• 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:
No such debunking has happened, no. But please, convince us otherwise.

Who? How?
Click to expand...


Debunked by the National Academy of Sciences in 1982
"The acoustic analyses do not demonstrate that there was a grassy knoll shot, and in particular there is no acoustic basis for the claim of 95% probability of such a shot.
The acoustic impulses attributed to gunshots were recorded about one minute after the President had been shot and the motorcade had been instructed to go to the hospital.
Therefore, reliable acoustic data do not support a conclusion that there was a second gunman."

Debunked by the Judiciary committee of the USDoJ in 1988

Debunked by independent researcher Michael O'Dell in 2003

Debunked by independent researcher Dale Myers in 2003

Debunked by Larry Sabato, University of Virgina at Richmond in 2013
http://www.richmond.com/news/virgin...cle_a64237b4-35b6-11e3-a5ca-001a4bcf6878.html
“My team has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, for the first time, that the main conclusion of the House Select Committee on Assassinations — that a Dallas police Dictabelt recording shows four shots, not three, were fired in Dealey Plaza — is simply wrong,”

Just because you choose to handwave these debunkings away does not make them invalisd
 
smartcooky said:
Debunked by the National Academy of Sciences in 1982
"The acoustic analyses do not demonstrate that there was a grassy knoll shot, and in particular there is no acoustic basis for the claim of 95% probability of such a shot.
The acoustic impulses attributed to gunshots were recorded about one minute after the President had been shot and the motorcade had been instructed to go to the hospital.
Therefore, reliable acoustic data do not support a conclusion that there was a second gunman."

Debunked by the Judiciary committee of the USDoJ in 1988

Debunked by independent researcher Michael O'Dell in 2003

Debunked by independent researcher Dale Myers in 2003

Debunked by Larry Sabato, University of Virgina at Richmond in 2013
http://www.richmond.com/news/virgin...cle_a64237b4-35b6-11e3-a5ca-001a4bcf6878.html
“My team has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, for the first time, that the main conclusion of the House Select Committee on Assassinations — that a Dallas police Dictabelt recording shows four shots, not three, were fired in Dealey Plaza — is simply wrong,”

Just because you choose to handwave these debunkings away does not make them invalisd
Click to expand...

Also debunked quite thoroughly by Linsker, Garwin, Chernoff and Ramsey in Science and Justice magazine in 2006.

Debunked 8 ways from Sunday.
 
smartcooky said:
Debunked by the National Academy of Sciences in 1982
"The acoustic analyses do not demonstrate that there was a grassy knoll shot, and in particular there is no acoustic basis for the claim of 95% probability of such a shot.
The acoustic impulses attributed to gunshots were recorded about one minute after the President had been shot and the motorcade had been instructed to go to the hospital.
Therefore, reliable acoustic data do not support a conclusion that there was a second gunman."

Debunked by the Judiciary committee of the USDoJ in 1988

Debunked by independent researcher Michael O'Dell in 2003

Debunked by independent researcher Dale Myers in 2003

Debunked by Larry Sabato, University of Virgina at Richmond in 2013
http://www.richmond.com/news/virgin...cle_a64237b4-35b6-11e3-a5ca-001a4bcf6878.html
“My team has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, for the first time, that the main conclusion of the House Select Committee on Assassinations — that a Dallas police Dictabelt recording shows four shots, not three, were fired in Dealey Plaza — is simply wrong,”

Just because you choose to handwave these debunkings away does not make them invalisd
Click to expand...
Wrong. I’m not handwaving anything away. I ask you to explain HOW they ”debunk” the acoustic evidence. Copy and paste their conclusions is just silly. Explain how it was done.

- The NRC has been dicussed already and the problem with their ”one minute later”-argument is that the cross talk they are using is not in sync. If one uses the ”I check it”-cross talk, the recording is in perfect sync, confirming the finding of five rifle shots exactly at the time sequence it has to have been recorded.

- The second argument from NRC is that that the knoll-shot is identified at different points in time between the two investigative teams:
"The identification of shots and impulses by BRSW was completely different from that by WA as demonstrated by the more than 200 millisecond (or more than 200 ft.) displacement between the two identifications . . . the BRSW analysis missed the identification that WA considers to be the primary one."​
And:
"Both sets of workers could not be correct."​
Note the supreme arrogance combined with even more supreme ignorance when he refers to the researchers as ”sets of workers” he is hired by the public to review. Both ”sets of workers” were indeed correct, since W&A analysed the whole 390 milliseconds long pattern for their more detailed sonar analysisis while BBN in their binary correlation procedure only meassured the loudest part which were 90 milliseconds.

- USDoJ has not been discussed.

- O’Dell has not been discussed.

- Dale Myers has been discussed and soundly refuted since he is lying shamelessly claiming he uses ”epipolar geometric analysis” while in fact uses ordinary eye-balling + non disclosed data in a computer simulation bending reality in place.

- Sabato is plotting his rpm against the faulty timeline from RNC which states that the shooting sequence in fact was recorded one minute after the real sequence on Elm Street. Of course it will not fit if he is trying to match it against a sequence one minute after the real event. If plotting the rpm against the HSCA timeline it is a perfect match, further corroborating the acoustic evidence. Another issue with Sabato’s studie is the relative high rpm the ca two minutes before it slows down just before the shooting sequence. But looking around at the web I realized that this was not too high for a Harley since I found one idling standing still at the same rpm = 3000.

You say O’Dell and DoJ also have ”debunked” the acoustic evidence of five rifle shots on the dictabelt?

Show me how.
 
If a certain poster isn't too bust being unbelievably wrong in two threads, maybe they have an answer for this:

Originally Posted by manifesto

The two world leading expert teams in acoustic ballistics finding five rifle shots on the DPD dictabelt, in perfect topographical order, at the time sequence when the shooting took place, at the same average speed as the motorcade on Elm and a fourth shot with additional sonar analysis showing a wooping P = 1/100 000 for not being a rifle shot fired from the picket fence on the knoll within a spot of ca 1 square yard?

When will you reveal who the third team is, how they were rated and who rated them?
 
RoboTimbo said:
Debunked. You ;) haven't been able to debunk the debunking. Why do you CTs (;)s) dishonestly handwave it away?

Are you ;) still dishonestly running away from answering about why Oswald murdered Officer Tippitt after assassinating JFK?
Click to expand...

The MO of the postings sound like a guy I arrested for a DUI that acknowledged that he was aware that there was law against drunk driving but wanted me to explain to him how it had anything to do with him.
 
Last edited:
manifesto said:
Wrong. I’m not handwaving anything away. I ask you to explain HOW they ”debunk” the acoustic evidence. Copy and paste their conclusions is just silly. Explain how it was done.

- The NRC has been dicussed already and the problem with their ”one minute later”-argument is that the cross talk they are using is not in sync. If one uses the ”I check it”-cross talk, the recording is in perfect sync, confirming the finding of five rifle shots exactly at the time sequence it has to have been recorded.

- The second argument from NRC is that that the knoll-shot is identified at different points in time between the two investigative teams:
"The identification of shots and impulses by BRSW was completely different from that by WA as demonstrated by the more than 200 millisecond (or more than 200 ft.) displacement between the two identifications . . . the BRSW analysis missed the identification that WA considers to be the primary one."​
And:
"Both sets of workers could not be correct."​
Note the supreme arrogance combined with even more supreme ignorance when he refers to the researchers as ”sets of workers” he is hired by the public to review. Both ”sets of workers” were indeed correct, since W&A analysed the whole 390 milliseconds long pattern for their more detailed sonar analysisis while BBN in their binary correlation procedure only meassured the loudest part which were 90 milliseconds.

- USDoJ has not been discussed.

- O’Dell has not been discussed.

- Dale Myers has been discussed and soundly refuted since he is lying shamelessly claiming he uses ”epipolar geometric analysis” while in fact uses ordinary eye-balling + non disclosed data in a computer simulation bending reality in place.

- Sabato is plotting his rpm against the faulty timeline from RNC which states that the shooting sequence in fact was recorded one minute after the real sequence on Elm Street. Of course it will not fit if he is trying to match it against a sequence one minute after the real event. If plotting the rpm against the HSCA timeline it is a perfect match, further corroborating the acoustic evidence. Another issue with Sabato’s studie is the relative high rpm the ca two minutes before it slows down just before the shooting sequence. But looking around at the web I realized that this was not too high for a Harley since I found one idling standing still at the same rpm = 3000.

You say O’Dell and DoJ also have ”debunked” the acoustic evidence of five rifle shots on the dictabelt?

Show me how.
Click to expand...

I don't have to show you anything. All I have to do is point you in the right direction.

The dictabelt recordings, as evidence of a fourth shooter on the the grassy knoll (or anywhere else), have been debunked, thoroughly, and many times over by numerous people. It is now part of mainstream, accepted fact (the null) that there was no fourth shooter, either on the grassy knoll, or anywhere else in Dealey Plaza. I realise you are desperate to cling onto this dictabelt dead duck, but it makes no difference... its dead an buried.

The physical evidence points to only one shooter, only three shots; all from the TSBD, and all fired by a single gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald.. this i also the null.

If you want to overturn the null, the burden of proof is on you. Don't be lazy; read the reports of the CBA, of Dale Myers, of Sabato et al. Find what YOU claim are flaws in their science and reasoning, and explain in YOUR words; cutting and pasting rubbish from CT websites will not cut it, its YOUR job, YOU do the work.
 
manifesto said:
Wrong. I’m not handwaving anything away. I ask you to explain HOW they ”debunk” the acoustic evidence. Copy and paste their conclusions is just silly. Explain how it was done.
Click to expand...

Yes you do handwave away any/all scientific studies that disprove your pet theories. We all see that, but you don't.
- The NRC has been dicussed already and the problem with their ”one minute later”-argument is that the cross talk they are using is not in sync. If one uses the ”I check it”-cross talk, the recording is in perfect sync, confirming the finding of five rifle shots exactly at the time sequence it has to have been recorded.
Click to expand...
The problem is that there is no open mike anywhere close to where it NEEDS to be to validate the dictabelt "evidence"
- The second argument from NRC is that that the knoll-shot is identified at different points in time between the two investigative teams:
"The identification of shots and impulses by BRSW was completely different from that by WA as demonstrated by the more than 200 millisecond (or more than 200 ft.) displacement between the two identifications . . . the BRSW analysis missed the identification that WA considers to be the primary one."​
And:
"Both sets of workers could not be correct."​
Note the supreme arrogance combined with even more supreme ignorance when he refers to the researchers as ”sets of workers” he is hired by the public to review. Both ”sets of workers” were indeed correct, since W&A analysed the whole 390 milliseconds long pattern for their more detailed sonar analysisis while BBN in their binary correlation procedure only meassured the loudest part which were 90 milliseconds.
Click to expand...

But both sets of workers can be wrong and in this case they are the open mike is at the trade mart.
- USDoJ has not been discussed.

- O’Dell has not been discussed.
Click to expand...
Both have been hand waved by you
- Dale Myers has been discussed and soundly refuted since he is lying shamelessly claiming he uses ”epipolar geometric analysis” while in fact uses ordinary eye-balling + non disclosed data in a computer simulation bending reality in place.
Click to expand...
The biggest hand wave. You don't know what epipolar geometric analysis is, so you hand wave it away. Then you call Myers a liar(one of your favorite ad hominems). You have no clue to how Myers does his work, therefore you use the logical fallacy, I don't understand it, therefore it must be wrong.
- Sabato is plotting his rpm against the faulty timeline from RNC which states that the shooting sequence in fact was recorded one minute after the real sequence on Elm Street. Of course it will not fit if he is trying to match it against a sequence one minute after the real event. If plotting the rpm against the HSCA timeline it is a perfect match, further corroborating the acoustic evidence. Another issue with Sabato’s studie is the relative high rpm the ca two minutes before it slows down just before the shooting sequence. But looking around at the web I realized that this was not too high for a Harley since I found one idling standing still at the same rpm = 3000.
Click to expand...
Open mike at the Trade Mart
You say O’Dell and DoJ also have ”debunked” the acoustic evidence of five rifle shots on the dictabelt?

Show me how.
Click to expand...
Quite simple the dictabelt is at the Trade Mart and could not record anything in Dealey Plaza. The data is so vague that almost any scenario could be fit, except it is in the wrong place.
 
smartcooky said:
I don't have to show you anything. All I have to do is point you in the right direction.

The dictabelt recordings, as evidence of a fourth shooter on the the grassy knoll (or anywhere else), have been debunked, thoroughly, and many times over by numerous people. It is now part of mainstream, accepted fact (the null) that there was no fourth shooter, either on the grassy knoll, or anywhere else in Dealey Plaza. I realise you are desperate to cling onto this dictabelt dead duck, but it makes no difference... its dead an buried.

The physical evidence points to only one shooter, only three shots; all from the TSBD, and all fired by a single gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald.. this i also the null.

If you want to overturn the null, the burden of proof is on you. Don't be lazy; read the reports of the CBA, of Dale Myers, of Sabato et al. Find what YOU claim are flaws in their science and reasoning, and explain in YOUR words; cutting and pasting rubbish from CT websites will not cut it, its YOUR job, YOU do the work.
Click to expand...
I have in detail pointed out the flaws in your ”debunkings” and exposed them for what they are. Junk science in service to the US National Security State.

The most ”secure” state on Earth.

What about DoJ and O’Dell? You haven’t explained how these two ”debunkings” works.

Could you do that?
 
manifesto said:
I have in detail pointed out the flaws in your ”debunkings” and exposed them for what they are. Junk science in service to the US National Security State.

The most ”secure” state on Earth.

What about DoJ and O’Dell? You haven’t explained how these two ”debunkings” works.

Could you do that?
Click to expand...

You haven't shown any evidence of "junk science" just personal opinions. You don't know how to judge science as you don't understand most of what you write about.
 
manifesto said:
I have in detail pointed out the flaws in your ”debunkings” and exposed them for what they are. Junk science in service to the US National Security State.
Click to expand...
Nope, you :) haven't done any such thing.

The most ”secure” state on Earth.

What about DoJ and O’Dell? You haven’t explained how these two ”debunkings” works.

Could you do that?
Click to expand...
When will you ;) be attempting to debunk any of the debunking of your HSCA junk science?

As it stands, the null hypothesis is still the best hypothesis but you ;) are welcome to post your complete alternative CT ;) hypothesis here and we'll give it some scrutiny to see if it explains the consilience of evidence any better.

LOL.
 
manifesto said:
What about DoJ and O’Dell? You haven’t explained how these two ”debunkings” works.

Could you do that?
Click to expand...

You were given links to them many moons ago. It is no one's fault but your own if you haven't read them. Read them now and get back with us.

While your at it you should go through the Sonalyst study again. You left out several points that they brought up.
 
Last edited:
BStrong said:
If a certain poster isn't too bust being unbelievably wrong in two threads, maybe they have an answer for this:

Originally Posted by manifesto

The two world leading expert teams in acoustic ballistics finding five rifle shots on the DPD dictabelt, in perfect topographical order, at the time sequence when the shooting took place, at the same average speed as the motorcade on Elm and a fourth shot with additional sonar analysis showing a wooping P = 1/100 000 for not being a rifle shot fired from the picket fence on the knoll within a spot of ca 1 square yard?

When will you reveal who the third team is, how they were rated and who rated them?
Click to expand...

It is worth pointing out that BBN, the group that did the actual acoustic analysis, did NOT claim to find 5 rifle shots on the dictabelt recording. In fact, contrary to manifesto's assertion, the reason they did not claim 5 shots is because the "timing sequence" did not work. In order to have 5 shots, with 4 of them coming from the 6th floor of the SBD, it would have required two of the shots from the SBD coming too close together to be from a single weapon.

They (as in, BBN, the group that did the acoustic analysis) concluded that one of the sounds must have been a false positive, due to something other than a gunshot.

So much for the "perfect" part of the claim.

Let's make this clear: manifesto does not agree with either the experts who did the dictabelt analysis or the HSCA conclusions. Just as he does not agree with the 50-odd witnesses who claim that all the shots come from the Grassy Knoll. The HSCA and BBN all conclude that 3 shots came from the the SBD and they never claimed more than one from the Grassy Knoll. So witnesses who claim all the shots came from the Grassy Knoll contradict that conclusion.
 
pgwenthold said:
It is worth pointing out that BBN, the group that did the actual acoustic analysis, did NOT claim to find 5 rifle shots on the dictabelt recording. In fact, contrary to manifesto's assertion, the reason they did not claim 5 shots is because the "timing sequence" did not work. In order to have 5 shots, with 4 of them coming from the 6th floor of the SBD, it would have required two of the shots from the SBD coming too close together to be from a single weapon.

They (as in, BBN, the group that did the acoustic analysis) concluded that one of the sounds must have been a false positive, due to something other than a gunshot.

So much for the "perfect" part of the claim.

Let's make this clear: manifesto does not agree with either the experts who did the dictabelt analysis or the HSCA conclusions. Just as he does not agree with the 50-odd witnesses who claim that all the shots come from the Grassy Knoll. The HSCA and BBN all conclude that 3 shots came from the the SBD and they never claimed more than one from the Grassy Knoll. So witnesses who claim all the shots came from the Grassy Knoll contradict that conclusion.
Click to expand...

He will also have to explain how, if he thinks that this shot came from "elsewhere", it has the echo timings based on a shot from the TBSD 6th floor which was why they initially used it.
 
jeffas69 said:
You were given links to them many moons ago. It is no one's fault but your own if you haven't read them. Read them now and get back with us.
Click to expand...
What is it that you do not get? If YOU are claiming a certain studie debunks a certain studie it is YOU who need to show how this is really so. Not your opponent.

It is madness to demand this from your opponent. Madness. Crazy.

While your at it you should go through the Sonalyst study again. You left out several points that they brought up.
Click to expand...
Again, what ”several points” are YOU talking about? Cite. Explain.

Try to make an argument which stands up to scrutiny. I neither shall or can do this for you. To demand this from me is madness. It is plain crazy.

Why don’t you get this? What is missing in your cognitive faculties?

IT IS NOT YOUR OPPONENT WHO SHALL FIND AND PRESENT SUPPORT FOR YOUR CLAIMS. IT IS YOU WHO HAVE TO DO THIS.

IF NOT, YOUR CLAIM IS UNSUBSTANTIATED AND REMAINS MINDLESS BABBLEING UNTIL YOU DO.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND?
 
jeffas69 said:
He will also have to explain how, if he thinks that this shot came from "elsewhere", it has the echo timings based on a shot from the TBSD 6th floor which was why they initially used it.
Click to expand...

Oh, make no mistake - manifesto has tried to quietly sweep that under the rug.

If you look at his descriptions of the shooting, he describes them as "four shots from behind." You know what? Uh-uh!

On one hand he has asserted that the echo patterns are so specific that the probability of them being by chance are nil (and I seem to recall him claiming that it could pin-point the position of the shooter to within feet of their location) but they are also not so accurate that they only indicate a shot from somewhere behind JFK and not necessarily the 6th floor of the SBD.

He is just hoping we don't notice that it all contradicts itself (you don't need the NAS to refute the dictabelt nonsense, manifesto contradicts it himself)
 
manifesto said:
What is it that you do not get? If YOU are claiming a certain studie debunks a certain studie it is YOU who need to show how this is really so. Not your opponent.
Click to expand...
You ;) haven't debunked the debunking yet. Keep working on it.

We all have a good laugh at your brash "I'm well read on the subject!" post now. Do you ;) know anything at all about the assassination beyond what those mindless CT websites tell you ;) to think?
 
RoboTimbo said:
manifesto said:
Does it now?

Warren Commission Exhibit 390 demonstrates Canadian blood spatter analyst, Michael J. Sweet (1954-2006) published research regarding the velocity of blood projected from forceful impact. Utilizing human blood, Sweet’s research documented blood leaving the point of the impact travelled 3.59 times faster than the velocity of the impacting object (Sweet, 1993).

~ Fiester, Sherry P, 2012.​
Click to expand...

;), what caliber bullet was she using?

LOL.

I admit that you ;) CTs are taken in by everything you ;) read on idiotic conspiracy sites.
Click to expand...

If this were true, we'd have people losing eyes or being greviously wounded by blood spatter all the time. If an AR-15 round impacted a person at 2,500 FPS, that would result in blood spatter exiting the body at around 9,000 FPS. I think that a drop of blood traveling at mach 8 might do more damage than the actual bullets. :rolleyes:

ETA - I was a few pages behind. I see that others have already made the same point.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom