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

[manifesto]

Debunked. The null remains unmoved.

Have you ever considered the fact that you are the only person on the planet who believe that little blue idiot smileys is ”debunking” scientific evidence?

 

[manifesto]

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

No. You assume there is an overlap without conclusively showing so.

 

[manifesto]

manifesto


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

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

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.
Read above it is fairly easy reading

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

Speculation

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

Your quoting is a mess. Try again.

 

[traxy]

No. You assume there is an overlap without conclusively showing so.

I just conclusively showed it as so.

Links to both videos are provided directly to the synchronized location. The white SS follow up car is making the same turn from Houston to Elm simultaneously in both videos.

You have no specific objections to this. If you do, please detail what motion of the SS car is different between the 2 videos needed.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Have you ever considered the fact that you are the only person on the planet who believe that little blue idiot smileys is ”debunking” scientific evidence?

, those CT websites left you woefully lacking in knowledge about the JFK assassination. You knew nothing of all the debunkings that have occurred since the HSCA and now all you have to fall back on is child-like denial.

Don't be mad at the nice people here who are handing you your head about it and making you look foolish. Be mad at your CT websites which left you hanging.

 

[Whip]

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.

well, that and there actually being 5 shots. we know there were only 3 so it all ends right there.

 

[manifesto]

manifesto


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

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

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.
Read above it is fairly easy reading

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

Speculation

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

If you are calling my evidence and arguments for being ”a dead corpse” I respond in kind. Figure of speech = no problems with the evidence or arguments = problems with you and your evaluation of them.

 

[jeffas69]

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.

Even if someone can show Maclain being in the right position all four or even five times as you say this still only makes it a probability, just as Dr. Barger testified to. More conditions would then still have to be met to verify the acoustic evidence of another shooter.

They would then still have to show with a high degree of certainty:

1. That the open mic recording matches that of a two wheel motorcycle and not a three wheel motorcycle
2. That the RPM rate of the motorcycle in the recording matches Maclain's movements through the five minute period.
3. That the siren recording then matches Maclain's movement through their duration.
4. That Maclain was in a position near a radio broadcasting channel two during the three crosstalk events on channel one.
5. Some recordings of crowd noises on the five minute open mic recording on channel one that didn't come from a channel two broadcast.

Good Luck to them!

 

[bknight]

Your quoting is a mess. Try again.

You were the one, who started the twenty questions procedure, keep up.

A more recent analysis of the complete tape not just a few seconds, along with the statements of the MC precludes an open mic. in Dealey Plaza, it was at the trade mark.

 

[manifesto]

Even if someone can show Maclain being in the right position all four or even five times as you say this still only makes it a probability, just as Dr. Barger testified to. More conditions would then still have to be met to verify the acoustic evidence of another shooter.

All science are about probability. It is only in religion you are dealing with absolutes. As in the Mighty Church of the Lone Nut.

They would then still have to show with a high degree of certainty:

1. That the RPM rate of the motorcycle in the recording matches Maclain's movements through the five minute period.

Very differcult since it depends on gears and brakes. That said, a company called ”Sonolyst” did just that and tried to match rpm/dB too see if it matched the movements of the bike with the mike.

Since they plotted the data against the revised timeline from RNC which stated that the recording happened ca one minute after the assassination it naturally did not match. However when plotted to the timeline in the acoustic evidence it was a perfect match.

So, instead of ”debunking” the acoustic evidence, it further corroborated it.

2. That the siren recording then matches Maclain's movement through their duration.

There is nothing in the siren recording that preclude McLain from being the cop on the bike with the mike.

3. That Maclain was in a position near a radio broadcasting channel two during the three crosstalk events on channel one.

Differcult to prove via the photographic record since it only shows McLain a couple of short sequences.

4. Some recordings of crowd noises on the five minute open mic recording on channel one that didn't come from a channel two broadcast.

There are some here and there, but not much which is natural since he traveled far behind the Kennedys, the focus of the crowds attention.

Good Luck to them!

No good luck needed if you do your homework. But thanks anyway.

 

[manifesto]

You were the one, who started the twenty questions procedure, keep up.

Why is this a reason for you not using the quote-function in a proper way?

A more recent analysisof the complete tape not just a few seconds, along with the statements of the MC precludes an open mic. in Dealey Plaza, it was at the trade mark.

What more recent analysis?

 

[RoboTimbo]

What more recent analysis?

, which ones are you familiar with?

 

[HSienzant]

Bwhwhwhwa! That is hilarious... officer McCain? I don't remember his name on the list of motorcycle cops on motorcade escort duty that day.

Its almost as nutty as some of the yootoober comments (JFK shot by the limo driver... I mean W the actual F)

And he says the Zapruder film was only released last year... tin foil stuff for certain.

 

[Poison Oak]

This "wiggle room" defense caught my attention.

If the wiggle room thing is "good enough" and "irrefutable" for the McLain thing everyone should slow down, stop tearing it apart and consider using it for other things such as Oswalds movements and the reactions Connally had after being shot. Oswald is unquestionably guilty if you allow the same wiggle room. Connally unquestionably has a broken wrist if you allow the same wiggle room.

I need not prove any of it because of the wiggle room.

BRILLIANT!

 

[Tomtomkent]

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.

Then you are still wrong.
The acoustic evidence is conditional upon caveats.
If you are trying to treat the terms conditioned and conditional as interchangeable, then clearly there is an issue of your understanding.
Up, or upon, are grammatical choices. If they confuse you, I apologise.
If data is conditioned by factors, or conditional upon those factors, is however a far bigger deal, and the acoustics require conditions to be met.

You are either failing to understand the nature and content of your cited evidence, or (far worse) you dishonestly describing it.

I, by don't of common decency, assume the former, but would appreciate it if you took more care not to give reason to suspect the latter.

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.

No.

As I have tried to explain several times now, that tautology does not fairly represent the view, because the paper you have cited is not evidence of an open mic in the right place.

Far from it. The recordings are only evidence of anything significant if the microphone can be shown to be in the right place.

This is the difference between conditional on, upon, (or up in some short hands, sorry for the confusion before) and conditioned by, factors.

If we knew a location of a microphone, then we could call the significant patterns evidence. We do not. So instead we are in a situation of "Were the location of the mic x1, the outcome y1, would have a significance of z1, and if z1 And z2...And z5 all met, Then the outcome would have a probability of 1 in 100,000.

Your tautology assumes all factors were me, and z5 WAS the outcome.
In simple terms: This is not so.

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.

No.
They did not. They assumed it, based upon their opinion and interpretation of which patterned seemed significant through a coincidence of timing.
The tests were based upon these assumptions, but that is what they are: Base Assumptions.

Limited by known parameters, yes.

No The scope of the test was limited before any physical parameters, known or assumed, were taken into consideration.

The scope of the test was limited first and foremost by the intention of the test.

That is to say the intention was never to prove or deduce what the cause or origin of the sound impulses were.
Its scope was only to demonstrate that a rifle shot, of assumed origins was a reasonable match to the pulses IF the assumptions of the mic placement and timing were correct.

They do not prove the open mic was in the right place, or exclude any other sources of the patterns.
To this end, the tests fulfilled the scope admirably, but that does not mean they cemented the probability.

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.

Nope.
The next step was to see if rifle shots in Dealey Plaza could replicate the impulse patterns, if base assumptions were met.
That is to say, if rifle shots could make impulses that look like rifle shots.
The scope of the test does not allow it to say the impulses were, or were not rifle shots, only to show how closely rifle shots could or could not match the impulse patterns.
No other possible sources, from other possible locations were tested, outside the base assumptions.

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

First of all, the location on Dealey Plaza is itself a base assumption.
Next of course we have to understand the nature of the impulses themselves.
If we strip away the base assumptions, we are looking at any vibration to the membrane of the microphone that might create those impulse patterns. The answer is literally anything: from movement on the cable on the mic, to the crowd noise, to engine noise, to the railyard, to cars passing the other way...

There is nothing magical about those impulses. There is nothing unique about them. They are the ones that looked like rifle shots, if you were looking for rifle shots, and if you then made the rest of the system those assumptions.

That is why the waymarks for location are so precise, to within nine feet (3m) in a space as large as the Plaza. Those are the points at which the impulse patterns can be made to fit to topography.

If the mic is 3m (a few seconds away) the topography does not allow for that conclusion.

This is why it is important to recognise the conclusions are conditional (NOT conditioned). They rely on the assumption of factors being correct, or they are significant.

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.

No.
The results do not prove a bike was in the right place. This is an assumption upon which the results are conditional.
The results do not prove the mic was open at the right time. This is an assumption upon which the results are conditional.
The results do not prove five gunshots.
The prove that IF the dictabelt recording was of the assassination, and IF the time was correctly assumed AND IF the locations of the microphone were correctly assumed, THEN the most likely explanation of those impulses would be gunshots.

This is not a logical fallacy, it is nature of the study you cited.

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!

No.
It is exactly like what I, and others are telling you:
If the mic was in the right place, at the right time, a gunshot is a viable, even probable match for those impulse patterns, but they do not, themselves prove this was the case.
For a start there is no evidence any of the conditions were met, within the tolerances stated by any test.
You simply continue to claim this, without reason.

- 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.

These values are only significant IF and ONLY IF all base assumptions are proven.
You state them as though they themselves are a reason to assume the conditional factors were met. They are not.

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

And a slight fudging of numbers to fit the outcome, is not proof of anything.

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

No. They don't. It is these factors that make a plausible explanation of the impulses based on assumptions of time and location not yet proven .
Without proving the base assumptions, there is no significance.

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.

The acoustic evidence does NOT show the bike was in the right place, at the right time.
It shows impulse patterns that MAY be rifle shots IF AND ONLY IF you prove where the bike was, and when.

No tautology. To assume the bike was where you need it to be, on the assumption the recording is of rifle shots, is to pile bad assumption upon bad assumption and is circular reasoning.

Don’t you get it?

I get that you are struggling to understand what your evidence actually says.
I get that you think it proves where and when the open mic was.
I get that you fundamentally misunderstand what the paper says, and what the probability means.
I even get why it is so hard to admit you are wrong, and that your interpretation will not convince anybody.

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.

No. Those are not the only assumptions made. But by all means, prove me wrong: Show me how the location of the bike and open mic were established to within 9' INDEPENDANT of the sound analysis.

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

No. As has been shown, many times now, the data shows the significance of the impulses is conditional upon factors not in evidence.

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.

Ergo: If you can not show the base conditions were met, and an open mic was in 9' of each waypoint at the precise times required there is no significance.

Please stop assuming that there was, this is not what the evidence states.

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 very confused.
The probabilities stated are conditional upon the location of the microphone, they are NOT probabilities OF the location of the microphone.

That is to say: IF the microphone was at position x, the probability of the impulses being a rifle shot are y.

NOT: The probability this is a recording taken at x, AND the impulses being a rifle shot ARE y.

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.

Static is not the only alternative source of the impulses. It may have been the only one considered viable, after base assumptions are applied. If the time and location of the microphone are not taken for granted however, the field becomes wide open.

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.

On the contrary, I understand what a tautology IS, but that does not mean YOURS accurately represents the data, or my point of view.

Unfortunately I am not the one who is displaying a fundamentally flawed understanding the HSCA evidence...

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”.

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

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.

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.[/QUOTE]

 

[jeffas69]

All science are about probability. It is only in religion you are dealing with absolutes. As in the Mighty Church of the Lone Nut.

I am not a member of any church. I would appreciate if you not make ridiculous accusations or ad hominems about me that you have no reason to make.

Very differcult since it depends on gears and brakes. That said, a company called ”Sonolyst” did just that and tried to match rpm/dB too see if it matched the movements of the bike with the mike. Since they plotted the data against the revised timeline from RNC which stated that the recording happened ca one minute after the assassination it naturally did not match. However when plotted to the timeline in the acoustic evidence it was a perfect match.

So, instead of ”debunking” the acoustic evidence, it further corroborated it.

Link the study and I will read it. How did they make a perfect match with the gear and brake difficulty?

There is nothing in the siren recording that preclude McLain from being the cop on the bike with the mike.

How fast would he have to be going to catch up to the sirens? Does this also match the RPMs in the previous mentioned study or did they even do that? Why would he pass or hang back after catching it in order for them to fade away again. It does not make a bit of sense to me.

Differcult to prove via the photographic record since it only shows McLain a couple of short sequences.

Can you show which channel two microphones would be close enough for any of the three?

There are some here and there, but not much which is natural since he traveled far behind the Kennedys, the focus of the crowds attention.

Could you cite those instances? Where they are in the transcripts with a close time reference. And what is supposed to be said? Why would his position matter? Are you saying that the parade crowd would only be talking, shouting, screaming near the president's car. This also makes no sense.

 

[Tomtomkent]

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

Nope. I am pretty sure my Modern Apprenticeship in an engineering discipline makes me one of the lesser qualified people in the room.

I am more than happy to be corrected if there is any obvious flaw to my reading of the paper.

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.

Not as far as I can see, in the paper itself. They made their assumptions clear, and stated the terms of the probability, and the scope of the paper was limited.
However, the way it is framed by many CT sources *is* fallacious.
They assume that because the impulses *could match* with a level of certainty, then they *did*.

 

[Axxman300]

Have you ever considered the fact that you are the only person on the planet who believe that little blue idiot smileys is ”debunking” scientific evidence?

This is not science. What you claim is the opposite of science.

 

[pgwenthold]

Nope. I am pretty sure my Modern Apprenticeship in an engineering discipline makes me one of the lesser qualified people in the room.

I am more than happy to be corrected if there is any obvious flaw to my reading of the paper.


Not as far as I can see, in the paper itself. They made their assumptions clear, and stated the terms of the probability, and the scope of the paper was limited.
However, the way it is framed by many CT sources *is* fallacious.
They assume that because the impulses *could match* with a level of certainty, then they *did*.

So back to the 4 shots vs 5 shots issue.

manifesto is correct that there are 5 impulses on the recording that have a high degree of correlation with the signatures of shots. However, the (real) acoustic evidence folks will formally only confirm that there are 4 shots. As I explained before, the reason they did that is because 4 of impulses required a shooter in the 6th floor of the SBD, with shots that were too close together to be due to a single shooter. So instead of doing something that was obviously stupid, like assert that it was evidence for two shooters in the 6th floor of the SBD, they concluded it must have been due to some other source and consequently an artifact.

manifesto, however, doesn't like that conclusion, and for an important reason. The implication from their assessment is that it is possible to have false positives, and that a high degree of correlation with an impulse does NOT have to be due to a gun shot. And if that is the case, then the whole "1 in 100000" probability goes out the window.

So the question is thus: Either the acoustic recording can have false positives OR there had to be two shooters in the 6th floor of the SBD. The firm that actually did the whole analysis admits there can be false positives. But manifesto knows better.

BTW, while I am rambling, I will just remind everyone that a while back, I noted that, given the evidence we have, the only way for a CTer to get around it is to claim that McLain is lying.

Sure enough, see the recent response from manifesto, where that is exactly what he claims.

When the witnesses are all against you, just claim that the witnesses are lying.

 

[Tomtomkent]

So back to the 4 shots vs 5 shots issue.

manifesto is correct that there are 5 impulses on the recording that have a high degree of correlation with the signatures of shots. However, the (real) acoustic evidence folks will formally only confirm that there are 4 shots. As I explained before, the reason they did that is because 4 of impulses required a shooter in the 6th floor of the SBD, with shots that were too close together to be due to a single shooter. So instead of doing something that was obviously stupid, like assert that it was evidence for two shooters in the 6th floor of the SBD, they concluded it must have been due to some other source and consequently an artifact.

manifesto, however, doesn't like that conclusion, and for an important reason. The implication from their assessment is that it is possible to have false positives, and that a high degree of correlation with an impulse does NOT have to be due to a gun shot. And if that is the case, then the whole "1 in 100000" probability goes out the window.

So the question is thus: Either the acoustic recording can have false positives OR there had to be two shooters in the 6th floor of the SBD. The firm that actually did the whole analysis admits there can be false positives. But manifesto knows better.

BTW, while I am rambling, I will just remind everyone that a while back, I noted that, given the evidence we have, the only way for a CTer to get around it is to claim that McLain is lying.

Sure enough, see the recent response from manifesto, where that is exactly what he claims.

When the witnesses are all against you, just claim that the witnesses are lying.

And that is only *IF* the impulses present any shooters.