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

[carlitos]

How many witnesses reported seeing this guy?[qimg]http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/nix1.gif[/qimg]

There is no "guy" there, but I am impressed with how completely you've given into your fantasies.

No because there is no guy there. Wait it might be Badge Man or Hard Hat Man, anyone else I missed?
You appear to see objects that aren't real and have no bearing on the subject matter.

So, what is it that pops up behind the fence?

Bigfoot. Only bigfoot is that blurry in photos. It has to be him.

 

[HSienzant]

I asked if you have such experiences. Keen to answer?

It’s a give and take game.

He doesn't need such experiences to point out you have no basis to make the judgments you make. The question is whether your judgment, and your experience is sufficient to dismiss someone else's points, as you did earlier.

As you admitted, you have no background to be making the judgments you're making. And you're avoiding answering his question. On what basis did you dismiss the points by Hans as you did in the link below?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12315030&postcount=4272

Hank

 

[RoboTimbo]

No, I haven’t.

Thank you for your admission that you have no standing to make your proclamation. Your claim is dismissed.

 

[RoboTimbo]

So, what is that pops up behind the fence?

"Pops up"? Explain. Argue. Cite.

 

[RoboTimbo]

The shot from the knoll was ALSO investigated with a sonar analysis

Debunked. Are you claiming something about the multiple debunkings?

Explain. Argue. Cite.

 

[smartcooky]

I asked if you have such experiences. Keen to answer?

It’s a give and take game.

Of course I cannot speak for Jay, but as someone who I happen to know works in the Aerospace industry as a subcontractor for NASA, he almost certainly has.

When I was at Moffat NAS some years ago, I was required to have a USN security clearance both for access to the work area I was in, and to access documents in relation to the DIFAR ASW equipment I was working on (AN-AQA7, AN/ARR-75, AN/AQH-5)

I can tell you from MY personal experience that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

 

[HSienzant]

So, what is that pops up behind the fence?

Is he still there in the ensuing frames? Or is this a 1/16th of a second image capture of a supposed gunman? That pops up for one frame and then vanishes again forever? What does the next few seconds of that film look like?

It's curious we don't see more of the film, don't you think? Why do you suppose that is?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Was the yellow patches on the south curbstones still there? The newly painted patches visible at the time of the assassination nobody knew the reason for being there? Exactly where the shooting took place?

How many witnesses reported seeing this guy?
[qimg]http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/nix3.gif[/qimg]

Your 'guy' is photographic artifact.

To the right of the tree trunk against the fence is a dark patch in shadow with three bands of light shining through. On the same frame that shows your whack-a-mole 'guy', the top white band of light (the largest and most obvious one) shows a similar pop-up on the left side of the white patch (close to the tree) at the same time as your 'pop up guy'. Since this white pop-up mirrors the dark pop-up, but there can be no correlation between the two except for photographic artifact, it must be that.

This reminds me of Josiah Thompson finding a 'white mass' moving down the back of the trunk (from this same film) and claiming that may be JFK's brain matter moving down the trunk (page 99 of SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS). Of course, if you roll the film back a bit, you see the same blob of 'white matter' moving across the hood of the car. It turns out the 'white matter' is actually a reflection of the retaining wall being reflected on first the hood, and then on the trunk of the Presidential limo. It's not brain matter, it's reflection. CTs have been seeing non-existent things in the images for 54 years.

Here's the image of the 'gunman' (long since debunked) firing from across the top of the car:
https://images.thestar.com/content/...tage/nix-film.jpg.size-custom-crop.1086x0.jpg

Hank

PS: It goes without saying (but I'll say it anyway) that the spot on the knoll you denote for the shooter is different from the spot on the knoll Thompson denotes for the shooter. Conspiracy theorists can't agree on anything.

 

[smartcooky]

I have adressed this a multitude of times. The shot from the knoll was ALSO investigated with a sonar analysis which provided a more detailed and exact sets of data
The reason for doing this sonar analysis only on the shot from the knoll was its potential political repercussions and that no one has ever denied that shots were (also) fired from behind.

Cite this sonar analysis with some detail, and cite the data sets obtained by it. Argue for the veracity of the data. Tell me more about the sonar equipment they used...

Was it active or passive sonar?
What frequency did it operate on?
What was the PRF?
Did it use a PWM or a PAM incident wave?
What type of Signal Processing was used?
What was the sidelobe suppression ratio (SSR)?
Did they use amplitude windowing or non-linear frequency modulated chirps to reduce SSR?
Was Doppler tolerance level a factor in the analysis?

 

[JayUtah]

I asked if you have such experiences. Keen to answer?

No, I am not, because the question is about your purported expertise, not anyone else's. You rebutted Hans' argument with a rebuttal that suggests you have inside knowledge of the U.S. intelligence community and related agencies, such that you could assure everyone his reasonable concerns were not an issue for your theory. I'm conducting a sort of voir dire to determine whether there is a basis for that rebuttal.

We've determined that you have not held a U.S. security clearance. I take that your answer also disavowed any work that would have involved customary U.S. national security methods and protocols. So now that we've eliminated any personal knowledge as a source of your insinuations to inside understanding, we have to learn where that understanding came from. Did you read books? Did you interview intelligence workers? Did you read newspapers or academic journals?

It’s a give and take game.

No, it is not. You challenged Hans' interpretation by suggesting you somehow had superior knowledge of the relevant facts than he. I am attempting to discover whether you do have that superior knowledge, and if so, upon what it may be based. That is utterly unrelated to whether someone else may or may not have that knowledge. Someone else didn't offer your rebuttal. You rebutted his objection from a position of supposed expertise, so therefore it is only your expertise that is in question.

 

[Hans]

No, I am not, because the question is about your purported expertise, not anyone else's. You rebutted Hans' argument with a rebuttal that suggests you have inside knowledge of the U.S. intelligence community and related agencies, such that you could assure everyone his reasonable concerns were not an issue for your theory. I'm conducting a sort of voir dire to determine whether there is a basis for that rebuttal.

We've determined that you have not held a U.S. security clearance. I take that your answer also disavowed any work that would have involved customary U.S. national security methods and protocols. So now that we've eliminated any personal knowledge as a source of your insinuations to inside understanding, we have to learn where that understanding came from. Did you read books? Did you interview intelligence workers? Did you read newspapers or academic journals?



No, it is not. You challenged Hans' interpretation by suggesting you somehow had superior knowledge of the relevant facts than he. I am attempting to discover whether you do have that superior knowledge, and if so, upon what it may be based. That is utterly unrelated to whether someone else may or may not have that knowledge. Someone else didn't offer your rebuttal. You rebutted his objection from a position of supposed expertise, so therefore it is only your expertise that is in question.

I'm betting old Manifesto just made it up. Given his L O N G history of making stuff up and pretending it is real.

 

[bknight]

I'm betting old Manifesto just made it up. Given his L O N G history of making stuff up and pretending it is real.

Yes and the latest item is the "man" behind the wall. LOL

 

[Axxman300]

Was the yellow patches on the south curbstones still there? The newly painted patches visible at the time of the assassination nobody knew the reason for being there? Exactly where the shooting took place?

How many witnesses reported seeing this guy?

[qimg]http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/nix2.jpg[/qimg][qimg]http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/nix3.gif[/qimg][qimg]http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/nix1.gif[/qimg]

Nice that they crop out the three men standing on the steps who run in the direction of the fence to get out of the line of fire from the rifle shots coming from the TSBD.

Does shrubbery shoot a lot of people in Sweden?

 

[MicahJava]

Could you list your argument for those of us who have not followed the discussion from start?

A 6.5 round from the angle of the depository entering next to the EOP at z312 would have exited the face, not the top of the head. They show this with a ballistics dummy in Tracking Oswald part 5. And in that experiment it actually knocked the head backwards, like a chair falling towards the breaking legs. With low-velocity missiles the EOP wound could have been created before z313, at z190-224 if it just missed the brain. Perhaps that would have pushed Kennedy's head slightly downwards or even backwards instead of the expected forwards we may expect. Slight damage to the cerebellum could be responsible for Kennedy's uncoordinated body movements after that time.

I am not seeing any evidence indicating that a single 6.5 round from the Depository could have created the small wound described by the autopsy report, Humes, Boswell, Finck, Stringer, Boyers, Kellerman, O'Neill, and Lipsey as being situated next to the EOP.

George Burkley and Tom Robinson may also be considered EOP witnesses by some measure. The existing collection of autopsy photographs do not show a clear view of the EOP area of the scalp, even though the pathologists and photographer remembered taking close-up views of the it. Physical evidence for the EOP wound includes the face sheet diagram stained in the President's blood, (officially) slight damage to the cerebellum and brainstem which the autopsy pathologists thought was caused "by the bullet" and not something post-mortem, a cavity of air between the tissues on the x-rays extending from the lower neck area into the middle neck area, and a possible bullet fragment in the middle-neck area on the x-ray.

 

[Hans]

Yes and the latest item is the "man" behind the wall. LOL

I suspect he has never heard rifle fire and doesn't realize just how much noise that makes.

 

[Axxman300]

I have adressed this a multitude of times. The shot from the knoll was ALSO investigated with a sonar analysis which provided a more detailed and exact sets of data, not provided by the binary correlation analysis done by BBN.

The reason for doing this sonar analysis only on the shot from the knoll was its potential political repercussions and that no one has ever denied that shots were (also) fired from behind.

The acoustical data was dependent on the microphone being in the right place, and we have demonstrated multiple times that McLane was still on Huston Street while the shots were fired, AND we have demonstrated that the recording is most likely to have come from an Officer based at the Trademart.

So, the 4 shots from behind are not pinned down to the ’snipers nest’, only from that general direction. Could be more gunmen in TSBD. Could be gunmen in additional buildings. Could be from an automated rifle.

And yet there is no evidence of four rifles being fired. Only the three from Oswald.

One thing is clear. A single shooter could not have fired all four shots from behind with a bolt action rifle.

There were only three, and all were fired by Oswald from the TSBD.

This is the reason for Robert Blakeys interference in the acoustic investigation:

"The entry in Table II that occurred at 140.32 sec is a false alarm, because it occurred only 1.05 sec later than earlier correlations also obtained from the TSBD. The rifle cannot be fired that rapidly. Since there are three correlations plausibly indicating the earlier shot, the one occurring 1.05 sec later must be a false alarm."​

The accurate explanation is the dictabelt evidence didn't record gunshots. Thanks for playing.

 

[HSienzant]

A 6.5 round from the angle of the depository entering next to the EOP at z312 would have exited the face, not the top of the head.

No. If the bullet from the knoll hits the right temple there is enough angle for it to exit the right side of the back of the head. That said, bullets often deflect (change trajectory) to a considerable degree after hitting the target, in this case human skin, hard cranial bone and brain under high pressure.

Can you guys sort this out between yourselves, reach a compromise, then bring those issues to us?

You can do this privately or publicly.

You say the bullet can't deflect upwards to deflect the top of the head. (although you have argued in the past it deflected downwards to exit the throat). Manifesto disagrees. He says bullets can deflect "to a considerable degree".

Get back to us when you figure out which is true.

Hank

 

[smartcooky]

Does shrubbery shoot a lot of people in Sweden?

Only that which belongs to the "Knights who say.... Ni!"

 

[Axxman300]

A 6.5 round from the angle of the depository entering next to the EOP at z312 would have exited the face, not the top of the head. .

Nope. The actual gunshot wound proves this is incorrect.

They show this with a ballistics dummy in Tracking Oswald part 5. And in that experiment it actually knocked the head backwards, like a chair falling towards the breaking legs.

What? A GSW from the back knocked the head backward? Do tell.

With low-velocity missiles the EOP wound could have been created before z313, at z190-224 if it just missed the brain. Perhaps that would have pushed Kennedy's head slightly downwards or even backwards instead of the expected forwards we may expect. Slight damage to the cerebellum could be responsible for Kennedy's uncoordinated body movements after that time.

Problem is that the assassination is on film, and the only visible head-wound comes from the 6.5x52mm round. The only other bullet wound is the one that struck in the upper back and exited the throat.

I am not seeing any evidence indicating that a single 6.5 round from the Depository could have created the small wound described by the autopsy report, Humes, Boswell, Finck, Stringer, Boyers, Kellerman, O'Neill, and Lipsey as being situated next to the EOP.

Because you're ignoring the evidence. Small hole in, big hole out. Ballistics 101.

The existing collection of autopsy photographs do not show a clear view of the EOP area of the scalp, even though the pathologists and photographer remembered taking close-up views of the it.

And since nobody has seen all of the photographs nobody can prove either way if this is true, which the inventory says is not.

Physical evidence for the EOP wound includes the face sheet diagram stained in the President's blood,

Dramatic but irrelevant.

(

officially) slight damage to the cerebellum and brainstem which the autopsy pathologists thought was caused "by the bullet" and not something post-mortem,

It's called Over-Pressure, and it's caused by cavitation. The 6.5x52mm is what the kids call an "Over-Powered" round.

a cavity of air between the tissues on the x-rays extending from the lower neck area into the middle neck area,

Weird, almost as if a large, powerful bullet had passed through the body.

and a possible bullet fragment in the middle-neck area on the x-ray

Found by the lone CT pathologist, and not by the others.

So what you're really saying is that you have no evidence, just innuendo.

 

[MicahJava]

Scientist’s Trick ‘Explains’ JFK Backward Movement When Shot by Milicent Cranor

an article manifesto might want to see