• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
traxy said:
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.
Click to expand...
I have already discussed the so called ”epipolar ”geometrical” synchronisation of Hughes and Zapruder and I’m still waiting for the secured numbers and data to conclusively determine this.

Eye-balling doesn’t cut it. Science does.

Have any?
 
manifesto said:
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.
Click to expand...

I answered the question.
I explained that the claimed probability IS conditional upon the microphone being in the right at the right time, but IS NOT conditional upon any rifles being there. Indeed it CAN NOT BE conditional upon the deduction you wish to extrapolate.

Did you not understand my answer?

I will explain again in different terms:

You can not *BEG THE QUESTION*.
That is to say: You can not assume the answer you want, to prove the answer you want.

Or to put it another way:

You can not pretend the question asked by a test is: "Does this prove a rifle was fired?" When the question actually asked is: "Are there any impulse patterns that might have been rifles?"

You first have to show there are impulse patterns which may have been a rifle or comparable noise, before you ask if it was a rifle.

How much simpler can this answer get?

"No. You can't claim that the presence of Nessie footprints is reliant upon the presence of a dinosaur, before you have shown all conditions are met for us to assume those marks were footprints left by a dinosaur."

Seriously, if you don't understand this, be honest and admit you don't understand, but do not pretend the question has not been answered, unless you want to be seen to be deliberately dishonest and trolling.
 
RoboTimbo said:
;), 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.
Click to expand...
It is not a ”straw man” to question the impartiality of Alvarez if he already has a well publicised dog in the fight.

It is an obvious breach in ethical standards.

It is almost as questionable as asking Allen Dulles to chair the presidential truth commission finding out who assassinated JFK.

Almost.
 
manifesto said:
Most of it that are visible in the photographic record travels straight up.

Why do you ask?
Click to expand...

Because when something moves straight up, from the side of a head, that is going to result in an equal and opposite reaction down, and to the other side, which, we can see in the movement of the head.

Because we can see which side of the head the ejecta travels from we know it is being blown out from behind. Bullets do not suck matter from the head in their wake. It is a trauma wave explosion from the back of the head, breaking the head open.

Simple conservation of momentum. Unlike movies, where bullets blow people around, the head is rocked back by an exit wound being larger than an entry wound, because of the sheer volume of mass being punched out the top and side of his skull.

An exit wound towards the shooter on the knoll is clearly stupid, ergo, it is an exit wound, away from the shooter in the TSBD.

The autopsy matches the photographs, matches the film, matches the wound we expect from Oswald's rifle.

The movement of the body is what happens after the shot, when the body stops supporting it. Given the back support that JFK wore since his patrol boat sank in WW2, the backwards movement was the more likely way for an unsupported head to fall.
 
manifesto said:
I have already discussed the so called ”epipolar ”geometrical” synchronisation of Hughes and Zapruder and I’m still waiting for the secured numbers and data to conclusively determine this.

Eye-balling doesn’t cut it. Science does.

Have any?
Click to expand...

This would be a more convincing argument if you showed some signs of understanding those terms, or their use, as with many of the scientific principles you state in your arguments.
 
Tomtomkent said:
I answered the question.
I explained that the claimed probability IS conditional upon the microphone being in the right at the right time, but IS NOT conditional upon any rifles being there. Indeed it CAN NOT BE conditional upon the deduction you wish to extrapolate.

Did you not understand my answer?
Click to expand...
So, a possible echo pattern from a rifle shot recorded by an open mike is conditional upon the mike actually doing the recording at the right place at the right time, but not conditional upon the rifle actually doing the shooting at the right place at the right time?

Correct?
 
manifesto said:
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.
Click to expand...

What direction did Kennedy's head snap the instant the bullet struck?

I'll give you a hint.

https://m.imgur.com/UAFlDvp
 
Tomtomkent said:
Because when something moves straight up, from the side of a head, that is going to result in an equal and opposite reaction down, and to the other side, which, we can see in the movement of the head.

Because we can see which side of the head the ejecta travels from we know it is being blown out from behind. Bullets do not suck matter from the head in their wake. It is a trauma wave explosion from the back of the head, breaking the head open.

Simple conservation of momentum. Unlike movies, where bullets blow people around, the head is rocked back by an exit wound being larger than an entry wound, because of the sheer volume of mass being punched out the top and side of his skull.

An exit wound towards the shooter on the knoll is clearly stupid, ergo, it is an exit wound, away from the shooter in the TSBD.

The autopsy matches the photographs, matches the film, matches the wound we expect from Oswald's rifle.

The movement of the body is what happens after the shot, when the body stops supporting it. Given the back support that JFK wore since his patrol boat sank in WW2, the backwards movement was the more likely way for an unsupported head to fall.
Click to expand...
Al this is baloney, showing that you haven’t read anything about the controversy.

1. Are taped melons equivalent to human heads?

2. Are the Carcano 6.5 copper jacketed bullets equivalent to frangible bullets without jacket?
 
manifesto said:
So, a possible echo pattern from a rifle shot recorded by an open mike is conditional upon the mike actually doing the recording at the right place at the right time, but not conditional upon the rifle actually doing the shooting at the right place at the right time?

Correct?
Click to expand...

Almost.
The POSSIBILITY of the impulses being rifle shots, in the tests you cited is conditional upon the mic being in the right place, at the right time.

The POSSIBILITY is not reliant on there being a rifle there, because those impulse patterns may not be rifle shots at all, if the conditions are not met. The presence of the rifle is an EXTRAPOLATION you might reach AFTER THE POSSIBILITY IS VALIDATED.

I am running out of ways to tell you, that it must be shown the microphone was in all five locations at all five times, as well as other conditions to be met, for the probability to be valid (and even this much benefit of the doubt means delaying the later queries about the recordings that effectively make the point moot).

Now please, answer honestly: Is this something you understand?
 
manifesto said:
Al this is baloney, showing that you haven’t read anything about the controversy.

1. Are taped melons equivalent to human heads?

2. Are the Carcano 6.5 copper jacketed bullets equivalent to frangible bullets without jacket?
Click to expand...

If you care to read this thread, and the predecessor threads, to be up to speed, you will know this is false.

And, to be frank, something I learned when I first started discussing this topic years ago was there is no point "reading the controversy" unless you first understand the basic science, and look for actual analogues. Why hope a watermelon is good enough, when we have ballistic jelly that is a common and accurate analogue for human tissue?

Why discuss fantasies of frangible rounds not available at the time, when we know the characteristics of the bullets used?

Why, in short, speculate, when we have the autopsy photographs showing the entry wound in the back of the head, and the results of explosive ejecta forwards and to the side of this? When we have autopsy records? When we have actual evidence?
 
manifesto said:
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?
Click to expand...

Can I please get a clarification of how long "a moment" lasts for you? Just curious.
 
traxy said:
Try "in front of the head".

How much ejecta do you see behind his head? Look closely.

https://m.imgur.com/UAFlDvp
Click to expand...
There are a couple of explanations to the visible/not visible ejecta.

1. The ejecta straight up and forward are in the the sunshine. Ejecta backwards are in the shadow.

2. Ejecta in the direction of the incomming bullet travels up to four times as fast as other ejecta and thereby difficult to detect by a super 8 camera from a distance.

3. There is a couple of white locking fragments/lumps traveling at a very high speed behind the limo in the opposite direction.

4. MC officer is reporting being splattered with fluids when the head explodes.

5. Mrs. Kennedy is fetching something on the limo trunk which could only be ejecta from JFK’s head.

6. There is a very suspect blackness in the area of the right back of JFK’s head from the head shot forward. Like a patch crudely painted in a photo lab.

Still, the question is if the head movement can be explained by a jet-effect. The answer is, no.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom