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

[Tomtomkent]

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.

I don’t see what difference it makes.
“Innocent until proven guilty” was the standard you berated others for not following.

Now you have not only, repeatedly, insinuated guilt in your opinion, but you are lambasting methodologies of establishing benchmarks of proof.

Thank you for illustrating how shallow and meaningless you previous complaints were by trying to argue your own way around them.

I am sure everyone noticed.

 

[manifesto]

I have studied this lecture and I have found it to be in error

(see how that crap works both ways?)

I have already pointed out its (Sonolyst) Main flaws, but no worries, I can do it again.

- They plotted their rpm/dB-data against the RNC/CBA timeline which states that the recording of the five suspect impulse pattern detected by BBN/W&A, was actually recorded at the Trade Mart one minute after the real shooting event in Dealey Plaza.

- Of course their rpm/dB-data will not match the motorcycles movements regarding the real shooting event in Dealey Plaza if it is plotted against a still standing motorcycle at the Trade Mart one minute after it took place!

- When plotted against the BBN/W&A’s timeline, it was, voilà, a perfect match.

End of story.

 

[manifesto]

I don’t see what difference it makes.
“Innocent until proven guilty” was the standard you berated others for not following.

Now you have not only, repeatedly, insinuated guilt in your opinion, but you are lambasting methodologies of establishing benchmarks of proof.

Thank you for illustrating how shallow and meaningless you previous complaints were by trying to argue your own way around them.

I am sure everyone noticed.

You really love to adorn yourself in fancy words, fables and statisticulations don’t you.

To highly suspect someone for commiting a crime is NOT going against the spirit of ’innocent until proven guilty’, no.

And, if they turn out to be innocent of this particular crime, my suspicions doesn’t affecting someone ’innocent’, looking at their historic track records as full blown monsters.

If there is a Hell ....

 

[Tomtomkent]

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.

Nope.

Burden of proof is on you to prove the acoustic evidence stands.
Do you know why?
Because, regardless of your insistance, it does not claim that a rifle was fired five times, and the chances of the sound being anything else are thousands to one.

It identified patterns that could be rifle shots, and stated a probability they were rifle shots, if conditions, base assumptions, were met.

You can repeat yourself as many times as you want, but you will remain wrong, and it will become increasingly obvious that you do not want to try and understand why you are wrong.

That is not a civilised discussion. Neither is telling me to shape up or stay silent.

You could try and learn that those impulses aren’t conditional on there being a rifle, because they could be caused by any number of other sources, and are exponentially less likely to be a rifle, for every foot or so outside the margin of error the mic was... and as we have good evidence the bike was outside that margin of error, and because there is evidence of the mic being on a different bike entirely...etc...

 

[Tomtomkent]

You really love to adorn yourself in fancy words, fables and statisticulations don’t you.

To highly suspect someone for commiting a crime is NOT going against the spirit of ’innocent until proven guilty’, no.

And, if they turn out to be innocent of this particular crime, my suspicions doesn’t affecting someone ’innocent’, looking at their historic track records as full blown monsters.

If there is a Hell ....

You are literally assuming guilt, and not proving it.
That is the exactly the opposite of presumed innocence.

 

[manifesto]

Could be explained by a shot from behind too.

Precisely my point. The short nick forward milliseconds before the violent snap backwards is not conclusive evidence of a shot from behind.

- It could be from a shot from behind, which doesn’t exclude a simultanious shot from in front.

- It could be from the movements of JFK and/or the limo.

- It could be from said affect described above.

You have to look elsewhere for conclusive evidence one way or the other.

 

[manifesto]

You are literally assuming guilt, and not proving it.
That is the exactly the opposite of presumed innocence.

No, you are willfully misrepresenting my statement.

- You are stating as a fact that Oswald was/is guilty of the assassination of JFK.

- I am stating that I highly suspect that LBJ, JEH and AD was guilty as co conspirators behind the assassination of JFK.

Could I prove it in court? Maybe, maybe not. Could I present a plausible scenario for the historical record?

Definitely, yes.

 

[smartcooky]

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.

Its pretty evident to me that you simply do not understand how the the HSCA acoustical analysis actually works; you don't understand the theory at all!

I will let the words of Jim Barger (who was one of the people who came up with this theory, and the text quoted from BBN's and W/A's own reports speak for themselves (and I will emphasise those parts that you should take special note of

“There is a pattern of sounds that emanate from each microphone when each rifle is fired that is unique and that pattern is as such a fingerprint that identifies two things uniquely, the location of the rifle and the location of the receiver.”
- James Barger's testimony to the HSCA

“The objective of the acoustical reconstruction, therefore, was to obtain several ‘acoustical fingerprints’ of the sound of gunfire in Dealey Plaza to compare with the impulse patterns found on the Channel 1 tape. If any of the ‘fingerprints’ matched, then the reconstruction would result in determining both the timing of the shots and the locations of the weapon…”
- BBN Report, Section 5

“…assuming a fixed location of a listener, the echoes that he hears and the times at which he hears them will be related uniquely to the location of the gun, since for each different location of the gun, even though the distances from the listener to the various echo-producing objects are the same the distances from these objects to each gun location are different. Consequently, the times at which the echoes are heard will be different for each location of the gun… Because the echo travel times are uniquely related to the locations of the gun and the listener, the echo-delay times are unique to any given pair of those locations.”
W/A report

If you understand what is written here, then you will realise that the echo patterns indicate the location of the gun if, and only if the microphone is in the correct location in relation to it the gun. i.e. the microphone position proves the the echo pattern recorded is a gunshots, but assuming the echo patterns are gunshot does not prove the microphones are in the right place... they have to be KNOWN to be gunshots for that to work, and they aren't, and we cannot assume that they are.

Now if you don't get this by now, you never will. Your understanding of Barger's acoustical analysis is severely deficient.

 

[Tomtomkent]

No, you are willfully misrepresenting my statement.

- You are stating as a fact that Oswald was/is guilty of the assassination of JFK.

- I am stating that I highly suspect that LBJ, JEH and AD was guilty as co conspirators behind the assassination of JFK.

Could I prove it in court? Maybe, maybe not. Could I present a plausible scenario for the historical record?

Definitely, yes.

First and foremost: please supply your plausible scenario so it can be compared to a null.

Secondly: I stated my opinion of Oswald’s guilt was that of the only plausible explanation of the majority of evidence points.

Thirdly: thank you for further confirming the standard you berated me for not following is not going to be applied your own arguments. Call it a “probability” or “my opinion” or “not a statement of fact” or anything else... it still boils down to you assuming guilt, not yet proven.

Of course, you could just apologise for your previous statements and admit others were right to point out that legal standards are incompatible with your discussion.

 

[manifesto]

You are literally assuming guilt, and not proving it.
That is the exactly the opposite of presumed innocence.

No, I’m stating my personal very strong suspicion of guilt.

You are stating Oswalds guilt as a historical fact, and demands proof of innocense instead of presenting proof of guilt.

Night and day, it is.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Precisely my point. The short nick forward milliseconds before the violent snap backwards is not conclusive evidence of a shot from behind.

- It could be from a shot from behind, which doesn’t exclude a simultanious shot from in front.

- It could be from the movements of JFK and/or the limo.

- It could be from said affect described above.

You have to look elsewhere for conclusive evidence one way or the other.

So, not intending this as a game of sophistry, your previous claim that the “jet effect” is fraud (a deliberate act of deception) *BECAUSE* the results were not a shot from the front, are wrong, because the shot could well have been from behind?

Seeing as you offer no viable evidence for a shot from the front, there is no defence for a claim of deliberate fraud on this basis.

Again, you have made an accusation, and are not presuming innocence until guilt is proven...

 

[Tomtomkent]

No, I’m stating my personal very strong suspicion of guilt.

You are stating Oswalds guilt as a historical fact, and demands proof of innocense instead of presenting proof of guilt.

Night and day, it is.

Again, it seems a little silly to argue you are missing your own standard by a chain instead of a mile: you are still failing to meet the standard you demand of others.

Don’t mistake this for chiding. I am trying to show you why this is conversation of historical, not legal, standards. That guilt or innocence can be decided after facts are established. Something you previously argued against.

Perhaps you would care to offer your scenario, and see how it compares to the null?

 

[manifesto]

So, not intending this as a game of sophistry, your previous claim that the “jet effect” is fraud (a deliberate act of deception) *BECAUSE* the results were not a shot from the front, are wrong, because the shot could well have been from behind?

Becoming a little bit desperate are we? Rephrasing and misrepresenting my statements all over the place, are we?

1. I responded to the statement that the little nick forward milliseconds before the head snapping violently backwards is proof of a shot behind and of no shot from in front. No, it isn’t, as I explained in my post.

2. Yes, Alvarez did commit scientific fraud when stating he had proved that the JFK head snap back and to the left was caused by a jet-effect. He used taped melons knowing they were not equivalent to human heads and he used frangible bullets knowing that the amunnition Oswald alledly used was copper jacketted bullets.

3. He claimed that he first formulated his theory and therafter did the testing, not using Edisonian method, while doing exactly that.

When checked against real science there isn’t a chanse in hell a jet-effect could explain the violent head snap seen in the Z-film.

So, yes, he committed scientific fraud in order to counter the public uproar resulting from the Rivera showing of the Z-film in national prime time television, 1975, 12 years after the assassination.

Remember the Dan Rather ”slumped forward” description after seeing the Z-film? Remember the non-description of JFK’s head movements in the WC report?

Luis Alvarez was sent in by the US National Security State to do damage control in the same way his brilliance was used by the same State when constructing the worlds first atomic bombs in the Manhattan Project.

National Security, no matter the cost.

Seeing as you offer no viable evidence for a shot from the front, there is no defence for a claim of deliberate fraud on this basis.

No, I do not need evidence for a shot from the front in order to point out the fact that Alvarez committed scientific fraud to create the illusion of scientific proof of no (needed) shot from in front to explain JFK’s head movements in the Z-film.

No.

Again, you have made an accusation, and are not presuming innocence until guilt is proven...

I have pointed out the evidence supporting this conclusion.

Do you disagree? Explain.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Becoming a little bit desperate are we? Rephrasing and misrepresenting my statements all over the place, are we?

1. I responded to the statement that the little nick forward milliseconds before the head snapping violently backwards is proof of a shot behind and of no shot from in front. No, it isn’t, as I explained in my post.

2. Yes, Alvarez did commit scientific fraud when stating he had proved that the JFK head snap back and to the left was caused by a jet-effect. He used taped melons knowing they were not equivalent to human heads and he used frangible bullets knowing that the amunnition Oswald alledly used was copper jacketted bullets.

3. He claimed that he first formulated his theory and therafter did the testing, not using Edisonian method, while doing exactly that.

When checked against real science there isn’t a chanse in hell a jet-effect could explain the violent head snap seen in the Z-film.

So, yes, he committed scientific fraud in order to counter the public uproar resulting from the Rivera showing of the Z-film in national prime time television, 1975, 12 years after the assassination.

Remember the Dan Rather ”slumped forward” description after seeing the Z-film? Remember the non-description of JFK’s head movements in the WC report?

Luis Alvarez was sent in by the US National Security State to do damage control in the same way his brilliance was used by the same State when constructing the worlds first atomic bombs in the Manhattan Project.

National Security, no matter the cost.

No, I do not need evidence for a shot from the front in order to point out the fact that Alvarez committed scientific fraud to create the illusion of scientific proof of no (needed) shot from in front to explain JFK’s head movements in the Z-film.

No.

I have pointed out the evidence supporting this conclusion.

Do you disagree? Explain.

The phrasing is your own:

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?

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.

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

Science and science, does.

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”.

Ergo: your claim was he committed fraud because of a shot from the front.
Your back peddling aside, your statement remains wrong.

 

[manifesto]

The phrasing is your own:

I wrote:

Precisely my point. The short nick forward milliseconds before the violent snap backwards is not conclusive evidence of a shot from behind.

- It could be from a shot from behind, which doesn’t exclude a simultanious shot from in front.

- It could be from the movements of JFK and/or the limo.

- It could be from said affect described above.

You have to look elsewhere for conclusive evidence one way or the other.

Nothing about Alvarez and his alleged jet-effect in here and everything about the little nick forward.

You posted this response:

So, not intending this as a game of sophistry, your previous claim that the “jet effect” is fraud (a deliberate act of deception) *BECAUSE* the results were not a shot from the front, are wrong, because the shot could well have been from behind?

Seeing as you offer no viable evidence for a shot from the front, there is no defence for a claim of deliberate fraud on this basis.

Nothing of the little nick forward in here but everything about Alvarez alleged jet-effect where you severely misreprenting my statements willfully commiting a logical fallacy called ”straw-man” in order to try to win an argument in your own fantasy world.

So, you insist that you are not misrepresenting my statements even when responding to these as if being about something completely different from what I was actually stating in the post you are responding to?

How weired is that?

Again, you have made an accusation, and are not presuming innocence until guilt is proven...

So, you are disputing that Alvarez knowingly used taped melons as substitues for human heads and knowingly used frangible bullets as substitutes for the copper jacketted originals and knowingly used Edisonian method instead of as he explicitly stated, scientific ditto?

You are disputing all of it? Some of it?

Tell me.

Ergo: your claim was he committed fraud because of a shot from the front.
Your back peddling aside, your statement remains wrong.

I have listed my reasons for stating that Alvarez committed scientific fraud.

You disagree? Explain why.

 

[Tomtomkent]

I wrote:
Nothing about Alvarez and his alleged jet-effect in here and everything about the little nick forward.

You posted this response:
Nothing of the little nick forward in here but everything about Alvarez alleged jet-effect where you severely misreprenting my statements willfully commiting a logical fallacy called ”straw-man” in order to try to win an argument in your own fantasy world.

So, you insist that you are not misrepresenting my statements even when responding to these as if being about something completely different from what I was actually stating in the post you are responding to?

How weired is that?

So, you are disputing that Alvarez knowingly used taped melons as substitues for human heads and knowingly used frangible bullets as substitutes for the copper jacketted originals and knowingly used Edisonian method instead of as he explicitly stated, scientific ditto?

You are disputing all of it? Some of it?

Tell me.

I have listed my reasons for stating that Alvarez committed scientific fraud.

You disagree? Explain why.

I’m sorry. I’m not sure what you are failing to understand.
I have made it quite clear that my objection was to you accusing of fraud, with the stated reason that they should have concluded a bullet struck JFK from the front.

I just quoted and highlighted the post in which you made this claim.

I am not interested in your opinions of the “jet effect” analysis.
I am not interested in any other reasons you think it is wrong.
I have been offering you the chance to stand by a specific claim, and a specific reason you have for an accusation.

Either you can show that the gentleman committed fraud when he stated the movement was “caused by the jet effect and NOT a bullet from the front on the knoll” or not.

Why are you trying to make me argue against your other points?
Why can’t you defend this point?
Why claim I rephrased or restated the claim I directly quoted?
Why not simply say you made the statement in error, or worded it poorly to suggest something unintended?

 

[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.
.

For clarity this is the statement I am holding to scrutiny.
Pointing out you said other things as well does not make this go away.
It is an accusation of guilt, based on the supposed expected results.
Read my recent posts, and you will notice I have tried to establish if there is any evidence that suggests the shot being analysed should be described as coming from the front.

At the moment I can only assume that Manifesto wants me to argue something else because he can not support the claim he made.

If he apologises and withdraws the claim, I will stop putting it to scrutiny.
If he shows it to be true, I will stop putting it to scrutiny.
If he shows why he believes it, and I do not consider the point proven, I will agree to disagree.

 

[smartcooky]

Why are you trying to make me argue against your other points?
Why can’t you defend this point?

Because he can't!!

manifesto has been caught with his pants down making a claim he cannot defend or support, and CT's cannot ever admit to being wrong, so, right out of CT SOPs, he dodges, denies, deflects and obfuscates.

 

[manifesto]

I’m sorry. I’m not sure what you are failing to understand.
I have made it quite clear that my objection was to you accusing of fraud, with the stated reason that they should have concluded a bullet struck JFK from the front.

So, why doing that while quoting my post about the little nick forward, that had nothing to do with Alverez commiting fraud trying to fool US to believe his jet-effect theory?

Isn’t that a bit weired?

 

[manifesto]

Because he can't!!

manifesto has been caught with his pants down making a claim he cannot defend or support, and CT's cannot ever admit to being wrong, so, right out of CT SOPs, he dodges, denies, deflects and obfuscates.

What claim are you specifically refering to here?