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

[Axxman300]

Well, here is a peer reviewed paper: https://www.journals.ke-i.org/index.php/mra/article/view/177/78

Let me know if you or anyone else find any errors in it. I highly doubt that you will.

It's written by a CT doctor working with Cyril Wecht.

We know the bullet shattered as it passed from back to front, we know they never recovered all of it. The idea that they missed a piece is not out of the ball park.

Just because they had the capability of faking an x-ray in 1963 doesn't mean that they did. Absent from this paper is what the OTHER X-RAY EXPERTS THOUGHT WHILE HANDLING THE SAME MATERIALS.

You fail

 

[Dave Rogers]

Well, here is a peer reviewed paper: https://www.journals.ke-i.org/index.php/mra/article/view/177/78

It doesn't look like it. Rather, it looks like a document formatted to look like a peer reviewed paper, but there doesn't appear to be any reference to whether it was actually reviewed.

Let me know if you or anyone else find any errors in it. I highly doubt that you will.

"Errors" is perhaps the wrong word to describe the two fundamental flaws in the paper. These are:

(1) The paper is discussing a piece of evidence that did not come to light until 1978, and was therefore not involved in formulating the conclusion that Oswald was the killer; yet it treats this as a crucial piece of evidence. It therefore commits the usual conspiracist's fallacy of acting as if only one small piece of evidence has to be overcome to require rejection of the conclusions drawn from numerous sources.

(2) The paper, in effect, shows that, if one were to fake the presence of an object in an X-ray using the technology of the time, it might appear similar to the image under discussion, and concludes from this that the image was so manipulated. This is, of course, the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent; at no time does the paper effectively eliminate other scenarios.

The first flaw renders the entire paper irrelevant. The second renders its conclusions unsupportable. Having noted that, there's not much point looking into the fine detail of the argument.

Dave

 

[manifesto]

By all means, describe the impulse patterns expected from suppressed gunshot and how it would be identified on the dicta belt?

I’m not saying that shots with a silencer are visible on the dictabelt. I’m saying that the five registrerad rifle shots on the dictabelt doesn’t exclude additional shots. From other places than the TSBD or the Knoll and/or using silencers.

I’m not pushing more than 5 rifle shots whereof one fired from the knoll, being the fatal headshot.

It is enough to conclude that it was a conspiracy covered up by the authorities and elements within MSM, still going strong 55 years later, still counting.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I’m not pushing more than 5 rifle shots whereof one fired from the knoll, being the fatal headshot.

But you have advocated for "knoll" witnesses who only heard shots from the grassy knoll. Where they all mistaken?

 

[pgwenthold]

Your acoustic evidence says there were only four (five if you go by Bug Dr.) shots. Remember they were supposedly unique from all other sounds. Still only one from the front. Any solid evidence for this third or fourth rifle position? Bug Dr. says two rifles from behind. Now you are adding an additional rifle to the front.

I still don't get it. The claim is that the acoustic evidence is so exact to make the probability of them not being gunshots too low, but ..... the gun shots don't actually have to come from the places where the acoustic evidence was created?

You can just move a gun to another position and it's just as good? Won't that make the probability less likely?

 

[jeffas69]

I’m not saying that shots with a silencer are visible on the dictabelt. I’m saying that the five registrerad rifle shots on the dictabelt doesn’t exclude additional shots. From other places than the TSBD or the Knoll and/or using silencers.

Why would any other shot not be on the dictabelt if it was a recording from Dealey Plaza? Including a suppressed shot.

I’m not pushing more than 5 rifle shots whereof one fired from the knoll, being the fatal headshot.

Then when you are asked for evidence of shots from the front you should not post:

- The Parkland doctors press conference stating it was a small round punctuated entrance wound in JFK’s throat —-> shot from in front.

It is enough to conclude that it was a conspiracy covered up by the authorities and elements within MSM, still going strong 55 years later, still counting.

While it may be enough for you the rest of us will need actual evidence of a coverup.

Also where is the evidence for an exit wound for the grassy knoll headshot?

Also answer Hank!

Also smartcooky entire post!

Also Jay!

 

[jeffas69]

I still don't get it. The claim is that the acoustic evidence is so exact to make the probability of them not being gunshots too low, but ..... the gun shots don't actually have to come from the places where the acoustic evidence was created?

You can just move a gun to another position and it's just as good? Won't that make the probability less likely?

One who uses logic would think that. But if you want to hang on to that dictabelt as evidence of a grassy knoll shot. You have to find creative ways to keep it in play. Even if you know its garbage!

 

[manifesto]

It doesn't look like it. Rather, it looks like a document formatted to look like a peer reviewed paper, but there doesn't appear to be any reference to whether it was actually reviewed.

Thank you, No Other: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12311274&postcount=3935

(That is, if the journal is peer reviewed, I assume the article published in the journal is peer reviewed.)

"Errors" is perhaps the wrong word to describe the two fundamental flaws in the paper. These are:

(1) The paper is discussing a piece of evidence that did not come to light until 1978, and was therefore not involved in formulating the conclusion that Oswald was the killer; yet it treats this as a crucial piece of evidence. It therefore commits the usual conspiracist's fallacy of acting as if only one small piece of evidence has to be overcome to require rejection of the conclusions drawn from numerous sources.

What? It is (looks like) a metal fragment of exactly 6.5 mm = slize of a Carcano bullet = Oswald did it.

Problem is, it wasn’t noted by the x-ray doctors and not by anyone else in connection to the autopsy. Strange, since it shines like a lighthouse and that much smaller fragments were identified.

Not this one? Really?

The first time anyone reportedly identified it was when the Clark panel was created by LBJ in order to counter the Garrison trial against CIA’s Clay Shaw.

Another issue with the fragment is how on earth the incoming bullet could split in two, get a thin disk neately slized of and deposited on the outside of the skull before coming together again, enter the skull in one piece and therafter hit the inside of the wind shield split in two again and land on the limo floor.

Some feat?

(2) The paper, in effect, shows that, if one were to fake the presence of an object in an X-ray using the technology of the time, it might appear similar to the image under discussion, and concludes from this that the image was so manipulated. This is, of course, the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent; at no time does the paper effectively eliminate other scenarios.

What other scenarios could that be? Any candidates?

The first flaw renders the entire paper irrelevant.

Are you serious?

The second renders its conclusions unsupportable. Having noted that, there's not much point looking into the fine detail of the argument.

Dave

From where I stand you have done nothing of the sort. You have to present plausible candidates as alternatives to what Mantik is proposing. It is not enough to claim, ”it could be” other explanations.

Be specific.

 

[No Other]

I said I see no evidence that the article was peer-reviewed. Not everything that is published in a "peer-reviewed" journal is peer reviewed. Note the different categories of submission, some of which would be susceptible to review and some would not. And while many journals -- especially the newly sprung-up such as this one -- claim to be peer-reviewed, not all are. Do you know KEI's reputation in the publishing industry? I do. No list of reviewers appears anywhere on the web site or in conjunction with the article. There is an editorial board, which is different than a review board. And none of them has relevant qualifications. So your challenge is to get me the verifiable name of one person who reviewed this particular article, or in fact any article in this entire journal.

The author David Mantik is well known in the JFK conspiracy circles. While the article purports to be about diagnostic radiology, Dr. Mantik's training and certifications are in therapeutic radiology connected with oncology -- the use of radiation to treat cancer. That's as far as you can get from diagnostic radiology, which is an entirely different science. He claims radiology as a specialty, but has no board certification in it and no relevant publications that are not centered on the JFK assassination. This is perhaps why he chose to publish his findings in an obscure journal whose editorial board would not be well situated to interpret his findings and who would be hungry to publish anything. Peers in this case would be radiologists, not radiology oncologists. Can you provide any evidence that a single radiologist has read this article?

I certainly don't have the passion that you do regarding this journal or the Doctor. I did however "google" his name and "radiology"; what came up is that the Doctor is certified by American Board of Radiology Certification in Therapeutic Radiology (Radiology).

 

[RoboTimbo]

From where I stand you have done nothing of the sort.

Explain. Give citations. Summarize.

 

[manifesto]

Why would any other shot not be on the dictabelt if it was a recording from Dealey Plaza? Including a suppressed shot.

Not be detectable on the dictabelt.

Then when you are asked for evidence of shots from the front you should not post:

- The Parkland doctors press conference stating it was a small round punctuated entrance wound in JFK’s throat —-> shot from in front.

1. Because it IS evidence of a frontal shot.

2. Beacause the efforts to suppress it is evidence that the authorities/LIFE feared it was a frontal shot.

I’m not pushing this particular evidence since it divert focus from the more serious evidence of a shot from the knoll.

I AM pushing the proven efforts to suppress this evidence (and all other evidence) of shot/s from in front as evidence of a conspiracy covered up by the authorities and elements within MSM.

While it may be enough for you the rest of us will need actual evidence of a coverup.

No evidence in the whole galaxy would be enough for you and the rest of you.

Also where is the evidence for an exit wound for the grassy knoll headshot?

Suppressed, but not enough. The truth will prevail. It is a tremendous force of Nature.

Also answer Hank!

Also smartcooky entire post!

Also Jay!

I’m sure these guys can fend for themselves, not.

 

[JayUtah]

I certainly don't have the passion that you do regarding this journal or the Doctor. I did however "google" his name and "radiology"; what came up is that the Doctor is certified by American Board of Radiology Certification in Therapeutic Radiology (Radiology).

No, not passion -- thoroughness. I did my homework while you did not.

And no, therapeutic radiology is not diagnostic radiology. They are entirely separate fields. The paper in question is about diagnostic radiology in which the author is not an expert.

 

[JayUtah]

I’m sure these guys can fend for themselves, not.

I've already fended for myself by pointing out a few errors you've made. Time for you to fend back.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I’m sure these guys can fend for themselves, not.

Why do you say that when you've run away from answering their questions? You have also run away from answering mine: Why did Oswald murder Officer Tippitt and then attempt to murder more officers in the theater with the same gun when they cornered him?

 

[JayUtah]

That is, if the journal is peer reviewed, I assume the article published in the journal is peer reviewed.

That would not be correct. You don't have much experience with peer review or academic publishing, it seems. Further, you don't seem to have much experience with KEI and their purported "review" process.

You have to present plausible candidates as alternatives to what Mantik is proposing. It is not enough to claim, ”it could be” other explanations.

No, you're reversing the burden of proof. You're posing Mantik as a relevant expert, and his judgment and conclusions as expert opinion. By posturing his findings as peer-reviewed, you're arguing that those findings would be reasonably accepted in the field. None of that is true to any degree you can establish. It's your burden to lay a proper foundation for your experts, and you don't seem to know how to do that properly.

Further, an argument of the form "could be, therefore must be" is exactly and correctly rebutted with the rebuttal "could also be something else," because -- as has been noted -- the argument form is the fallacy of affirming the consequent. It is the author's responsibility to determine other potential causes and to provide empiricism or other evidence that establishes his conclusion above the others. That's the essence of the scientific method. You claim the x-rays have been "scientifically" proven doctored, but I see nothing but pseudo-science here.

 

[smartcooky]

If 80% of its momentum is transferred to the head, you must account for all if it. Some of it can not just disapear. There are two candidates, heat and momentum.

Are you telling me that the transferred kinetik energy is transformed to heat?

Heat, transfer of momentum on impact, and into the formation of a temporary pressure cavity.

In any case, I contest your assertion that 80% of the energy would be lost from a bullet that passed through the target. The bullet (or fragments of bullet) that came out the other side of the target retain momentum (otherwise they would not be going anywhere) therefore they retain energy. This is Terminal Ballistics 101.

Now the upshot of all this is that while a front shot could transfer momentum, it;

a. would be nowhere near enough to cause JFK's head to be thrown backwards, and

b. could not cause the observed acceleration of JFK's head back and to the left (his head moves a greater distance in successive frames, and that means acceleration is taking place). An object that has transferred momentum to another object cannot accelerate that object after it is no longer present (unless you are proposing spooky action at a distance ). For a front shot to be responsible for this acceleration from Z313 through Z317, the bullet or all its fragments, would have to still be inside his head during all those frames. If this were the case, it would have to be travelling so slowly that it could not create an exit wound; it, or they, would have come to rest inside his head, and it, or they, would ALL have been found in the lower left anterior hemisphere of JFK's brain... they weren't.

Which, as has been shown already in this discussion, not what the tests showed.

The sonar analysis showed that rifle shots *were viable* as an explanation, and would fit the patterns *if* (and make no mistake this is a big if, an if so big it distorts gravity, an if so big it has to be written in crayon and underlined in red) the assumptions of where the timings matched and where the microphone physically was, at all five waypoints, were correct.

So far the microphone can be shown to be at NONE of the waypoints.

At this point there is no reason to discuss the study, when he simply demands to misrepresent the nature of the findings.

And manifesto is unable to explain why the microphones have to be in specific places at specific times.

Already done.

No, not already done. All you have done is copypasta other people's work, none of which shows that you understand what you cut and pasted. I want you to explain the methodology behind the analysis of the sounds on the dictabelt (those that were claimed to be gunfire) and why the microphone has to be in certain places at certain times for the analysis to mean anything, and I want you to do so in your own words...

HINT: Feel free to use diagrams you have drawn, to show that you know what you are talking about

Wrong. The forward head movement happened before Z313. Now, tell me, why should I continue reading if they make this big blunder already in the first sentence you are quoting?

Wrong. You are misreading the quote. The first indication of the forward movement IS in Z313. Its the difference in head position between Z312 and Z313 that shows his head moved forward.

 

[JayUtah]

Just because they had the capability of faking an x-ray in 1963 doesn't mean that they did.

This is a common feature of conspiracy-type argumentation. The argument implies that the conventional narrative must meet a standard of proof that effectively says the evidence must be impossible to fake by any means. That's an impractical, useless standard of proof. Rebutting evidence by claiming it could be faked is an affirmative rebuttal. It incurs the burden of proof -- not that it merely could have been faked, but that it was faked.

Absent from this paper is what the OTHER X-RAY EXPERTS THOUGHT WHILE HANDLING THE SAME MATERIALS.

Which I would guess is why Mantik chose to publish his findings in a publication few if any radiologists would see. There are a number of criminology, forensic science, and radiology journals that would be appropriate for this kind of research if it could pass muster.

It doesn't look like it. Rather, it looks like a document formatted to look like a peer reviewed paper, but there doesn't appear to be any reference to whether it was actually reviewed.

Also conspicuously absent is the author's statement of authority. In nearly every scientific paper published in the last 20 years, it is proper form to footnote the authors' names in the title block and cite their basis of authority -- a sort of mini-resume. Nowhere does Mantik substantiate the basis of his expertise such that his interpretation of the evidence should be considered especially informed. And we know the reason for this: he has no relevant certifications or experience. He has clearly hoped his credentials in a similar-sounding field will convince laymen and casual readers that he is proficient in the interpretation of diagnostic x-rays.

This is, of course, the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent; at no time does the paper effectively eliminate other scenarios.

And that is such an egregious failure to adhere to the scientific method that it is ludicrous to believe a competent reviewer approved this paper for publication. The systematic, methodical, empirical elimination of competing hypotheses is the heart, soul, liver, and kidneys of the scientific method. It simply wasn't done at all here.

 

[jeffas69]

Not be detectable on the dictabelt.

Any suppressed shot would have to be in the same area on the dictabelt as the other supposed shots. What would make it undetectable?

1. Because it IS evidence of a frontal shot.

You should make up your mind.

2. Beacause the efforts to suppress it is evidence that the authorities/LIFE feared it was a frontal shot.

Speculation of a cover up is not evidence of a coverup. You allow no other option. And no I wont speculate on what journalists do. And I will ask again. Where is the lie from Dr. Perry?

I’m not pushing this particular evidence since it divert focus from the more serious evidence of a shot from the knoll.

You brought it up when talking about evidence of a shot from the knoll. If you want it to go away stop talking about it.

I AM pushing the proven efforts to suppress this evidence (and all other evidence) of shot/s from in front as evidence of a conspiracy covered up by the authorities and elements within MSM.

Speculation.

No evidence in the whole galaxy would be enough for you and the rest of you.

More speculation.

Suppressed, but not enough. The truth will prevail. It is a tremendous force of Nature.

So you have no evidence of any kind for a exit wound from the supposed grassy knoll headshot. Thank you!

I’m sure these guys can fend for themselves, not.

I have no reason to believe that they can't. The point was to show everyone how you continue to ignore certain questions.

 

[Axxman300]

I’m not saying that shots with a silencer are visible on the dictabelt. I’m saying that the five registrerad rifle shots on the dictabelt doesn’t exclude additional shots. From other places than the TSBD or the Knoll and/or using silencers.

1. The dictabelt recording is of Channel 2, and was either recorded from an open mike from Officer McLane, who was not where the HSCA's experts said he was to make their findings accurate, or the recording comes from an Officer at the Trademart where there was no shooting.

2. Nobody used silencers for any kind of precision shooting in 1963. They are small caliber weapons (.22, 9mm, or .45) and used subsonic rounds, and were intended for close range to point-blank use.

3. The shots that killed JFK came from behind.

 

[Axxman300]

1. Because it IS evidence of a frontal shot.

2. Beacause the efforts to suppress it is evidence that the authorities/LIFE feared it was a frontal shot.

No it is not. A shot from the Grassy Knoll would have blown out the left side of the head, not the front right.

More to the point, ALL of the documents indicate that the FBI, CIA, and DPD were desperately trying to link Oswald to a conspiracy. Why suppress evidence that would prove what they hoped to be true?

I AM pushing the proven efforts to suppress this evidence (and all other evidence) of shot/s from in front as evidence of a conspiracy covered up by the authorities and elements within MSM.

Yet you have yet to provide testimony from anyone in the MSM to support your claim.

No evidence in the whole galaxy would be enough for you and the rest of you.

You ignore that fact that most of us are reformed JKF-CTists, and that most of us keep an ear to the ground for any new evidence that might point to an actual conspiracy. Many of us are still open to the idea that Oswald was either working with or for someone, and will give any honest evidence supporting this a solid review.

Our problem is that Oswald shot JFK all by himself. The evidence - THE REAL EVIDENCE - proves it, and has proved so since 1964. All of the other stuff; the Warren Commission, the Rockefeller Commission, the HSCA are all politically motivated side-shows wherein at the end of each Oswald his still the gunman.

You picture yourself as a crusader against the CIA yet you ignore how they operate in the real world. If the CIA was behind it they would have just used Oswald, that way they don't have to fabricate evidence, or alter home movies, and fake x-rays, and intimidate witnesses (each step increasing the odds by 50% of being discovered). In this scenario no more than four people, including Oswald would be in on the conspiracy, and would be easier to keep secret.

But no, you embrace every worn out aspect of the armchair JFK-CTist.

If you want the truth you have to accept Oswald shot JFK, and shift your focus to who might have put him up to the task.

You pointed out the torn dollar bills in his wallet as proof that he was going to meet up with someone (you think his handler), but again you fall into the trap that the person he was supposed to meet was at the Texas Theater. This is inconsistent with his initial actions.

The bus he took would have stopped at the Greyhound Station where he could have been on his way to the Mexican Border had he kept his cool, and not killed Tippet.

If you want to go the honest CT route then you need to be asking if he was given those torn dollar bills to gain entry to a safehouse near the border, and to meet a contact once he crossed into Mexico.

That's how that would have been done if the CIA, or KGB, or Cuban Intelligence, or any other spy agency in the world had been involved...or a cell trained by any of them would have carried the plot out.

Instead of fighting the evidence and slandering the people who collected it the better option is to accept it along with Oswald's guilt as the shooter, and then look at the questions they didn't answer. Then ask why those questions weren't answered, and then look at the real-world possibilities for a conspiracy.

Somewhere between is time in New Orleans and his visit to Mexico City you might actually find a conspiracy.