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

[Axxman300]

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.

It says more about you.

You have drifted off into Loch Ness Monster/Bigfoot/UFO territorial logic 20 pages ago.

Of all of the evidence in the JFK Assassination the dictabelts, and then the work based on the recording are the most problematic.

There is no way to know which DPD officer's radio was recorded.

McLain was not where the HSCA needed him to be to make the analysis accurate.

There are no gunshots on the recordings, but there are other sounds that are nowhere near as loud, making the allegation that there are gunshots on the recording open to interpretation.

These three facts alone invalidate the dictabelt nonsense.

 

[abaddon]

None of them are audible for the human ear. How is that for giggles?

It's hilarious. At a stroke, you have thrown your witnesses under the bus. Witnesses heard 5 shots but they were inaudible?

 

[BStrong]

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?

For someone that bases their pov on nonsense some other CTist came up with that's pretty funny.

When you can get to the point where you can explain your version of what happened in Dallas in three-four paragraphs let us know.

So far the only thing you've "proven" in this thread is your ability to avoid reality and embrace paranoid fantasies.

 

[Tomtomkent]

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.

I have not misrepresented either the HSCA evidence, or for that matter Marmaduke Wetherell’s investigations at Loch Ness.

You are the one who claims the acoustic evidence is proof five shots were fired, and where the open mic was.

You misrepresent the study you claim to be familiar with.
If you do so wilfully or not, you are wrong.

 

[smartcooky]

This is worth watching and listening to for anyone who wants to know more anoyt the dictabelt acoustic evidence

 

[manifesto]

It's hilarious. At a stroke, you have thrown your witnesses under the bus. Witnesses heard 5 shots but they were inaudible?

Inaudible on the dictabelt. You really have to do something about your reading impairment.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Inaudible on the dictabelt. You really have to do something about your reading impairment.

You don’t get the original question do you?

Or are you just assuming what was recorded had to be rifle shots out of hand?

 

[manifesto]

No, the studies themselves claim this..

If you are claiming the studies are refuting the acoustic evidence, it is your claim.

"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 it doesn’t. It proves that the writers of the report claims that it refutes the HSCA findings.

Night and day difference.

No comment or explanation needed. All you need to do is be able to read and comprehend.

Proclamations is not explanations supported by method and data. It is just, proclamations.

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,

No it doesn’t. It shows that the FBI claims that their studies have refuted the HSCA findings.

and again, no further comment or explanation is needed. All you need to do is be able to read and comprehend.

Again, yes that is rexactly what is needed, showing if there is scientific merit backing the bald proclamations.

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.

And again, nothing of the sorts. Proclamations doesn’t equal a scientific refutation. Showing and explaining the science behind the proclamations can eventually do that.

If valid.

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.

Again, show the science and explain.

And again

In 2003, an independent researcher named Michael O'Dell reported that both the National Academy and Dr. Thomas had used incorrect timelines

Are you saying that one of your ”studies” refutes one of your ”studies” that refutes the HSCA findings?

A bit, odd?

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.[/COLOR][/I]

Again, present the science and explain.

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.

I have studied all of your examples above and found them in error.

Posting their proclamations doesn’t change that.

As usual for CT's you have latched on to one spurious, repeatedly debunked study

Never debunked, is the correct wording.

that supports your case,

My case is truth as it is reached upon in a free and open democratic society.

and you cling to it desperately while frantically handwaving away the overwhelming evidence that you are wrong.

On the contrary, I am presenting detailed and when requested, sourced evidence in support for my reasoning and conclusions. The opposite of what you have done in this posting ... and in the thread as a whole.

The HSCA acoustics study is deeply flawed and a dead duck... it was a dead duck from the outset.

No, you are the ’dead duck’ unable to present the science in support of your claims.

 

[manifesto]

You don’t get the original question do you?

Which is?

Or are you just assuming what was recorded had to be rifle shots out of hand?

Where do I ”assume” this? Quote.

 

[smartcooky]

If you are claiming the studies are refuting the acoustic evidence, it is your claim.

No, its the people who have carried out the studies who are refuting the evidence....THEY are claiming that the HSCA is incorrect. I simply believe them, so I am not required to do anything other than present you with the results of those studies.

No it doesn’t. It proves that the writers of the report claims that it refutes the HSCA findings.

You really have no understanding of how science reporting works do you?

The writers of the reports are presenting the results of the scientific studies.

What you are claiming is that the writers also have to substantiate the claims of the scientists, and then if I present the report here, I have to substantiate those claims all over again. Things do not work like that here in the real world

If you have an issue with the reports, you really only have one option.. get together a groups of experts, carry out your own study and attempt to refute their claims.

Proclamations is not explanations supported by method and data. It is just, proclamations.

Reports on scientific studies are not proclamations

No it doesn’t. It shows that the FBI claims that their studies have refuted the HSCA findings.

And if you have a problem with that, write to the FBI

Again, yes that is exactly what is needed, showing if there is scientific merit backing the bald proclamations.

And again, nothing of the sorts. Proclamations doesn’t equal a scientific refutation. Showing and explaining the science behind the proclamations can eventually do that.

Reports on scientific studies are not proclamations

Again, show the science and explain.

Not my claim, so not my responsibility

Are you saying that one of your ”studies” refutes one of your ”studies” that refutes the HSCA findings?

A bit, odd?

Try re-reading it.

You really have to do something about your reading impairment.

Again, present the science and explain.

Not my claim, so not my responsibility

I have studied all of your examples above and found them in error.

Explain the errors, Cite, Link, show us the evidence

Posting their proclamations doesn’t change that.

Reports on scientific studies are not proclamations

My case is truth as it is reached upon in a free and open democratic society.

On the contrary, I am presenting detailed and when requested, sourced evidence in support for my reasoning and conclusions. The opposite of what you have done in this posting ... and in the thread as a whole.

Tin foil hattery. Exhibiting symptoms of Dunning-Kruger does not help your case.

No, you are the ’dead duck’ unable to present the science in support of your claims.

Not my claims, they are the claims of the scientists who carried out the studies. I don't have to explain their claim to you.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Which is?

Where do I ”assume” this? Quote.

So you do not advocate the impulses WERE rifle shots?

 

[manifesto]

So you do not advocate the impulses WERE rifle shots?

Based on the HSCA joint scientific investigation, yes, not ”assuming” there was.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Based on the HSCA joint scientific investigation, yes, not ”assuming” there was.

And yet, you can not make the claim, based on the study for the HSCA without the assumption, because the findings of the study were conditional upon certain assumptions.

And, by assuming the pulses were gunshots, without proving prerequisite conditions, you only prove how valid, the original question you seem to have lost track of, about what might be expected to show up on such a recording in any suitable crowd noise, is.

Bottom line: the figures you keep quoting, for significance and probably are only, as is clearly obvious to anybody reading the report as a technical paper, and not as conspiracy wish fulfilment, valid if certain prerequisites are met. You keep stating it as though the paper itself proves these prerequisites, which it does not claim to do. You are wrong.

People posting in this conversation have shown you the patience and kindness to explain why you are wrong. You could have taken that knowledge and used it to frame your contentions in a more convincing manner, but instead are trying to rephrase the evidence itself into something it is not, and has never been, which will only make others ask why you need to do this, and why you think that would convince anybody there is *proof* of more than three gunshots.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Based on the HSCA joint scientific investigation, yes, not ”assuming” there was.

, if you're claiming the HSCA findings over turn subsequent debunkings, you'll need to provide evidence of that. Your claim, your burden of proof.

The null hypothesis is that your bug guy got it wrong.

 

[Tomtomkent]

, if you're claiming the HSCA findings over turn subsequent debunkings, you'll need to provide evidence of that. Your claim, your burden of proof.

The null hypothesis is that your bug guy got it wrong.

Does it even get that far?
If he wants to claim the study was correct, he has to first show the conditions of the conclusion were met: that a cycle with an open mic was within a set distance of each waypoint for the five shots.

 

[bknight]

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.

The reports refute the original evaluation, you read them, I can't do that for you.

BTW I never stated the new evaluations use a million times more sophisticated technology, that is your estimation/hyperbole.
The BBN et. al. has been refuted by many others. No comment is needed, you just have to read the material.

 

[bknight]

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?

Didn't he hand wave that away?

 

[bknight]

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?

It doesn't make any difference why anyone here concludes, it is rather reading the report and deciding the conclusion is accurate and refutes the original reports.

 

[manifesto]

, if you're claiming the HSCA findings over turn subsequent debunkings, you'll need to provide evidence of that. Your claim, your burden of proof.

The null hypothesis is that your bug guy got it wrong.

I have done nothing else the last couple of days, but it doesn’t matter does it. You have you stalking little blue idiot smiley ”debunking” everything not to your liking without a trace of effort. Damned be scientific facts to the contrary.

Quite a feat. In la la land.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I have done nothing else the last couple of days, but it doesn’t matter does it. You have you stalking little blue idiot smiley ”debunking” everything not to your liking without a trace of effort. Damned be scientific facts to the contrary.

, what about the scientific facts from the National Academy of Science debunking your bug guy? Surely you won't simply engage in child-like denial about all of those debunking of the HSCA findings, will you?

Quite a feat. In la la land.

, you should be furious at your one CT website which you get all your information from. They're the ones who left you to look foolish.

You never did answer, by the way: Why did Oswald go on to murder Officer Tippitt and then attempt to murder more officers in the theater when he was cornered? Aren't you going to at least put in a "trace of effort" ( )to answer?