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

[abaddon]

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.

Baloney. The dynamic range of a cops two-way mic is about a fifth of the human ear.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Baloney. The dynamic range of a cops two-way mic is about a fifth of the human ear.

I honestly would not know about the specifics of the equipment in question, but... one of the few engineering certainties I managed to learn in my career is, if there is a signal, and a wire, there will be some kind of noise (in the non-signal sense if not the BANG sense).

Assuming the impulses *could* have been rifle shots (I know that might not be your view) but the requirements of the study are not met, then, the ball park of possibilities opens up beyond static, to, frankly, anything from a loose lead, to engine vibration, by way of anything else.

 

[smartcooky]

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?

I would counter that by asking you the same question. Why would the following world leading experts disagree with those findings

Name (Employment) [Speciality/Area of expertise]

Prof. Normal F. Ramsey (Harvard U) [Physics] 1989 Nobel Prize in Physics

Prof. Herman Chernoff (MIT) [Applied Mathematics, Applied Statistics, Physics] F.A.M.S.

John C. Feggeler (Bell Telephone) [Transmissions & Sound Engineer]

Alfred Johnson (ATF - National Laboratory Centre) [Ballistics Engineer]

F. Williams Sarles (Trisolar Corporation) [Electrical Engineer]

Jerome Elkind (Xerox Palo Alto Research Center) [Electrical Engineer and Computer Scientist] Co-founder of the Lexia Institute.

Charles Rader (MIT) [Signal and Speech Processing]

Prof. Luis W. Alvarez (UCB ) [Experimental Physics] 1968 Nobel Prize in Physics

Dr. Robert H. Dicke (Princeton U) [Physics]

Prof Richard L. Garwin (Columbia U) [Physics]

Paul Horowitz (Harvard U) [Physics and Design Engineering]

Prof Robert A. Phinney (Princeton U) [Geophysicas and Seismology]

These twelve men comprised the Committee on Ballistic Acoustics. They are acknowledged experts in their respective fields, the exact range of expertise required to review the work of Dr. Barger and the HSCA acoustics panel. These men had everything to lose and nothing to gain by lying about their findings on Barger's work, so why would they?

In the end, after their work was presented, Barger himself agreed and could not fault their work. Why would he do that if he thought they were wrong?

These are the men whose work you (some Neville Nobody on an internet forum) "have studied" and found to be "in error"

Explain these errors, show your evidence that they have made errors.

 

[smartcooky]

The dynamic range of a cops two-way mic is about a fifth of the human ear.

I agree, probably even less than that. They were probably using some thing like a Motorola PRC61 or similar. The audio range of the microphones on these and similar transceivers of that period was around 30 to 3000Hz.

 

[manifesto]

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.



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.


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.


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.



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.


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.


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.


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.


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.

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


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.


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.


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.


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.

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


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.

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.



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.



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...

Hmmm ...

What a exactly do you mean when stating that the five detected impulse patterns being five rifle shots, is conditional upon there being an open mike on the right places at the right times?

Is it the same with, let say, shooters? That the five detected impulse patterns being five rifle shots, is conditional upon there being at least two shooters on the right places at the right times?

 

[manifesto]

I would counter that by asking you the same question. Why would the following world leading experts disagree with those findings

Name (Employment) [Speciality/Area of expertise]

Prof. Normal F. Ramsey (Harvard U) [Physics] 1989 Nobel Prize in Physics

Prof. Herman Chernoff (MIT) [Applied Mathematics, Applied Statistics, Physics] F.A.M.S.

John C. Feggeler (Bell Telephone) [Transmissions & Sound Engineer]

Alfred Johnson (ATF - National Laboratory Centre) [Ballistics Engineer]

F. Williams Sarles (Trisolar Corporation) [Electrical Engineer]

Jerome Elkind (Xerox Palo Alto Research Center) [Electrical Engineer and Computer Scientist] Co-founder of the Lexia Institute.

Charles Rader (MIT) [Signal and Speech Processing]

Phrof. Luis W. Alvarez (UCB ) [Experimental Physics] 1968 Nobel Prize in Physics

Dr. Robert H. Dicke (Princeton U) [Physics]

Prof Richard L. Garwin (Columbia U) [Physics]

Paul Horowitz (Harvard U) [Physics and Design Engineering]

Prof Robert A. Phinney (Princeton U) [Geophysicas and Seismology]

These twelve men comprised the Committee on Ballistic Acoustics. They are acknowledged experts in their respective fields, the exact range of expertise required to review the work of Dr. Barger and the HSCA acoustics panel. These men had everything to lose and nothing to gain by lying about their findings on Barger's work, so why would they?

In the end, after their work was presented, Barger himself agreed and could not fault their work. Why would he do that if he thought they were wrong?

These are the men whose work you (some Neville Nobody on an internet forum) "have studied" and found to be "in error"

Explain these errors, show your evidence that they have made errors.

No one of them were/are experts in the field of ballistic acoustics, no.

The Justice Department first asked Luis Alwarez to head the team evaluating the HSCA acoustic report. He declined to head it but suggested they ask Ramsey who was his long time friend and colleague while at the same time accepting a chair in the panel.

The thing with Alvarez is that he at the time was a well known ”debunker” of a shot from in front on the knoll. Commiting scientific fraud when claiming he had proved that the JFK head snap back and to the left was the result of a ”jet-effect” and that he had responded with scorn when the HSCA acoustic evidence became known. He told reporters that he was:

"…simply amazed that anyone would take such evidence seriously."​

Before reading the report.

According to Alvarez himself in his biography, he was the most active member of said panel. Three questions:

1. Was it ethical of the JD to ask Alvarez to head the panel and accept that he was a member, knowing he was NOT impartial and had a lot of scientific credibility to lose if the HSCA studie turned out to be valid?

2. Was it ethical of Luis Alvarez to hide behind Ramsey so he coud sneek in with a low prophile evading legitimate critique of severe impartiality?

3. Concidering him being the panels most active member, why should anyone believe anything stated in its report?

 

[smartcooky]

Hmmm ...

What a exactly do you mean when stating that the five detected impulse patterns being five rifle shots, is conditional upon there being an open mike on the right places at the right times?

Is it the same with, let say, shooters? That the five detected impulse patterns being five rifle shots, is conditional upon there being at least two shooters on the right places at the right times?

I suggest you have a read of the actual paper here...

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/pdf/HSCA_Vol8_AS_2_BBN.pdf

... and then watch this video from where it is cued (2:11)

https://youtu.be/oaBPeHu9pfY?t=131

...to see how the HSCA panel matches the recorded noises of what they think might be gunshots from the Dictabelt recording to those recorded during the test firings.

You will be able to see that for the four/five noise spikes to really be gunshots is conditional upon the stuck mic being at the four/five mic locations at the right time. You should also be able to understand why this does not work in reverse, i.e. that the sounds on the Dictabelt are ONLY gunshots IF it can be proven that the stuck mic is at the correct locations at the correct times. If just one of the locations does not have the stuck mic present at the appointed time, then the noises cannot be gunshots.

Now, if you are really as open to evidence as you claim to be then you will carry on watching the above video from this point...

https://youtu.be/oaBPeHu9pfY?t=442

...where Charles Rader (a member of the CBA I mentioned in my last post) explains the problems with the original HSCA work, including

1. A 200m/s error in shot identification between BBN and W/A.

2. How the section of the dictabelt the HSCA identified as gunshots was actually speech cross-talking off the other radio channel and how they were able to confirm this by matching speech spectra between the two channels.

3. How they were able to identify what that speech said and show that it was after the assassination was already over.

4. How they realised there was a timing error between the two dictabelt recordings, and when they applied a correction, the frequencies of the two speech spectra lined up even more perfectly than it did before.

5. Where the stuck mic actually was and how they were able to identify its location using the doppler shift of sirens and other speech recorded on the dictabelt.

 

[smartcooky]

No one of them were/are experts in the field of ballistic acoustics, no.

It takes more that just an expert in acoustic ballistics (such as Alfred Johnson). You need other skills as well... Remember, we are dealing with audio recordings here, so you need people who understand how audio signals are recoded and processed in the audio circuits of a radio transmitter and receiver. These will be electrical engineers and signal proceessing experts such as Charles Rader, John Feggeler, F. Williams Sarles and Jerome Elkind. A good deal of BBN and W/A work relied on estimating probabilities (you have stressed this point yourself) so its necessary to have at least one Applied Mathematics and Applies Statistics expert on the panel, a such as Prof. Herman Chernoff

The Justice Department first asked Luis Alwarez to head the team evaluating the HSCA acoustic report. He declined to head it but suggested they ask Ramsey who was his long time friend and colleague while at the same time accepting a chair in the panel.

The thing with Alvarez is that he at the time was a well known ”debunker” of a shot from in front on the knoll. Commiting scientific fraud when claiming he had proved that the JFK head snap back and to the left was the result of a ”jet-effect” and that he had responded with scorn when the HSCA acoustic evidence became known. He told reporters that he was:

"…simply amazed that anyone would take such evidence seriously."​

Before reading the report.

According to Alvarez himself in his biography, he was the most active member of said panel. Three questions:

1. Was it ethical of the JD to ask Alvarez to head the panel and accept that he was a member, knowing he was NOT impartial and had a lot of scientific credibility to lose if the HSCA studie turned out to be valid?

2. Was it ethical of Luis Alvarez to hide behind Ramsey so he coud sneek in with a low prophile evading legitimate critique of severe impartiality?

3. Concidering him being the panels most active member, why should anyone believe anything stated in its report?

Typical CT rubbish.. you resort to character assassination so that you can handwave away anything these people say.... anything other that admit you might be wrong

Again, I ask the same question that you did... why would these people risk their reputations and the honours for everything they have achieved in order lie for the Goverment? They had nothing to gain and everything to by being dishonest!

 

[manifesto]

It takes more that just an expert in acoustic ballistics (such as Alfred Johnson). You need other skills as well... Remember, we are dealing with audio recordings here, so you need people who understand how audio signals are recoded and processed in the audio circuits of a radio transmitter and receiver. These will be electrical engineers and signal proceessing experts such as Charles Rader, John Feggeler, F. Williams Sarles and Jerome Elkind. A good deal of BBN and W/A work relied on estimating probabilities (you have stressed this point yourself) so its necessary to have at least one Applied Mathematics and Applies Statistics expert on the panel, a such as Prof. Herman Chernoff

Still, not a single one from the field of ballistic acoustics.

Why?

Typical CT rubbish.. you resort to character assassination so that you can handwave away anything these people say.... anything other that admit you might be wrong

Again, I ask the same question that you did... why would these people risk their reputations and the honours for everything they have achieved in order lie for the Goverment? They had nothing to gain and everything to by being dishonest!

Is it ethical to hire an exeptionelly well known proponent of the Lone Nut Oswald-theory who has staked his well deserved scientific reputation in defending said theory, to evaluate a scientific report that refutes his own scientific work (jet-theory)?

Is he to be expected as perfectly neutral and objective doing this?

Yes or no?

 

[smartcooky]

Still, not a single one from the field of ballistic acoustics.

Why?

Because the correct term for what you incorrectly call "ballistic acoustics" is actually "forensic gunshot acoustics". Its only been around as a field of study since about 2010.

https://asa.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1121/1.3655043

As a science, it did not exist when the HSCA and CBA were doing their work... there was simply no such thing as a forensic gunshot acoustics analyst in the 1970's and 80's. In fact, you could almost argue that the HCSA were pioneers in the field, they almost created the science themselves.

The nearest they could get was to hire audio experts, ballstics experts and eletrical engineers, and they did just that

Is it ethical to hire an exeptionelly well known proponent of the Lone Nut Oswald-theory who has staked his well deserved scientific reputation in defending said theory, to evaluate a scientific report that refutes his own scientific work (jet-theory)?

Is he to be expected as perfectly neutral and objective doing this?

Yes or no?

You are judging these men by your standards. A scientist is able to set aside their personal views in the pursuit of truth and work for the common good. This is why there are astrophysicists who are devout Christians and Muslims; this is how men who were essentially peaceable, were able to work on the Manhattan Project and build the atomic bomb. The very essence of being a scientist is having the ability to alter or let go of a dearly held theory when the evidence doesn't support it.

Now I don't expect you to understand this because it is simply beyond the comprehension of conspiracy theorists such as you. The whole basis of conspiracy theory is that the theory is always right, and that only evidence that supports the theory is accepted.. any evidence that does not support it is handwaved away or ignored. When you can't do either of those, you do what you have done here... attack the integrity of the people who provided the evidence!

 

[Tomtomkent]

Hmmm ...

What a exactly do you mean when stating that the five detected impulse patterns being five rifle shots, is conditional upon there being an open mike on the right places at the right times?

Is it the same with, let say, shooters? That the five detected impulse patterns being five rifle shots, is conditional upon there being at least two shooters on the right places at the right times?

I mean that the interpretation of those five sets of impulses being rifle shots is dependent on a microphone having been at a specific point at a specific time.

Obviously.

I mean that you keep talking about those impulses as though they WERE rifle shots, but that is not what the evidence you posted means.

I mean that IF AND ONLY IF you prove the recording made where and when the impulses gain signicance, they can not be said to be rifle shots.

I really don’t know how to make this concept any clearer.

The measurements that made those impulses seem significant are based upon assumptions that have to be proven, for the probability to be active.

That you are asking if extrapolations, the things you want the evidence to suggest, are conditional, I’m going to take it as read you don’t actually understand the probability you base your claims of “fact” and “proof” on.

 

[Tomtomkent]

I suggest you have a read of the actual paper here...

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/pdf/HSCA_Vol8_AS_2_BBN.pdf

... and then watch this video from where it is cued (2:11)

https://youtu.be/oaBPeHu9pfY?t=131

...to see how the HSCA panel matches the recorded noises of what they think might be gunshots from the Dictabelt recording to those recorded during the test firings.

You will be able to see that for the four/five noise spikes to really be gunshots is conditional upon the stuck mic being at the four/five mic locations at the right time. You should also be able to understand why this does not work in reverse, i.e. that the sounds on the Dictabelt are ONLY gunshots IF it can be proven that the stuck mic is at the correct locations at the correct times. If just one of the locations does not have the stuck mic present at the appointed time, then the noises cannot be gunshots.

Now, if you are really as open to evidence as you claim to be then you will carry on watching the above video from this point...

https://youtu.be/oaBPeHu9pfY?t=442

...where Charles Rader (a member of the CBA I mentioned in my last post) explains the problems with the original HSCA work, including

1. A 200m/s error in shot identification between BBN and W/A.

2. How the section of the dictabelt the HSCA identified as gunshots was actually speech cross-talking off the other radio channel and how they were able to confirm this by matching speech spectra between the two channels.

3. How they were able to identify what that speech said and show that it was after the assassination was already over.

4. How they realised there was a timing error between the two dictabelt recordings, and when they applied a correction, the frequencies of the two speech spectra lined up even more perfectly than it did before.

5. Where the stuck mic actually was and how they were able to identify its location using the doppler shift of sirens and other speech recorded on the dictabelt.

Thank you for phrasing it far better than I ever could.

 

[manifesto]

I mean that the interpretation of those five sets of impulses being rifle shots is dependent on a microphone having been at a specific point at a specific time.

Obviously.

But they are not dependent of at least two shooters having been at a specific point in a specific time?

Whats the difference?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Is he to be expected as perfectly neutral and objective doing this?

Yes or no?

, your homework is to look up "strawman argument". Report back your findings.

Then I'll tell you the problem you have with relying on your bug guy's findings.

Is been comprehensively debunked numerous times.

 

[Tomtomkent]

But they are not dependent of at least two shooters having been at a specific point in a specific time?

Whats the difference?

The location of the microphone, at the right time, is a necessity for showing the patterns to be significant. In the analogy of a fable I posted earlier in the thread, the microphone being in the right place, at the right time, is a requirement for finding the marks you might think to be footprints.

The presence of a rifle being fired, is the extrapolation, the thing you wish to deduce from the evidence. It is the conclusion that Nessie is a dinosaur.

The microphone *HAS* to be shown to be in the right place, at the right time, for the sounds to be significant, *BEFORE* you can claim they are evidence of a rifle.

Do you not understand this?

 

[manifesto]

Because the correct term for what you incorrectly call "ballistic acoustics" is actually "forensic gunshot acoustics". Its only been around as a field of study since about 2010.

https://asa.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1121/1.3655043

As a science, it did not exist when the HSCA and CBA were doing their work... there was simply no such thing as a forensic gunshot acoustics analyst in the 1970's and 80's. In fact, you could almost argue that the HCSA were pioneers in the field, they almost created the science themselves.

The nearest they could get was to hire audio experts, ballstics experts and eletrical engineers, and they did just that.

So, why do CBA call their evaluation report of the HSCA acoustic investigation ”Ballistic Acoustics” if that is not the case?

Call it what you will, why were there none in the ”expert panel” who knew anything about sonar analysis which is the expertise shared by both BBN and W&A?

You are judging these men by your standards. A scientist is able to set aside their personal views in the pursuit of truth and work for the common good.

And if the ”common good” is interpreted as ”national security” in the form of containing potentially disruptive information should it be public knowledge?

That said, scientist are people as everybody else. That is the reason there is well established ethical guidlines when it comes to peer review and evaluations of scientific findings.

Luis Albarez was NOT impartial when evaluating the HSCA report. He had everything to lose if it turned out to be valid.

Add to that the fact that he already had committed scientific fraud when proclaiming that he had proved the the JFK head snap, back and to the left, was caused by a so called ”jet-effect” and NOT by a bullet from the front on the knoll.

Reputation is everything in the scientific community. Lose that and no Nobel prize will save you.

This is why there are astrophysicists who are devout Christians and Muslims; this is how men who were essentially peaceable, were able to work on the Manhattan Project and build the atomic bomb. The very essence of being a scientist is having the ability to alter or let go of a dearly held theory when the evidence doesn't support it.

Religion and science are two different genres and doesn’t necessarly compete.

Science and science, does.

Now I don't expect you to understand this because it is simply beyond the comprehension of conspiracy theorists such as you. The whole basis of conspiracy theory is that the theory is always right, and that only evidence that supports the theory is accepted.. any evidence that does not support it is handwaved away or ignored. When you can't do either of those, you do what you have done here... attack the integrity of the people who provided the evidence!

Baloney.

Is it prudent to ask an indiviadual who already have a very well published dog in the fight to sit as an arbiter judging which one is the best dog?

Of course not. The reason JD asked Alvarez was that they could count on him being loyal to the right version of ”common good”.

 

[RoboTimbo]

the JFK head snap, back and to the left, was caused by a so called ”jet-effect” and NOT by a bullet from the front on the knoll.

, are there actually CT websites that still subscribe to the "back and to the left" idiocy?

That's also been debunked comprehensively.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Add to that the fact that he already had committed scientific fraud when proclaiming that he had proved the the JFK head snap, back and to the left, was caused by a so called ”jet-effect” and NOT by a bullet from the front on the knoll.

Which direction is the ejecta travelling from JFK's head during this movement?

 

[manifesto]

The location of the microphone, at the right time, is a necessity for showing the patterns to be significant. In the analogy of a fable I posted earlier in the thread, the microphone being in the right place, at the right time, is a requirement for finding the marks you might think to be footprints.

The presence of a rifle being fired, is the extrapolation, the thing you wish to deduce from the evidence. It is the conclusion that Nessie is a dinosaur.

The microphone *HAS* to be shown to be in the right place, at the right time, for the sounds to be significant, *BEFORE* you can claim they are evidence of a rifle.

Do you not understand this?

Why are you evading my question? It is a simple one.

- Is there a qualitative difference regarding ”conditional upon” between shooters at the right spots at the right times vs. the open mike at the right spots at the right time?

Explain.

 

[Tomtomkent]

, are there actually CT websites that still subscribe to the "back and to the left" idiocy?

That's also been debunked comprehensively.

Perhaps the Conservation Of Momentum was skipped over, as well as Boolean Logic?