to conclusively synchronize them and see how many seconds McLain had at his disposal from the Main/Houston intersection to the spot for picking up the sound of the first shot.

Your contention, but not backed up by anything except your speculation

It could be anything in between at least 1 to 6 seconds, well within the limits for McLain being able to reach the spot without racing his machine.

Speculation

Quote:
I'm currently but, but rest assure I link it this afternoon.
Yes, do that.


Quote:
See above.
See what?


Quote:
You sling insults well but ad hominem.
I respond in kind.

I have never put an ad hominem toward you, but rest assure, should you do it to me again I will report that post.

 

[bknight]

You too are jumping on to the tautological band wagon with a double tautology:

- The coustic evidence shows that the open mike picked up the sounds from five rifle shots in Dealey Plaza If and only If the open mike picked up the sounds from five rifle shots i Dealey Plaza.

It is so only if it is so.

Lol.

No open mic was in Dealey Plaza therefore your contention fails.

 

[traxy]

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.

Since I know you won't actually follow the link, here you go.

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

Although Thomas [5] based his article in part on the analysis
of the NRC report, he primarily used the portions pertaining
to the Bowles copy of the Gray Audograph recording. The
Bowles copy contains many repeats, and the NRC considered
it to be less reliable than the FBI copy that was primarily used
by the NRC. In analyzing this data, Thomas made the following
errors.

(1) Thomas ([5], p. 29) states: “The NRC panel failed to recognize
the synchronization that arises from using the Bellah
cross-talk episode because instead of using real time to compare
the two tapes they used artificial time, what they referred
to as ‘channel one’ time. Because they used artificial time instead
of real time, they failed to recognize the need to correct
for the warp in tape speed.” This statement is incorrect. The
NRC panel not only recognized the synchronization from the
Bellah crosstalk (i.e., the “YOU ... Stemmons” utterance),
but devoted most of the report’s 20-page Appendix C to that
crosstalk. As discussed earlier in this paper, there are several
different possible time scales that are equally valid if used
consistently, as was done in the NRC report. Since the Channel
1 recorder had no interruptions, Channel 1 playback time
can be converted directly to “actual time” by multiplying by
the time correction factor K. Finally, the NRC panel not only
recognized the warp in tape speed, but also corrected for it as
appropriate.

(2) Thomas ([5], p. 29) states: “Thus if one uses the Bellah
cross-talk to synchronize the transmissions of the two police
channels, instead of the Decker calls, then the putative
gunshots exactly overlap the interval of time defined by Chief
Curry’s two broadcasts and occur at the exact instant that
John F Kennedy was assassinated.” He reaches this conclusion
by using NRC report Table C-1 entries that state that
the Channel 2 playback time from GO to YOU with repeats
subtracted is 180 s, whereas the Channel 1 playback time
from the alleged shots to YOU is 171 s. He then assumes
(in our notation) a speed correction factor of K = 1.05 for
Channel 1. His argument also implicitly depends on assuming
K = 1.00 for Channel 2. He therefore finds the Channel 1
recording time interval from the “shots” to YOU to be 179 s,
in agreement with the Channel 2 recording time interval of
180 s from GO to YOU. However, there are three flaws in
this analysis (see “Results” above). First, the NRC erred in
subtracting the full 18 s for repeats and almost all of this time,
say 14 s, should be added back in. Second, the implicit assumption
that K = 1.00 is unwarranted. (One might expect,
or implicitly use, a value of 1.00 because Bowles used the
same Gray Audograph for playback and recording. But this
would not be true if the Audograph speed during playback
differed from what it was at the much earlier time of the original
recording.) Third, we have determined that K1 = 1.01,
K2 = 1.07, and K3 = 1.01. With all these corrections, the
recording time from GO to YOU on Channel 2 is (see Table 1
and results above) 210.8 s using Track 7, and 212.3 s using
Tracks 2 and 3, whereas the recording time from the first alleged
shots to YOU on Channel 1 is 179.5 s using Track 1, and
181.0 s using Track 5. The first alleged shots are thus placed
at approximately 31 s, plus Channel 2 dead time, after the
assassination.

...The dispatcher’s time annotations indeed provide an important
test since any valid time calibration should be compatible
with the time annotations, but the time annotations by themselves
do not provide reliable time calibrations. As long as
the possibility of dead times exist, one must make specific
assumptions about the dead times to get a calibration. The assumption
that the Channel 2 dead times between annotations
are zero (or negligibly small) is just as specific an assumption
as saying that they are, for example, 20 and 10 s, as discussed
below. To favor one time calibration over another, the investigator
must show that one regression analysis is better than the
other to a statistically significant extent, and this was not done.
We have shown that time scales with sufficient allowable dead
times are compatible with the data.

(4) Thomas ([5], pp. 29–30) uses his claim of no significant
dead time [item (3) above] to argue that the HOLD utterance
cannot be valid for synchronizing the two channels,
stating: “Because the regression analysis [of the dispatcher’s
time annotations] shows that no time is missing from the relevant
section of the Channel 2 tape, then the fragment from
Sheriff Decker’s broadcast is only explained by the overdub hypothesis.” [”Overdub” here means that the utterance on
Channel 1 appears on the recording medium in the incorrect
location, as “the result of the recording stylus jumping
backward in its track.”] We have shown above that, on the
contrary, since the dispatcher’s annotations are indeed consistent
with various amounts of dead time (as shown above),
Sheriff Decker’s broadcast (“HOLD”) can thus be explained
as a normal properly located crosstalk similar to other established
crosstalks such as YOU. We now show, furthermore,
that Thomas’ “overdub” argument, taken together with his
assertion of the validity of the CHECK crosstalk, lead to an
arithmetic contradiction.

We identify the following elements that are directly stated
or implied by Thomas’ scenario in which an “overdub” of
HOLD occurs, and the alleged shots precede “Go to the hospital”
in actual time: (a) The acoustic image of the HOLD
utterance on Channel 1 is positioned earlier on the recording
medium than it should have been, owing to a stylus skipback
on Channel 1. The time of the utterance that would be inferred
from its position is therefore earlier than the actual time of the
HOLD utterance, by an amount we will refer to as “SB” seconds
of actual time (“SB” denoting “skipback”). (b) YOU is a
valid “time tie” for synchronizing the two channels. In addition:
(c) Thomas (personal communication, 2002) and others
(e.g., Bowles [11]) have claimed that CHECK (on Channel 2)
and CHECK1 (on Channel 1) constitute a “time tie” – that is,
their locations on the recording media correspond to the same
actual time.
We use only time intervals (between events on the same track)
as shown in Table 1, which we derived only from playback
times andKvalues as computed above. We denote the Channel
2 dead time (if any) between CHECK and GO by “DTCG,”
and that between HOLD and YOU as “DTHY.” The actual
time corresponding to the distance between the “overdubbed”
acoustic image of HOLD on Track 1 (Channel 1) and YOU
on Track 1 is 173.0−0.1 = 172.9 s. Therefore the actual time
from the utterance HOLD to YOU is (172.9-SB) seconds. On
Track 7 (Channel 2) the recording time interval from HOLD
to YOU is 143.2 − 0.1 = 143.1 s. Therefore the actual time
from HOLD to YOU is (143.1 + DTHY) seconds. Equating
these two expressions yields SB = 172.9 − 143.1 − DTHY
= (29.8 − DTHY) seconds. That is, on this scenario SB
must be at most 29.8 s (since DTHY cannot be less than
zero).
Next, the Track 1 recording time from CHECK1 to the “overdubbed”
acoustic image of HOLD is 12.4 + 0.1 = 12.5 s.
Therefore the actual time from CHECK1 to the HOLD utterance
equals (12.5 + SB) seconds. On Track 7, the recording
time from CHECK to HOLD is 99.0 + 0.1 = 99.1 s. Therefore
the actual time from CHECK to HOLD is (99.1+DTCH)
seconds. Equating these two expressions yields: SB = 99.1−
12.5 + DTCH = (86.6 + DTCH) s. Therefore, SB must be at
least 86.6 s.
Since the two conclusions regarding SB in the previous two
paragraphs cannot both be true, and in fact contradict each
other by almost a full minute, the elements (a)–(c) above,
which constitute Thomas’ “overdub” scenario combined with
the assertion that CHECK is a valid “time tie,” cannot all be
correct

We have rebutted both the argument based on dispatcher time
annotations and that based on the “overdub” hypothesis. There is
every reason to believe that HOLD is a valid crosstalk. Especially
compelling is the observed suppression of some of the cross-talk
tones by strong heterodynes, proving that the crosstalk sounds arrived
at the recorder via the radio channel and were not recorded
later. The NRC report ([5], pp. 81–88) gives a number of reasons,
including the sound spectrogram in Figure 6, for favoring HOLD
as a genuine crosstalk. The validity of the HOLD crosstalk is further
supported by the existence of the Bell-b sounds in Tracks
7 and 2 at corresponding times (see “Results”). As we have
shown, using the HOLD synchronization the sounds alleged to be
the first shot were recorded approximately 61 s after “Go to the
hospital.”

And the coup de grace...

In this report we have not directly addressed Thomas’s calculation
of the likelihood that impulses on the recordings are from gunshots
and that there is a gunshot from the Grassy Knoll. Rather
we have shown that his assertion, that these impulses were simultaneous
with the assassination, is incorrect.

So much for that P = 1/100000 probability.

 

[RoboTimbo]

coustic [sic]

Debunked. The null remains unmoved.

 

[traxy]

Here is the overlap in Hughes and Zapruder in full motion. Watch the white car making the turn from Houston to Elm.

Hughes:

https://youtu.be/b9ZDVD-vq-w?t=41

Zapruder:

https://youtu.be/Sqk3sdfXFkc?t=9

and in slow motion

https://youtu.be/Sqk3sdfXFkc?t=55

 

[smartcooky]

The acoustic evidence says that the open mike picking up the sound on the ca 5 minutes long dictabelt recording is picking up the sounds from five rifle shots during the critical time period of the assassination.

NO!

The acoustic evidence says that the open mike picking up the sound on the ca 5 minutes long dictabelt recording is picking up sounds which could be, with a high degree of probability from five rifle shots during the critical time period of the assassination, if, and only if the motorcycle with the open mic is at the five designated locations at the time those sounds were recorded, i.e. the interpretation of those sounds as rifle shots is conditional upon the open mic being in the right places at the right times.

Those sounds are not proof that the open mic was in the right places at the right times. Such proof need to be shown independently, by other means.

If just one of the key mic positions does not have the open mic close (within 9 ft?) at the right time, the whole theory collapses because the recorded sound associated with that key position cannot be a rifle shot, and if it is not a rifle shot, then nor are any of the other recorded sounds.

Here are the five predicted microphone positions at Dealy Plaza

The five green dots indicate the five positions that the open mic must be at for the theory to work. Z175 is the first shot (according to the theory) so if Officer Mclain has the open mic, he has to be with 9 ft of No 1 green dot by then.

However, as we can see from H648 which sychronises with Z162, Officer McLain has not yet turned in to Houston from Main, with 13 frames of the Zapruder film (0.71 seconds) before the first shot at Z175, that's 0.71 seconds to turn into Houston and get all the way to the other end.

Oh, here he is, 2.6 seconds later at Z210... Oh dear... too late, the first sound has been recorded, and McLain was at least 90 feet short or where he needed to be.

But what if another officer had the open mic, couldn't he be the one? Sorry, but no. There were two other officers with McLain... they were Officer M. Baker and Officer JW Coulson; who were beside him and behind him respectively, and as we can see by looking at the H648 frame above, there are no other motorcycle officers all the way down Houston. The next one ahead of Mclain has already turned the corner into Elm; well past open mic position No. 1 by the time of the first shot at Z175.

The whole acoustic theory collapses.

 

[manifesto]

Has been debunked numerous times. The ball is still in your court.

What is your intent with your little blue idiots stalking me in the thread. Is it method in the madness?

 

[RoboTimbo]

, don't you find it interesting that you spend time talking about smiley's and not about the questions you've been asked?

Why did Oswald flee the TSBD after assassinating JFK, go on to murder Officer Tippitt and then attempt to murder more officers when he was cornered in the theater?