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

[traxy]

Didn't he hand wave that away?

Of course he did. I was nice enough to highlight all of Thomas's mistakes for him too

From what I can recall without scrolling back, Thomas used a less reliable recording as the basis of his study, was too reliant on Dallas PD annotations when constructing his timeline, didn't have enough leeway built in for dead time in the recording and made a couple mathematically contradictory claims to get the result he was looking for.

 

[traxy]

He also doesn't seem too keen on discussing the video clips I posted showing the exact point of synchronicity in the Hughes and Zapruder films.

 

[Wolrab]

He doesn't seem so keen to do anything, especially read contradictory to his preordained conclusions

 

[bknight]

Of course he won't discuss anything that shows an error in the thought process. A typical behavior of a CT.

 

[Tomtomkent]

So... to summarise the last few pages:

The dictabelt recording has many signs of not being Maclain's mic, and up to 60 seconds later than the required time of the shooting.

There are mathematical errors in the timing.

There are issues about the methodology.

There are recording signs (sirens, and other noises missing when they should be there, or there but not explainable).

The findings of the study that suggests more than three shots is reliant on a motorcycle being in positions that conflicts with all filmed footage and photographs around the time of the shooting.

Why should this be important? Because the circular logic in claiming the tests prove the mic was in position, because it recorded rifle shots, is an oroborus, eating its own tail.

Let's illustrate the fallacious reasoning with another fable.

You are in a feudal village, and one year, the crops fail. Rumours abound that the farmers have been targeted by a witch, and so the Witchfinder is summoned. He sniffs out somebody he accuses of black-magic, and sets about torturing a hermit, until he gets a confession.

The King hears about this, and calls the Witchfinder to account.
How, the King asks, does the Witchfinder know that torture uncovered the culprit?
Because, is the answer, he confessed.
Ah, says the King, but how do we know the confession was truthful?
Because, is the answer, torture works.
And how do we know torture works?
Because there was a confession.
How do we know the confession is sound?
Because torture works.

And so on and so forth.
Applied in this case:
How do we know there was a microphone in the right place?
Because the impulses were rifle shots.
How do we know they were rifle shots?
Because the bike must have been in the right place...
And so on, in circles, never proving the microphone was, or could be, where required, without which any probability or claim of proof is moot.

 

[Axxman300]

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

Unless someone was shooting at the Trade Mart at the exact same time the recording was made there are no gunshots on the recordings.

You've lost.

Again.

 

[Axxman300]

So... to summarise the last few pages:

The dictabelt recording has many signs of not being Maclain's mic, and up to 60 seconds later than the required time of the shooting.

There are mathematical errors in the timing.

There are issues about the methodology.

There are recording signs (sirens, and other noises missing when they should be there, or there but not explainable).

The findings of the study that suggests more than three shots is reliant on a motorcycle being in positions that conflicts with all filmed footage and photographs around the time of the shooting.

Why should this be important? Because the circular logic in claiming the tests prove the mic was in position, because it recorded rifle shots, is an oroborus, eating its own tail.

Let's illustrate the fallacious reasoning with another fable.

You are in a feudal village, and one year, the crops fail. Rumours abound that the farmers have been targeted by a witch, and so the Witchfinder is summoned. He sniffs out somebody he accuses of black-magic, and sets about torturing a hermit, until he gets a confession.

The King hears about this, and calls the Witchfinder to account.
How, the King asks, does the Witchfinder know that torture uncovered the culprit?
Because, is the answer, he confessed.
Ah, says the King, but how do we know the confession was truthful?
Because, is the answer, torture works.
And how do we know torture works?
Because there was a confession.
How do we know the confession is sound?
Because torture works.

And so on and so forth.
Applied in this case:
How do we know there was a microphone in the right place?
Because the impulses were rifle shots.
How do we know they were rifle shots?
Because the bike must have been in the right place...
And so on, in circles, never proving the microphone was, or could be, where required, without which any probability or claim of proof is moot.

The list of failure is longer:

Claims Carcano was a Mauser.
Claims he never said Carcano was a Mauser.

Claims autopsy is fake.

Claims CIA, FBI, & DPD all set out to frame Oswald as lone gunman, yet ignores fact that all three were actively hoping to link Oswald to a communist conspiracy, and ignores the fact that DPD tried to force Buell Wesley Fraizer to sign a written confession that he was part of a conspiracy to kill JFK.
Claims Oswald didn't kill Tippit; when it's pointed out that the gun used to kill Tippet was taken out of Oswald's hand while in the process of trying to kill another cop Manifesto says "prove it was his gun".

Overstates the number of people who heard gunshots from the Grassy Knoll, and conflates that number with the people who claim to have seen a gunman behind the picket fence (which is not many, and none of them reported this on the day of the shooting, but only years later when there was money to be made).

Claims Officer McLain was coerced into lying about where he was at the time of the shooting without evidence to support it.

Claims DPD detecives are proven, well-known liars yet submits no evidence supporting the claim.

Claims Jack Ruby was in Dealey Plaza.

Claims someone through a firecracker.
Claims he never said someone threw a firecracker.

His last refuge (in his mind) is the HSCA, which he at the same time contends was somehow under the thumb of the CIA (again with no proof), where he hides behind the now comical misfindings of the acoustical examination of the problematic dictabelts. The dictablets would never be admissible in court without first determining the exact DPD officer whose radio is the one recorded on channel two.

This is CT comedy gold right here. It's the No-Planes version of this topic.

Edited by Agatha: 

Do not alter usernames in order to insult.

 

[Elagabalus]

The list of failure is longer:

Claims Carcano was a Mauser.
Claims he never said Carcano was a Mauser.

Claims autopsy is fake.

Claims CIA, FBI, & DPD all set out to frame Oswald as lone gunman, yet ignores fact that all three were actively hoping to link Oswald to a communist conspiracy, and ignores the fact that DPD tried to force Buell Wesley Fraizer to sign a written confession that he was part of a conspiracy to kill JFK.
Claims Oswald didn't kill Tippit; when it's pointed out that the gun used to kill Tippet was taken out of Oswald's hand while in the process of trying to kill another cop Manifesto says "prove it was his gun".

Overstates the number of people who heard gunshots from the Grassy Knoll, and conflates that number with the people who claim to have seen a gunman behind the picket fence (which is not many, and none of them reported this on the day of the shooting, but only years later when there was money to be made).

Claims Officer McLain was coerced into lying about where he was at the time of the shooting without evidence to support it.

Claims DPD detecives are proven, well-known liars yet submits no evidence supporting the claim.

Claims Jack Ruby was in Dealey Plaza.

Claims someone through a firecracker.
Claims he never said someone threw a firecracker.

His last refuge (in his mind) is the HSCA, which he at the same time contends was somehow under the thumb of the CIA (again with no proof), where he hides behind the now comical misfindings of the acoustical examination of the problematic dictabelts. The dictablets would never be admissible in court without first determining the exact DPD officer whose radio is the one recorded on channel two.

This is CT comedy gold right here. It's the No-Planes version of this topic.

Claims to not understand how a modern non-linear video editor/App works.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to correct username in quote

 

[jeffas69]

Please don't forget about me!

I still need to be convinced that:


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

It was said that it perfectly matches when the time frame is moved. This is only for the period of the shots where Thomas wants them to be. It still does not explain the high RPM at the start of the open mic minutes before the shots when Mclain would be moving slowly. There is also the problem of the RPM dropping off at the start of the sirens when Mclain was supposedly trying to catch up.

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

See above. There is also a whistle blown twice in that period that do not show a doppler shift indicating no relative motion between the mic and the whistle. And it was never explained why Mclain would catch up then fade back so far for the sirens to fade out again.

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

Why should anyone care if that is difficult to prove. There should be some evidence of another radio close enough to Mclain in the time frame of the crosstalk events.

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.

It was said there are some here and there, and that the crowd focus was on the president. Could you cite those instances? Where they are in the transcripts with a close time reference. Why would his position matter? Are you saying that the parade crowd would only be talking, shouting, screaming near the president's car even after a shooting? This also makes no sense.

 

[abaddon]

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

BWAHAHAHAHA. Now the dictabelt is inaudible.

All of a sudden you have 5 shots which nobody heard recorded on a tape nobody can hear. HAHAHAHAHA.

 

[abaddon]

He also doesn't seem too keen on discussing the video clips I posted showing the exact point of synchronicity in the Hughes and Zapruder films.

Well we know why that is.

 

[jeffas69]

BWAHAHAHAHA. Now the dictabelt is inaudible.

All of a sudden you have 5 shots which nobody heard recorded on a tape nobody can hear. HAHAHAHAHA.

That's another one I would like to see evidence for. Why would the audio signal from what, 80 feet away from the open microphone, that was above the 100 decibel threshold be compressed to tiny impulses that are inaudible instead of compressed to just below the threshold. This seems like it would have been the easiest test to perform on the same model motorola radio mounted on a slowly moving motorcycle.

 

[manifesto]

BWAHAHAHAHA. Now the dictabelt is inaudible.

All of a sudden you have 5 shots which nobody heard recorded on a tape nobody can hear. HAHAHAHAHA.

The rifle shots recorded on the dictabelt are inaudible to the human ear, yes. That is why the two worldleading expert teams in ballistic acoustics was hired to scientifically investigate it.

They used the same methods and tools they used in developing the sonar system for US Navy’s nuclear submarines and for US infantry to exactly pinpoint, in realtime, enemy snipers in urban warefare.

The same methods used by blind river dolphines and by bats cathing food in pitch darknes.

This is no rorschach-test, this is an exact way of detecting sound in a unique sonic landscape. Even more secure than photographic film since such can easily be manipulated in the lab.

 

[Tomtomkent]

BWAHAHAHAHA. Now the dictabelt is inaudible.

All of a sudden you have 5 shots which nobody heard recorded on a tape nobody can hear. HAHAHAHAHA.

It is not uncommon for recordings to include impulses outside of human hearing range.
A more correct description than Manifesto’s would be that experts were engaged to identify if any the patterns could be rifle shots, and described the circumstances in which five patterns would appear to be rifle shots.

Unfortunately the circumstances required are within tight thresholds and do not appear to match reality.

All of this is moot, as the recording was most likely from a different location on a different time frame.

 

[Axxman300]

The rifle shots recorded on the dictabelt are inaudible to the human ear, yes. That is why the two worldleading expert teams in ballistic acoustics was hired to scientifically investigate it.

And the best they could do was a 50% a shot came from the Grassy Knoll, but that was based on the assumption that the recording came from McLain's radio, and that he was on Elm Street while all three shots were fired, and he was not.

Turns out, it is likely is wasn't even his radio.

They used the same methods and tools they used in developing the sonar system for US Navy’s nuclear submarines and for US infantry to exactly pinpoint, in realtime, enemy snipers in urban warefare.

Are we talking active or passive sonar? In which ways does it relate to the LWWAA systems, or AN/BQQ-10(V4)?

In what way does it relate to Boomerang's sensors?

The same methods used by blind river dolphines and by bats cathing food in pitch darknes.

No, you're talking about active sonar, not passive sonar which is based on directional listening.

This is no rorschach-test, this is an exact way of detecting sound in a unique sonic landscape. Even more secure than photographic film since such can easily be manipulated in the lab

There are hours of voices of the dead captured by ghost hunters that suggests that people will hear what they want to hear, and program machines to hear sound the way they hear it.

 

[jeffas69]

The rifle shots recorded on the dictabelt are inaudible to the human ear, yes. That is why the two worldleading expert teams in ballistic acoustics was hired to scientifically investigate it.

They used the same methods and tools they used in developing the sonar system for US Navy’s nuclear submarines and for US infantry to exactly pinpoint, in realtime, enemy snipers in urban warefare.

The same methods used by blind river dolphines and by bats cathing food in pitch darknes.

This is no rorschach-test, this is an exact way of detecting sound in a unique sonic landscape. Even more secure than photographic film since such can easily be manipulated in the lab.

I am assuming you are not an audio expert. I am also not an audio expert. So i will also assume that you can honestly say that it makes no sense to you why a rifle shot recorded from the microphone of a 1960's era police radio would not produce "some" audible noise even over the inaudible crowd and the motorcycle. I understand that a rifle shot recording will not produce the same audible sound that the human ear hears in air, but you can still recognize the sound on the recording. I also understand that this is due to the range of frequencies produced by the shot and that the proximity of the shot to the microphone may be "clipped" due to a maximum amplitude reached. This does not explain why the recorded audio would reduce the peaks all the way down to being inaudible without leaving peaks just below the threshold. None of the above explains it either. I would like an explanation of why this is. If you don't know it is perfectly ok to just say so and move on to the other problems.

 

[manifesto]

I am assuming you are not an audio expert. I am also not an audio expert. So i will also assume that you can honestly say that it makes no sense to you why a rifle shot recorded from the microphone of a 1960's era police radio would not produce "some" audible noise even over the inaudible crowd and the motorcycle. I understand that a rifle shot recording will not produce the same audible sound that the human ear hears in air, but you can still recognize the sound on the recording. I also understand that this is due to the range of frequencies produced by the shot and that the proximity of the shot to the microphone may be "clipped" due to a maximum amplitude reached. This does not explain why the recorded audio would reduce the peaks all the way down to being inaudible without leaving peaks just below the threshold. None of the above explains it either. I would like an explanation of why this is. If you don't know it is perfectly ok to just say so and move on to the other problems.

Without going in to the technicalities (for a moment), why would the two world leading expert teams on ballistic acoustics conclude there were five rifle shots if there wasn’t any? This was/is exactly their field of expertise?

Why risk their scientific standing and reputation going against the official truth of Oswald the Lone Nut, if there was just a slightest room for doubt?

Any ideas?

 

[jeffas69]

Without going in to the technicalities (for a moment), why would the two world leading expert teams on ballistic acoustics conclude there were five rifle shots if there wasn’t any? This was/is exactly their field of expertise?

Why risk their scientific standing and reputation going against the official truth of Oswald the Lone Nut, if there was just a slightest room for doubt?

Any ideas?

I don't know. Please continue with the technicalities.

 

[Axxman300]

Without going in to the technicalities (for a moment), why would the two world leading expert teams on ballistic acoustics conclude there were five rifle shots if there wasn’t any? This was/is exactly their field of expertise?
Any ideas?

They had incomplete and inaccurate data from a questionable source.

Why risk their scientific standing and reputation going against the official truth of Oswald the Lone Nut, if there was just a slightest room for doubt?

That's not how science works. They were presented with data, conducted experiments based on that data, and reached a conclusion. Other scientists of the same caliber reviewed their work and found it was in error. That happens in science all the time.

It wasn't McLain's radio that is on the recording, so it's voided.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Why risk their scientific standing and reputation going against the official truth of Oswald the Lone Nut, if there was just a slightest room for doubt?

Any ideas?

So much to unpack here it is hard to know where to begin...

Firstly, a scientists reputation and standing are rarely made or broken by their conclusions being for, or against, accepted wisdom, or an "official" truth. It is made or broken by professionalism, or the lack thereof.

Consider how people here have encouraged you to present your argument: By offering a fully formed theory, with supporting evidence suitable of overcoming the null.

Now consider all the scientists that are household names: Newton, Einstein, Hawkings, Capernicus, etc... All of them famous for overturning the consensus view, by speaking out against it.

Scientists want to be the ones who get to say "we don't know" or even better, "we were wrong", because that is what makes you famous.

Secondly: Even if there is any doubt, yes, you include minority reports, because you are a professional, who knows how peer review works. You present all your findings honestly, including those that go against your preferred outcome, because you may have, unintentionally, biased your findings, or to have missed another way of interpreting the data. Because you are professional you include it.

And thirdly: We know why the world's leading team concluded there were five shots when there were not, because they state it plainly, and because it has been explained to you ad nauseum: They only concluded that there 'were' five shots, if base assumptions were followed, if a microphone was in five places, at five times and you *still* have not shown this to be true.