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

[traxy]

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?

I'm not asking about epipolar geometry. I'm asking you to make a simple observation.

Here, let's try a couple true/false questions. Maybe that's more your speed.

True or False, the segments of the Hughes and Zapruder films I've posted show the white SS car beginning its turn from Houston to Elm.

True or False?

 

[manifesto]

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?

Because Alvarez used taped water melons as substitutes for human heads.

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

Because Alvarez used frangible bullets as a substitute for the Carcano bullets allegedly used by Oswald.

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?

Why, in short, change subject, when we have a discussion about Alvarez ”proven jet-effect” as an explanation of JFK’s head movements?

 

[Tomtomkent]

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

Please explain this strange psychic ability.
How do we know she was intending to fetch something? Is her intention somehow readable from the film?

Assuming this was correct (and not, that she was trying to escape, or some other understandable panic reaction): how do we know it was not some of the ejecta you just said "went straight up" while the car was moving forwards?

 

[manifesto]

I'm not asking about epipolar geometry. I'm asking you to make a simple observation.

Here, let's try a couple true/false questions. Maybe that's more your speed.

True or False, the segments of the Hughes and Zapruder films I've posted show the white SS car beginning its turn from Houston to Elm.

True or False?

Define, ”beginning”.

 

[manifesto]

Please explain this strange psychic ability.
How do we know she was intending to fetch something? Is her intention somehow readable from the film?

Assuming this was correct (and not, that she was trying to escape, or some other understandable panic reaction): how do we know it was not some of the ejecta you just said "went straight up" while the car was moving forwards?

Not a word of her intentions, no. She clearly picks up something from the trunk before sliding back into the limo back seat.

The only plausible object is something from JFK’s exploded head —-> ejecta backwards from a bullet fired in front of the limo.

 

[traxy]

Define, ”beginning”.

Transitioning from straight wheels to turned wheels while moving forward.

 

[RoboTimbo]

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.

, now you just need compelling evidence for shots from the front.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I have no idea.

, you finally said something truthful.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Why, in short, change subject, when we have a discussion about Alvarez ”proven jet-effect” as an explanation of JFK’s head movements?

How am I changing the subject? You stated:

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.

Your statement includes the contention that the results should have shown a shot from the knoll.

This is not a binary situation. There are more possible outcomes than Alvarez being right, or fraudulent: He could be mistaken, partially right, acting on the best information he had, that has been superceded, or he could just have reached a wrong answer from the evidence.

Further: His being wrong would not equate your being right.

The null is that the ejecta matches the KNOWN wounds, for which we have autopsy evidence, and would expect from the round known to be fired.

I am hardly going to assume somebody is wrong because you claim a shot from the knoll, unless you can prove a shot from the knoll.

 

[traxy]

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.

So no, you can't see any ejecta out the back of the head.

Here's another look at the headshot from a different angle. Look close, you can see the direction of the ejecta in this clip as well.

How much do you see shoot out in front of the head?

How much do you see shoot out the rear?

https://m.imgur.com/00wJCMH

Here's a third look from yet another angle with a really good look at the back of JFKs head. Look closely, the ejecta is visible here too.

How much do you see shoot out in front of the head?

How much do you see shoot out of the rear?

https://m.imgur.com/2WYYaND

 

[manifesto]

Who do you CTs (s) think assassinated JFK?

I pretty much know it wasn’t Oswald.

These three guys were probably in on it:

Allen Dulles

Lyndon Johnson

J. Edgar Hoover

For slightly different but converging reasons.

The vast majority of those at very high level that took part of the cover up, did so for reasons of national security.

On the lower levels the main reasons was to obey orders, go along to get along, please the boss ...

 

[Tomtomkent]

Not a word of her intentions, no. She clearly picks up something from the trunk before sliding back into the limo back seat.

The only plausible object is something from JFK’s exploded head —-> ejecta backwards from a bullet fired in front of the limo.

Your opinion might be she picked something up. I can't see it.
And your "only plausible" statement is a leap too far:

Even if there is something she is picking up (which, we cant see because the definition of the film is not good enough) and even if it was ejecta from JFK's head, you seem to be ignoring that you described the ejecta blown upwards.

I suspect you are smart enough to know that if you throw something out of a car (a relative frame of reference) that is moving forwards, the object will have good reason to be behind the object by time it lands?

 

[pgwenthold]

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

That's also been debunked comprehensively.

I saw recently where, if you look at the first frame or so of the Z film after the third shot, Kennedy's head actually jerks forward and then recoils back and to the left.

If the "back and to the left" argument were correct, it would show a shot from the back, yes?

 

[Tomtomkent]

I pretty much know it wasn’t Oswald.

These three guys were probably in on it:

Allen Dulles

Lyndon Johnson

J. Edgar Hoover

For slightly different but converging reasons.

The vast majority of those at very high level that took part of the cover up, did so for reasons of national security.

On the lower levels the main reasons was to obey orders, go along to get along, please the boss ...

So much for the innocent until proven guilty standard you wanted others to use, earlier...

 

[Tomtomkent]

I saw recently where, if you look at the first frame or so of the Z film after the third shot, Kennedy's head actually jerks forward and then recoils back and to the left.

If the "back and to the left" argument were correct, it would show a shot from the back, yes?

If it were correct.

But when the argument for a shot from the front relies so heavily on excuses for a lack of evidence of the shot, rather than evidence of the shot, it all seems... a bit of a waste of logic.

 

[traxy]

I saw recently where, if you look at the first frame or so of the Z film after the third shot, Kennedy's head actually jerks forward and then recoils back and to the left.

If the "back and to the left" argument were correct, it would show a shot from the back, yes?

Check out the gif I posted in the last page or so. There is most definitely a snap forward when the bullet hits, no question about it.

The rear motion starts a couple frames later. It could be jet effect, but I've always been a fan of it being from his body having a massive spasm from the brain trauma and going rigid.

 

[manifesto]

How am I changing the subject? You stated:



Your statement includes the contention that the results should have shown a shot from the knoll.

This is not a binary situation. There are more possible outcomes than Alvarez being right, or fraudulent: He could be mistaken, partially right, acting on the best information he had, that has been superceded, or he could just have reached a wrong answer from the evidence.

Further: His being wrong would not equate your being right.

The null is that the ejecta matches the KNOWN wounds, for which we have autopsy evidence, and would expect from the round known to be fired.

I am hardly going to assume somebody is wrong because you claim a shot from the knoll, unless you can prove a shot from the knoll.

The subject is Luis Alvarez and his role in evaluating the HSCA acoustic evidence.

To commit scientific fraud in order to explain (away) JFK’s head snap back and to the left with a ”scientifically proven jet-effect” and thereby singlehandedly defusing most of the public uproar caused by Riveras showing of the Zapruder-film for the first time in prime time national television, is not a good position from which he can impartially evaluate scientific evidence refuting his well publicised fraud.

Is it?

 

[pgwenthold]

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?

Remember, the folks at BBN did not even think that all the impulses the found to agree with gun shots were even gun shots, implicitly acknowledging that the impulses can be due to something other than gun shots.

manifesto is the one who asserts that they must be gun shots. BBN doesn't ecen believe that!

 

[manifesto]

Check out the gif I posted in the last page or so. There is most definitely a snap forward when the bullet hits, no question about it.

Could be explained by a phenomena that moves the object slightly against the incomming missile depending on over pressure that initially has no other way to go.

The rear motion starts a couple frames later. It could be jet effect,

No, it could definitely not be a jet-effect. No.

but I've always been a fan of it being from his body having a massive spasm from the brain trauma and going rigid.

A bit pervy way of descibing it, don’t you think?

No, there is no known type of human trauma induced nerve reaction that can cause the movements seen i the Zapruder-film.

None.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I pretty much know it wasn’t Oswald.

You'll definitely need to answer the question about why he fled to murder Officer Tippitt and went on to attempt murdering the other officers who cornered him in the theater. Why don't you answer that, ?

These three guys were probably in on it:

Allen Dulles

Lyndon Johnson

J. Edgar Hoover

For slightly different but converging reasons.

Now you just need compelling evidence for their involvement.

The vast majority of those at very high level that took part of the cover up, did so for reasons of national security.

On the lower levels the main reasons was to obey orders, go along to get along, please the boss ...

If only there were evidence for your fantasy.