Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories VI: Lyndon Johnson's Revenge
- Thread starter BStrong
- Start date
- Status
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
...and that would have to include the >90% of witnesses who heard three or less shots.
bknight
Master Poster
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
This will be handwaved away (as usual). Its easier to just accuse the alphabet soup of lying so that the CT nincompoopery can be preserved
To paraphrase the words of S.G. Collins..
Once you are forced to hypothesise whole new lies to keep your conspiracy possible, you have stepped over into the realm of magic, requiring of you a deep and abiding faith in things you can never know.
I'll save you the time, he'll say they're all wrong for whatever reason.
All these acoustic experts and scientists are wrong, and poor Don Thomas the entomologist is a poor misunderstood genius.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
... which he will make up from whole cloth.
None of them are audible for the human ear. How is that for giggles?
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
, now that you are forced to acknowledge all of the various entities which have comprehensively debunked the HSCA findings, you have the burden of proof to show how they all got it wrong and your bug guy got it right.Your one CT website won't be able to help you, obviously, any more than they have with every other topic you've had your head handed to you about.
It would be wise not to put other peoples senseless rantings under my signature, as if their short commings were actually, mine.
Thank you.
No, it’s the other way around. IF anyone find any merit in any of the ’studies’ proclaiming to have refuted the HSCA acoustic evidence, they have to explain why.
Your one CT website won't be able to help you, obviously, any more than they have with every other topic you've had your head handed to you about.
Except for you, RoboTimbo, for you a blue idiot smiley will suffice.
Once again, 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
Both clips show the same vehicle starting the same turn. There is your synchronization.
No. You are the one claiming they are refuting the HSCA acoustic evidence since they are using ”a million times more sophisticated technology”, absent at the time of the original investigation.
Begin with naming ONE and explain the new technology and how/why it refutes the HSCA acoustic evidence.
I can’t do this for you.
I posted an entire section from the 2006 Science and Justice article dealing specifically with Don Thomas and the myriad of mistakes he made.
Did you miss it? Would you like me to post it again?
You, willfully misrepresenting the methods used in the HSCA acoustic joint investigation doesn’t say anything about the actual investigation. It does say a whole lot about you, though. Your intentions and reasons for taking part in the discussion of said investigation.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
No, it's the other way around,
. You have the burden of proof since the HSCA acoustical findings have been thoroughly scientifically gutted. Your bug guy got it wrong.How do you intend to proceed to show where so many scientific findings debunking your bug guy got it wrong? So far, you're just looking foolish,
.You can post the entire report if you like, it still doesn’t say why YOU find it’s conclusions valid.
State your claim. Quote and source relevant data. Explain. Argue.
Get it?
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
No, the studies themselves claim this..
"Richard E. Sprague, an expert on photographic evidence of the assassination and a consultant to the HSCA, noted that the amateur film the HSCA relied on showed that there were no motorcycles between those riding alongside the rear of the presidential limousine and H.B. McLain's motorcycle, and that other films showed McLain's motorcycle was actually 250 feet behind the presidential limousine when the first shot was fired, not 120 to 138 feet. No motorcycle was anywhere near the target area."
This refutes the HSCA findings. No comment or explanation needed. All you need to do is be able to read and comprehend.
The Technical Services Division of the FBI studied the acoustical data and issued a report on December 1, 1980 (dated November 19, 1980). The FBI report concluded that the HSCA failed to prove that there were gunshots on the recording and also failed to prove that the recording was made in Dealey Plaza. In fact, using the techniques of the previous investigators, the FBI matched a gunshot recorded in Greensboro, NC in 1979 with the sound that was supposedly a shot from the grassy knoll - proving that the initial investigation's methods were invalid.
This also refutes the HSCA findings, and again, no further comment or explanation is needed. All you need to do is be able to read and comprehend.
The US Justice Department paid for a review by the National Academy of Sciences, a U.S. corporation operating with a Title 36 congressional charter. A panel of scientists headed by Dr. Norman Ramsey issued a report in 1982 which agreed with Barber and determined that there was no compelling evidence for gunshots on the recording and that the HSCA's suspect impulses were recorded about a minute after the shooting happened.
And again, a clear refutation of the HSCA findings.
The Justice Department reviewed the HSCA report and the National Academy of Science's study of the acoustical evidence. It reported to the Judiciary Committee on March 28, 1988 and rebuked the HSCA'a conclusion of a probable conspiracy.
And again
In 2003, an independent researcher named Michael O'Dell reported that both the National Academy and Dr. Thomas had used incorrect timelines because they assumed the Dictabelt ran continuously. When corrected, these showed the impulses happened too late to be the real shots even with Thomas's alternative synchronization. In addition, he showed that, due to a mathematical misunderstanding and the presence of a known impulse pattern in the background noise, there never was a 95% or higher probability of a shot from the grassy knoll.
And again.
I could continue with more for a few more pages, but I have probably already wasted my time because you are not open to ANY evidence or scientific study that opposes your fantasy world view. As usual for CT's you have latched on to one spurious, repeatedly debunked study that supports your case, and you cling to it desperately while frantically handwaving away the overwhelming evidence that you are wrong. The HSCA acoustics study is deeply flawed and a dead duck... it was a dead duck from the outset.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
And there goes the the next square on the CT Bingo card... when you don't have a response to the poster, you attack the poster's credibility and motives.
In CT world, anyone who disagrees with you is by default wrong, a liar, a paid shill or part of the conspiracy.
Last edited:
- Status