• 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.
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.

So, personally, I don't think there is anything more odd about the pocket litter, than the junk in my satchel, and nothing that indicates spy craft, but, hey, I'm willing to suppose for a moment...

What about *any* of the above, suggests "spy infiltrating the plot to kill JFK, yet somehow taking no part in the plot he just infiltrated", more than it would suggest "spy who was part of the assassination plot, who is pretty sure he is about to be burned?"

In short: If we are assuming suspicious spy-ish activity, why are supposing it is not part of the huge amount of suspicious spy-ish that the conspiracy theory intends to prove?

This is not an observation strictly about Manifesto's claims, but more a general observation, especially of Robert Prey's posts, in which any connection to the CIA or FBI was incriminating for pretty much any other source, as part of the conspiracy, and yet for Oswald it is an exonerating factor?
 
Cite where professional image evaluator sees a suspect "darkness" in the image.

Or better yet, show there is more than suspicion. Tampering with film leaves artefacts and signs. If something has been painted over, show it has been painted over.
 
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?

Placement of the microphone is everything.

When I did studio work I sometimes had to set up next to a drummer, and because the microphone was put about an inch off the grill of my amp the sound of the drums never bled through while I was playing.

When miking a bass amplifier the sound does not fully develop until about 12 feet away, and if you put the mike too close you won't hear the instrument.

The type of microphone is most important. The average microphone has a limited range. Microphones most people use and are familiar with are condenser mikes designed for voice, meaning they record the closest sound. There are some fantastic microphones that have amazing sonic range, but they are expensive.

So to answer the question; it doesn't matter how many guns or where the guns are, if the microphone is not in the right place it won't hear them, and if it does the exact position must be known to those trying to use it to determine the location of the guns.

McLain was not on Elm. The open microphone was in the Trade Mart.
 
1. Are taped melons equivalent to human heads?

In a ballistics experiment? Yes.

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

It's 6.5x52mm, and they are superior. They can penetrate an elephant skull, and can pass through two human bodies while remaining intact.

Dr. John Lattimer conducted the decisive experiments on the Carcano, and the FBI marksmen who worked with the rifle fell in love with it.

The shot came from behind. This has been verified hundreds of times.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RX2phbWmgA

Nobody who understands ballistics or just shoots a gun every so often knows this to be true.
 
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.

12:30 PM in Dallas. The sun is close to directly overhead. Please show us how the presumed ejecta backwards would be in the shadow, and in the shadow of WHAT.

Where is the shadow of JFK's head?

Hank
 
Last edited:
IF he had a revolver in the theater there could be any explanation for this:

He did. It was the gun he used to kill Tippit. The same gun he's pictured with while holding the Carcano.


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

This would be news to "lots of Texans".

There are 4 kinds of Americans who carry guns on their person:

1. People who require a firearm for protection as part of their job (police, private security, people with permits due to a high risk profession)

2. Criminals.

3. People with mental issues where paranoia is a key element.

4. Sportsmen.

Where were all of those armed Texans charging the Grassy Knoll with guns drawn?

- 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.

Then why would he go there if he suspected he was being railroaded?

- 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.

Or inching toward the exit.

- 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.

Not really.

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.

Then where did that money go?

His child was malnourished because the man couldn't put food on the table. I don't know what the GS pay scale was in 1963, but nothing in his life supports he had this income. And if he had a "handler" this person would have at the very least seen to Oswald's wife and daughter's well-being to allow Oswald to focus on his mission.

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.

If the plan went along "unhindered" why would he suspect anything?

If there was a plan it fell apart when he killed Tippit, and if there was a plan, and if he was an agent the last thing he would have done was to lead the police to his contact.

A real operative would have wiped the handgun of prints and dropped it at the crime scene.

A real operative would have filed off the serial number. A real operative has weapons provided by a third party, and doesn't buy them himself.

A real operative would have had a safe place near his rooming house to lay low.

You talk about the CIA, but you don't know anything about the CIA.

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.

The bullet was fired from his rifle into Walker's house. Marina had to physically block Oswald from leaving the house to kill Nixon (Nixon wasn't in town), and he most certainly killed Tippit like he almost kills a second officer in the theater.

He was in over his head, but innocent.

Nope, just another wannabe communist with an inferiority complex and an Italian rifle.
 
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.

Cite for this?


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

Cite for this?


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

This can only be caused by a shot from the knoll because... [complete this sentence]


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

Cite for this? She said this where?


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.

This has nothing to do with ejecta. Looks like you threw it in because you had it lying around and didn't want to waste it. We're still waiting for you to address the *evidence* of the ownership of the rifle, which you have said numerous times you don't have time to deal with. But somehow you always have time for yet more CT arguments to throw into the mix.

Hank
 
Or better yet, show there is more than suspicion. Tampering with film leaves artefacts and signs. If something has been painted over, show it has been painted over.
I can’t prove that what looks like a black patch is paint but I can State it as a possibilty. Manipulating photographic film is as old as photographics itself.
 
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.
I’m stating my personal belief based on circumstantial evidence. I’m not stating it as a fact reached upon invoking ”Null hypothesis” or ”consilience” of evidence.

Makes all the difference, doesn’t it.
 
Moving on then. You said:



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.
Here is a 39 minutes lecture by Donald Thomas. I highly recomend you have a look at it and if any questions, lettin me know.

https://youtu.be/7W_qgeHG7bw
 
In a ballistics experiment? Yes.
Lol. Tell me more.

It's 6.5x52mm, and they are superior. They can penetrate an elephant skull, and can pass through two human bodies while remaining intact.

Dr. John Lattimer conducted the decisive experiments on the Carcano, and the FBI marksmen who worked with the rifle fell in love with it.

The shot came from behind. This has been verified hundreds of times.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RX2phbWmgA

Nobody who understands ballistics or just shoots a gun every so often knows this to be true.
So, why on earth didn’t Alvarez use these when ”proving” his ”jet-effect theory” as the explanation of JFK’s heads movements in the Z-film?

Why use frangible bullets instead?
 
Do tell me and h\the rest of the audience what my MO is?
Ganging up with like minded to suppress and trash every trace of a civilized discussion of the JFK assassination taking root in the thread.

It is a barrage and you are part of it. Content being so.

Why? Who knows.
 
Last edited:
Cite your qualifications to nerve reactions from a GSW. You are blowing smoke nothing more.
I have no such qualifications, no. Better yet, YOU name a known nerve reflex from trauma that can account for JFK’s head movement’s when hit by a bullet in Z-312.
 
Placement of the microphone is everything.

When I did studio work I sometimes had to set up next to a drummer, and because the microphone was put about an inch off the grill of my amp the sound of the drums never bled through while I was playing.

When miking a bass amplifier the sound does not fully develop until about 12 feet away, and if you put the mike too close you won't hear the instrument.

The type of microphone is most important. The average microphone has a limited range. Microphones most people use and are familiar with are condenser mikes designed for voice, meaning they record the closest sound. There are some fantastic microphones that have amazing sonic range, but they are expensive.

So to answer the question; it doesn't matter how many guns or where the guns are, if the microphone is not in the right place it won't hear them, and if it does the exact position must be known to those trying to use it to determine the location of the guns.

McLain was not on Elm. The open microphone was in the Trade Mart.
I’m fairly well aware of elementa in sound recording, no worries, doing a bit of music recording myself now and then over the years. No expert, no.

To state that the open mike has to be at the right spot for picking up the impulse pattern detected on the dictabelt is a tautology, it is self evident.

To state that the possibility of said impulse pattern being an echo pattern from a rifle shot, is conditional upon said open mike being at the right spot at the right time for picking up the sound from said rifle shot, is a tautology and also this, self evident.

A detected possible rifle shot recorded on the DPD dictabelt is conditional upon a chain of events and objects lining up to make possible said recording.

- A shooter at the right place at the right time.

- A rifle ....

- A bullet ...

- A motorcycle with an open mike ...

- A ...

That is, IF the impulse pattern is a rifle shot with a probability of, let say P = 0.9, derived from the acoustic investigation, then the probability is P = 0.9 for the whole chain of involved events and objects. Looking only at the acoustic data, that is.

This P = 0.9 could be revised by:

1. Finding errors in said acoustic investigation.

2. Additional data and investigations, refuting the acoustics.

That is, you have to find evidence as strong or stronger for that the open mike could not possibly have been at the right places at the right times, to refute the acoustic evidence.

You have to prove the acoustic evidence wrong.
 
- 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?

If you don’t understand the concept of change conditional outcomes just admit you don’t understand.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom