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

[manifesto]

Are you still claiming the top of the windshield of car 6 was waist high?

Waist/below torso high.

Or have you conceded that any of the cars in the motorcade was an appropriate height to be your white blob?

No, of course not. The windshield of car-6 was too low to be the white blob visible in Robertsons Zapruder clip.

Ergo. It must have been McLains white helmet since he was the only motorcycle within reach to be there st that point in time.

Ergo. The clip is corroborating the scientific acoustic evidence of five rifle shots in Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassisantion of JFK.

 

[manifesto]

But I’m not making a claim.
I, and most people reading this, accept a consensus. You claim the consensus is wrong, ergo you need to show it is wrong.
The way you will convince me it is wrong is to offer a better theory to be considered.

If you are making a claim, consensus or not, you need to substantiate it if requested to do so. It is still YOUR CLAIM.

 

[traxy]

Waist/below torso high.

No, of course not. The windshield of car-6 was too low to be the white blob visible in Robertsons Zapruder clip.

Why do you say things you know are untrue? Do you have that little self respect?

I'm 6'5, the top edge of the windshield of an average sized 4 door vehicle is between my shoulder and bicep. The top edge of anything larger than average is shoulder height on me.

You can't admit what is plainly in front of your face because it burns your argument to the ground.

 

[Tomtomkent]

If you are making a claim, consensus or not, you need to substantiate it if requested to do so. It is still YOUR CLAIM.

No. Sorry. The claim has already been made and proven. It is, as far as this discussion is concerned, the accepted model, the null, the received wisdom.

I am not making a claim.
I don't need to make a claim.
You said you were familiar with the case, so there is no need for me to make a claim. You know what the WC says. I know what the WC says. If you want my specific views, you are more than capable of skimming the previous volumes of this thread.

There is literally no reason to demand that everybody restate the entire conversation on your behalf.

YOU have claimed it is in error, ergo the burden of proof is on you to show it is in error.

That is the point of a null. It was the point of asking if you were familiar with the case. If we all know of what we speak, and I believe you do, then all we really need is for you to tell us what YOU believe happened, and based on what evidence, and people can compare it to the null, and tell you if they think it is valid or not.

If you would like to get up to speed, and understand where most the people reading this thread seem to be coming from (in broad strokes from a glance at the various points of view stated across the incarnations of the thread), then ask. Previous offers to point you towards easy reads or audio books that cover the case for LHO, still stand.

But, as you can imagine, it would be silly to suggest the same case has to be made over and again, just because you joined the conversation, when it is readily apparent it would be stating stuff you already know.

 

[manifesto]

Why do you say things you know are untrue? Do you have that little self respect?

I'm 6'5, the top edge of the windshield of an average sized 4 door vehicle is between my shoulder and bicep. The top edge of anything larger than average is shoulder height on me.

You can't admit what is plainly in front of your face because it burns your argument to the ground.

First, have a look at the curb, its hight.

Second, have a look at car-6, when it passes bystanders, it is a fairly low modell.

Third, look at the difference in hight between the president limo and the driving motorcycle officers. It is a head + helmet lower, and the president limo is higher than car-6.

Fourth, look at Robertsons clip. The top of the white blob is about middle face on the average male bystanders which is a perfect match for the average hight of the white helmet on the motorcycle cops.

If you do not agree to 1-4, explain.

 

[manifesto]

No. Sorry. The claim has already been made and proven. It is, as far as this discussion is concerned, the accepted model, the null, the received wisdom.

I am not making a claim.
I don't need to make a claim.
You said you were familiar with the case, so there is no need for me to make a claim. You know what the WC says. I know what the WC says. If you want my specific views, you are more than capable of skimming the previous volumes of this thread.

There is literally no reason to demand that everybody restate the entire conversation on your behalf.

YOU have claimed it is in error, ergo the burden of proof is on you to show it is in error.

That is the point of a null. It was the point of asking if you were familiar with the case. If we all know of what we speak, and I believe you do, then all we really need is for you to tell us what YOU believe happened, and based on what evidence, and people can compare it to the null, and tell you if they think it is valid or not.

If you would like to get up to speed, and understand where most the people reading this thread seem to be coming from (in broad strokes from a glance at the various points of view stated across the incarnations of the thread), then ask. Previous offers to point you towards easy reads or audio books that cover the case for LHO, still stand.

But, as you can imagine, it would be silly to suggest the same case has to be made over and again, just because you joined the conversation, when it is readily apparent it would be stating stuff you already know.

You are not making any claim? Good. Let me know when you do and I have a look at it. But, remember, be prepared to substantiate it if requested to do so.

I’m not buying anything unseen.

 

[RoboTimbo]

acoustic evidence of five rifle shots in Dealey Plaza

Scientifically debunked by the National Academy of Science.

Anything else you're () confused about?

 

[RoboTimbo]

If you are making a claim, consensus or not, you need to substantiate it if requested to do so. It is still YOUR CLAIM.

Are you referring to the null hypothesis? Did you have some sort of claim counter to that?

If so, you'll need to provide evidence for it.

 

[manifesto]

Scientifically debunked by the National Academy of Science.

Anything else you're () confused about?

Is it? Explain how they ”debunked” it. I’m curious.

And remember, a blue little idiot smiley isn’t enough in the real world, outside the Mighty Curch of the Lone Nut.

You have to explain in your own words, providing evidence when requested.

 

[RoboTimbo]

You are not making any claim?

Have you given up on claiming anything now that you know you get your ass handed to you every time?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Is it? Explain how the ”debunked” it. I’m curious.

Are you claiming something about the scientific debunking that the National Academy of Science did?

Explain. Otherwise, the null hypothesis still rules.

 

[RoboTimbo]

a blue little idiot smiley.

You need to explain. Be specific.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Explain how they ”debunked” it.

Thank you for your admission that the following was just so much hot air.

On the contrary, I’ve read just about everything there is.

You really don't know anything beyond what your CT websites tell you to think?

 

[traxy]

First, have a look at the curb, its hight.

Second, have a look at car-6, when it passes bystanders, it is a fairly low modell.

Third, look at the difference in hight between the president limo and the driving motorcycle officers. It is a head + helmet lower, and the president limo is higher than car-6.

Fourth, look at Robertsons clip. The top of the white blob is about middle face on the average male bystanders which is a perfect match for the average hight of the white helmet on the motorcycle cops.

If you do not agree to 1-4, explain.

https://m.imgur.com/a/IO2Z0dm

The car at the corner of Elm and Houston at Z133. The top edge of the windshield is clearly higher than waist height. The top edge of the vehicle is almost head height from this perspective.

The same size vehicle filmed from the same elevated vantage point with the same crowd of bystanders standing on the same curb.

 

[Whip]

Why do you say things you know are untrue? Do you have that little self respect?

I'm 6'5, the top edge of the windshield of an average sized 4 door vehicle is between my shoulder and bicep. The top edge of anything larger than average is shoulder height on me.

You can't admit what is plainly in front of your face because it burns your argument to the ground.

http://www.automobile-catalog.com/auta_details1.php

 

[Axxman300]

1. Scientific acoustic evidence of a shot from in front on the knoll being the fatal head shot.

Nope. Clearly debunked. The recording came from an officer at the Trade Mart where there was no shooting.

Fail.

2. JFK’s head violently snaps back and to the left when hit by the fatal head shot = shot from in front to the right on the knoll.

Nope. Laws of physics says that had the shot come from the Knoll the head would have snapped to the right in the direction the bullet came from. Ballistics says the bullet would have exited behind his left ear, or are you not familiar with the layout of the plaza.

3. The majority of the witnesses in Dealey Plaza (ca 50) who was asked said that they heard shot/s came from in front on the knoll.

Only 12%, not a majority, even in Sweden.

4. Some of these reported smelling ”gun powder” on the knoll and/or just below it when passing with the motorcade.

ONE person reported smelling gunpowder, and he was 100 yards away near the post office...so no.

5. Some of these saw smoke gliding down the knoll just after hearing the shots.

Since guns use smokeless propellant, and have since before the turn of the last century we know this isn't true. To continue repeating this CT drollery reveals your ignorance.

6. There is a photograph showing smoke over the lower part of the knoll just after the shooting.

No there are not.

7. Almost everyone who observed JFK’s headwounds close up between Dealey Plaza and the mourge at the Bethesda Naval Hospital, ca 50 individuals (Harpers fragment included), reported a big gaping wound in the right back of the head —-> typical exit wound. Doctors, nurses, forensic photographers, x-ray technicians, SS agents and FBI agents, from three hospitals and two federal police agencies.

Oh good, we're back to the autopsy.

Doesn't matter what some of these people think they saw. Most had never seen a head wound like that before. This is why pathologists exist. The autopsy is clear, the shot came from behind.

The Zapruder Film shows no exit wound in the back of Kennedy's head, and we get a clear view of that.

8. Three forensic pathologists at the Methodist Hospital in Dallas, concluding that the ”Harpers fragment” was of cranial occipital bone and ca. 7-5 cm in size —-> exit wound in the back of the head —-> shot from in front.

Nope. Cavitation + fragmentation of Carcano round traveling at 2,700fps = explosive exit through skull sending fragments everywhere.

Carcano round can only be fired from a Carcano. Thanks for playing.

9. Dr.’s Clark and Perry at Parkland reporting what they believed was an entrance wound in the throught. Small, clean, round and punctuated —-> shot from in front. Before performing a tracheotomy over it.

Neither are pathologists thus neither are qualified to make a determination, plus both were trying to save JFK, not solve a crime.

Shall I continue?

Please do, you're hilarious.

 

[Axxman300]

I’m not buying anything unseen.

Sure you do, in fact everything you've posted claiming to be true has been unseen, and never proven.

The photographic evidence of McLain's location on Houston Street has been established (multiple times) making the acoustical evidence invalid, something that those who conducted the research now concede.

Yet you trust the initial work and go as far as to suggest 5 shots, but this was pared down to 4 because of the evil CIA collaborator Blakey; a charge which you've bought unseen.

You said a Mauser was found on the 6th floor of the TSBD, not a Carcano, and that the DPD detective replaced it with the Italian rifle because he was a known liar; a charge that you have bough unseen.

You said that the microfilm receipt of Oswald's purchase of the rifle is fake; a charge that you have bought unseen.

You charge that the CIA was behind the entire assassination and cover-up based on a world view you have bought unseen.

I'm starting to wonder how many large bridges in New York you think you own.

 

[Axxman300]

No, of course not. The windshield of car-6 was too low to be the white blob visible in Robertsons Zapruder clip.

Car #6 is a 1964 Lincoln 4-door convertible (steel gray). Dimensions should be easily looked up online.

Please report them once you look.

 

[RoboTimbo]

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

2. JFK’s head violently snaps back and to the left

Thank you for your admission.

 

[manifesto]

Nope. Clearly debunked. The recording came from an officer at the Trade Mart where there was no shooting.

Fail.

No, you are wrong. The factoid that says that the open mike was at the Trade Mart when picking up the sound from five rifle shots in Dealey Plaza, has been shown what it is, a factoid.

The RNC ”synchronized” the recordings on cha-1 and cha-2 with a cross talk too far away from the five impulse pattern = too much accumulated ”dead air”. If synched with cross talk closest to the patterns, ”I’ll check it”, the match is perfect.

End of story.

Nope. Laws of physics says that had the shot come from the Knoll the head would have snapped to the right in the direction the bullet came from. Ballistics says the bullet would have exited behind his left ear, or are you not familiar with the layout of the plaza.

No. If the head moves back and to the left, the momentum from the incomming bullet has to travel from in front from the right —-> from the knoll.

Only 12%, not a majority, even in Sweden.

No, you are wrong:

216 Witnesses

52 Knoll

48 Depository

5 Knoll & Depository

4 Elsewhere

37 Could Not Tell

70 Not Asked

https://www.history-matters.com/analysis/witness/Sort216Witness.htm

ONE person reported smelling gunpowder, and he was 100 yards away near the post office...so no.

1.Senator Ralph Yarborough


2. Patrolman Joe W. Smith


3. Congressman Ray Roberts


4. Thomas C. Clifford


5. Elizabeth Cabell, wife of Dallas Mayor.


6. Robert W. Jackson

Btw, no one smelled any gunpowder on the 6th floor in TSBD. None.

Since guns use smokeless propellant, and have since before the turn of the last century we know this isn't true. To continue repeating this CT drollery reveals your ignorance.

No gun is smokeless. Some more some less but none is smokeless.

No there are not.

Oh good, we're back to the autopsy.

Doesn't matter what some of these people think they saw.

Neuro surgeons? Senior trauma physichians? Every single one of the witnesses had some training in observing, identifying and handling life threatening trauma and every single one had the same hallucination? Three different hospitals, two different federal police agencies?

Collective psychosis?

Most had never seen a head wound like that before. This is why pathologists exist.

No, you do not have to be a pathologist to identify a BIG GAPING WHOLE in the back of a head, big as a grapefruit. I child are able to see that.

Weigh this with a couple of photographs and x-rays easy to fake. Which alternative is the heaviest?

There is more, but start with this.

The autopsy is clear, the shot came from behind.

Is it now? Where in the head did this shot enter the scull, according to the autopsy?

The Zapruder Film shows no exit wound in the back of Kennedy's head, and we get a clear view of that.

Name the frames where ”we” get a clear view of the back of JFK’s head: http://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/

Nope. Cavitation + fragmentation of Carcano round traveling at 2,700fps = explosive exit through skull sending fragments everywhere.

Carcano round can only be fired from a Carcano. Thanks for playing.

What? If the Harper fragment could have been blown of by a shot from behind, why is there not any sign of it in the x-rays? Not even a fracture in the occipital region of the cranium?

Explain.

Neither are pathologists thus neither are qualified to make a determination, plus both were trying to save JFK, not solve a crime.

Correct. No proof of an entrance wound, but strong evidence of an entrance wound. Only an exhumation will conclusively show what it was.

The autopsy doctors had orders NOT to brobe any wounds for possible trajectories.

Please do, you're hilarious.

More? How about fake Secret Service agents on Dealey Plaza shortly after the shooting? One behind the picket fence flashig his fake ID to the cops comming up there looking for the shooter.

Nothing to see here, move on ...

This is also ”hilarious”?