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

You can't have it both ways.
You can't claim he committed fraud because his explanation did not reflect your preferred outcome, if you are unwilling to show his explanation should have reflected that outcome.

And, I will also note here: This presumption of fraud, a deliberate criminal act, is again, at odds with your stated belief that innocence should be assumed until guilt is proven.

You are literally refusing to show your grounds for accusing the chap.
 
manifesto said:
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?
Click to expand...

So you believe his head went back and to the left due to muscle spasm?
 
manifesto said:
Therefore my use of the word ”probably”. And, they are hardly ”innocent”.

Monsters.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but this makes it even further from your stated values.
You have just stated they are not innocent, and called them monsters, when they are only "probably" guilty?
 
manifesto said:
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.
Click to expand...

Could be explained by a shot from behind too.

The forward movement, plus the massive spray of ejecta in front of the head, plus the complete lack of visible rear exit wound in the back, plus the complete lack of ejecta spraying out the back of the head all lead to one inescapable conclusion.

The shot was from the rear.


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

None.
Click to expand...

You better tell this wound ballistics scientist that. He's going to be awfully embarrassed.


http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/headwnd.htm
 
traxy said:
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.
Click to expand...

I've never understood the problem with the momentum explanation. Stuff blows from his right front. To conserve momentum, something has to go back left.
 
manifesto said:
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 ...
Click to expand...

So why did Oswald have the revolver in the Theater? He was just paranoid that the Dallas PD would accuse some mousy hick of killing JFK?
 
Tomtomkent said:
Sorry, but this makes it even further from your stated values.
You have just stated they are not innocent, and called them monsters, when they are only "probably" guilty?
Click to expand...
- Monsters = the sum of their deeds.

- Probably in on it = a whole lot of circumstantial evidence and means motive and opportunity.
 
Elagabalus said:
So why did Oswald have the revolver in the Theater? He was just paranoid that the Dallas PD would accuse some mousy hick of killing JFK?
Click to expand...
IF he had a revolver in the theater there could be any explanation for this:

- Lots of texans in his age carried guns for no reason at all.

- He suspected that he was being railroaded as a patsy and brought the weapon for protection when trying to meet up with his handler/cut out at the pre arranged meeting place.

- When arriving at the theater he was observed sitting down right beside single individuals in the saloon, sit there for a while, rise and sitting down right beside another, and another, as if he was looking for somebody he did not know but expected to make contact with.

- He had a couple of odd items on him for no plausible reason, exept that such items was typical signs to show when meeting up with an unknown cut-out when communication with handlers.


The probable scenario is that he was a low level US Intel agent believing he had infiltrated a conspiracy to assassinate JFK and that the conspirators was about to be arrested just before they could make their plans a reality.

When realizing that the conspiracy went along unhindered he went to see his contact/cut out to know what had happened, what went wrong. Slowly he realize that his handler/s was in on the assassination the whole time and after a while in DPD HQ he also begins to realize that he have been selected as a patsy by the same people he belived he worked as an undercover agent for.

And no, he certainly didn’t kill officer Tippit, and no, he certainly didn’t try to kill General Walker, and no, he certainly didn’t try to kill Tricky Dick Nixon.

He was in over his head, but innocent.
 
manifesto said:
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.
Click to expand...

There is no shadow behind JFK, just a head that blocks light. No shadows, so this is your evaluation? You need a better eye glass prescription.
Cite where ejecta can travel up to 4 times the speed on entry.

I have already explained to you how the MC officer got splattered, it is called GRAVITY, the material travels a upward trajectory until gravity pulls it down. Very simple, how the MC got splattered and brain matter ends up on the trunk. You really should study some physics before posting this nonsense.

Cite where professional image evaluator sees a suspect "darkness" in the image.
 
manifesto said:
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.

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

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.
Click to expand...

Cite your qualifications to nerve reactions from a GSW. You are blowing smoke nothing more.
 
manifesto said:
IF he had a revolver in the theater there could be any explanation for this:
Click to expand...
He definitely had his revolver with him in the theater. The same one he used to murder Officer Tippitt. There is absolutely no doubt about that.

- Lots of texans in his age carried guns for no reason at all.
Click to expand...
His was the only one used to murder Officer Tippitt.

- He suspected that he was being railroaded as a patsy and brought the weapon for protection when trying to meet up with his handler/cut out at the pre arranged meeting place.
Click to expand...
Speculation for which there is no evidence.

- When arriving at the theater he was observed sitting down right beside single individuals in the saloon, sit there for a while, rise and sitting down right beside another, and another, as if he was looking for somebody he did not know but expected to make contact with.
Click to expand...
Or nervous for having just killed two people and on the run. The evidence says my scenario is the correct one.

- He had a couple of odd items on him for no plausible reason, exept that such items was typical signs to show when meeting up with an unknown cut-out when communication with handlers.
Click to expand...
Like a murder weapon?

The probable scenario is that he was a low level US Intel agent believing he had infiltrated a conspiracy to assassinate JFK and that the conspirators was about to be arrested just before they could make their plans a reality.
Click to expand...
No, that isn't a probable scenario.

When realizing that the conspiracy went along unhindered he went to see his contact/cut out to know what had happened, what went wrong. Slowly he realize that his handler/s was in on the assassination the whole time and after a while in DPD HQ he also begins to realize that he have been selected as a patsy by the same people he belived he worked as an undercover agent for.
Click to expand...
Except there is no evidence for your fantasy.

And no, he certainly didn’t kill officer Tippit, and no, he certainly didn’t try to kill General Walker, and no, he certainly didn’t try to kill Tricky Dick Nixon.
Click to expand...
;), he definitely did murder Officer Tippitt with the same revolver he tried to use to murder more officers in the theater where they cornered him. You won't be able to simply wish it to be different.

He was in over his head, but innocent.
Click to expand...
No, not innocent. Guilty of assassination of a sitting president and the murder of Officer Tippitt. Those are beyond question.

;), did you ever answer the question about how you justify your hypocrisy?
 
manifesto said:
I have no idea. At the moment.
Click to expand...

Moving on then. You said:

manifesto said:
Very differcult since it depends on gears and brakes. That said, a company called ”Sonolyst” did just that and tried to match rpm/dB too see if it matched the movements of the bike with the mike.

Since they plotted the data against the revised timeline from RNC which stated that the recording happened ca one minute after the assassination it naturally did not match. However when plotted to the timeline in the acoustic evidence it was a perfect match.

So, instead of ”debunking” the acoustic evidence, it further corroborated it.
Click to expand...

Sonalyst analyzed the RPM's from the tape and found that the motorcycle with the stuck mike ran for approximately 2 min. 48 sec. mostly at 3000 RPM up to 12 sec before the last shot "impulse" for the HSCA placement. This would be way too fast for Mclain traveling with the motorcade down Main street coming to Houston.
 
Last edited:
manifesto said:
- Monsters = the sum of their deeds.

- Probably in on it = a whole lot of circumstantial evidence and means motive and opportunity.
Click to expand...

And still not apologising for, or retracting, the apparent accusations, despite now admitting that their "probable" guilt falls far short of the standard you demanded was applied to Oswald.

Interesting.
 
manifesto said:
- When arriving at the theater he was observed sitting down right beside single individuals in the saloon, sit there for a while, rise and sitting down right beside another, and another, as if he was looking for somebody he did not know but expected to make contact with.
Click to expand...

I just remember reading about this a few days ago and it was more like he got up to exit the theater just as the manager and officer were at the front of the theater looking for him and when he saw more officers coming through the side he sat right back down in a different seat. Looking guilty as all get out of something. So I would need a citation for any witness that said he got up more than once or that they thought he was looking for someone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom