JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

MicahJava · Mar 27, 2017

BStrong said:
I already posted mine - earwitness reports are unreliable and subjective at best.

BStrong, when's the last time you read the Dealey Plaza witness statements? There's just too much of a consensus to say it's confusion. There were witnesses thinking the shot(s) came from the knoll no matter where they were standing.

Anyone that was located parallel to the trajectory of the projectiles could have heard the MSB and misidentified them as muzzle blast.

Oh ok, so I guess witness confusion isn't a good enough explanation for you (and rightly so). Like I said, there were knoll witnesses in every location of Dealey Plaza. If your assertion is true, the findings of the HSCA earshot experiment would have been more ambiguous. Rope off Dealey Plaza and do your own experiment that's even better than what the HSCA did, otherwise you can't argue acoustics. It's as simple as that.

MicahJava · Mar 27, 2017

BStrong said:
You'll need to point out how denying a murderer a place in history constitutes fascism.

His solution is simply to remove fame from the equation for individuals (like LHO) with marginal personalities.

I concur with his opinion. LHO would be the happiest man alive to know folks like you are working to clear his good name in the 21st century.

What you are describing is something out of a dictatorship. Of course people should have every right to understand the case against a suspect or convict in a high-profile crime case. The right is self-evidence. I don't need to argue that any further besides repeating the word "freedom".

Axxman300 · Mar 27, 2017

MicahJava said:
Some of you have been to Dealey Plaza, right? Or at least seen it on Google Maps street view? It's not a huge place, it's not a small place, it's a medium-sized place.

And?

The grassy knoll is a completely different location than the east side of the TSBD. So why are some of you totally content with thinking that shots somehow echoed and "bounced" around to sound exactly like a shot from the knoll area?

Because that's exactly what it did. Where you though the shots originated from depended on where you stood. The echo is that bad.

The HSCA earwitness report did note that firing shots in Dealey Plaza creates echoes, but their two observers reported data indicates that the noise of an unsuppressed rifle doesn't just "bounce around".

How do sound waves move through the air any differently when created by a suppressed weapon as opposed to an unsuppressed weapon? I would love to hear this one.

The HSCA experiment observers found it easy almost all of the time to tell where a shot originated.

The key word there is "almost".

Oliver Stone's sound man complained about how bad the echo was.

So any speculation about the acoustics of Dealey Plaza being like that is total discredited hogwash.

No, it just undermines your argument, and you can't deal with it. It's not speculation, the place has a nasty echo. Just a fact you can't ignore.

The burden of proof has been on the Lone Nutters since the 70's to show how ~40% of witnesses could think shot(s) came from the knoll area.

Nope.

The evidence points to Oswald.

What about the witnesses who claim to remember a Dallas motorcycle cop driving his bike up the Grassy Knoll? It didn't happen, but they swear it did.

It's the CT loons who have yet to prove there were more than 3 shots fired, and in any other direction than the TSBD. In 54 years they continue to come up dry.

I already proposed one idea: guns with noise-suppressors in conjunction with supersonic ammunition. What's yours?

1. - YOU didn't propose the silencers, you glommed onto another CTer's theory who was posting here about this time last year...and he left because we shot his work to pieces...from the 6th floor...

2. Your proposed idea makes no sense in any real-world operation. You are simply trying to rig the scenario to fit a second shooter...and you can't.

3. The ballistic evidence indicates only one weapon used. Take a wild guess which one.

:thumbsup:

MicahJava · Mar 27, 2017

Axxman300, read this: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/html/HSCA_Vol8_0074b.htm

This is actual experimental evidence, not some crap like "Oliver Stone's sound man complained about how bad the echo was".

HSienzant · Mar 28, 2017

MicahJava said:
Although even Dale Meyers [sic] agrees that the wallet in the news channel footage is not Tippit's wallet, it does appear that the claim that it was an Oswald wallet began no earlier than the 90's.

Yes, that's exactly what I said.

MicahJava said:
I don't know, but with Bob Barrett shouting from the highest mountains that it was Oswald's wallet, I thought it deserved a forum post or two.

The claim that Barrett is shouting anything is all yours. It has no bearing in fact.

MicahJava said:
I don't have a copy of Dale Myers' book, but a review of his book on KennedysAndKing has a lengthy discussion of the wallet witnesses: https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/61tjsb/germany_didnt_receive_nato_invoice_from_trump/

And you cite a conspiracy theorists' take on Myers argument. No surprise. No value, either.

MicahJava said:
One thing is that there was no "demand" for witnesses to an Oswald wallet, it's something that Barrett started.

You'd be amazed what a well-placed question can do to "refresh" someone's memory. I pointed this out before... that the verb in the question can cause people who saw a film of an automobile striking a sign to change their estimate of the speed of the automobile.

MicahJava said:
There is some speculation that the later ARRB witnesses to Kennedy's corpse being brought in a zippered bodybag was due to Paul O'Connor's recollections as publicized in the well-known book Best Evidence, and thus a "supply" of more bodybag witnesses were somehow created by garbled memories and stuff from Best Evidence.

This is a documented effect, see anything by Elizabeth Loftus. How you ask the question affects the answer you get.

MicahJava said:
But nobody can say there was any "demand" for the claim that an Oswald wallet was found at the scene of the Tippit shooting.

Until of course, well-meaning but misguided JFK conspiracy 'researchers' started interviewing witnesses about what they recalled about "Oswald's wallet being found at the scene of the Tippit shooting'.

I've pointed it out before... witness testimony from decades after the fact is meaningless.

MicahJava said:
When I see the Kennedy case, I'm so overwhelmed by the big stuff so I prefer to occasionally take small bites into little things like the wallets.

Big stuff, little stuff, you're typically wrong in your arguments, your facts, and your interpretations.

MicahJava said:
It's a tiny note I casually brought up, not a challenge to a rude, aggressive internet dispute.

Oh, so I'm a rude, aggressive, internet poster now, because I pointed out the flaws in your argument?

Hilarious.

Hank

MicahJava · Mar 28, 2017

Oops, Linked the wrong thing. Here is the KennedysAndKing page discussing the wallet issue in Dale Myers' book: https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/myers-dale-with-malice-part-2

If there was no film of the wallet, I wouldn't even bother bringing it up. But we do have a film with a decent enough picture to see it's probably not Tippit's wallet.

HSienzant · Mar 28, 2017

MicahJava said:
Riding on this comment to post a reminder:

Some of you have been to Dealey Plaza, right? Or at least seen it on Google Maps street view? It's not a huge place, it's not a small place, it's a medium-sized place. The grassy knoll is a completely different location than the east side of the TSBD.

It's about 30 yards from the knoll to the closest corner of the TSBD.

MicahJava said:
So why are some of you totally content with thinking that shots somehow echoed and "bounced" around to sound exactly like a shot from the knoll area?

Because that's what numerous witnesses actually described about the assassination:

D.V. HARKNESS:
Mr. BELIN - Where were you when you heard the shots?
Mr. HARKNESS - I had started west on Main Street to the, I don't know what they call this area here.
Mr. BELIN - Plaza.
Mr. HARKNESS - On the plaza area with the crowd to observe the President as he went west on Elm Street.
Mr. BELIN - How many shots did you hear?
Mr. HARKNESS - Three.
Mr. BELIN - What did you do after you heard those noises? Did you know they were shots, by the way?
Mr. HARKNESS - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - What did you do?
Mr. HARKNESS - When I saw the first shot and the President's car slow down to almost a stop----
Mr. BELIN - When you saw the first shot, what do you mean by that?
Mr. HARKNESS - When I heard the first shot and saw the President's car almost come to a stop and some of the agents piling off the car, I went back to the intersection to get my motorcycle.
Mr. BELIN - You were in the process of doing that when you heard the second and third shots?
Mr. HARKNESS - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Where did the shots sound like they came from?
Mr. HARKNESS - I couldn't tell. They were bouncing off the buildings down there. I couldn't tell.
Mr. BELIN - You mean the reverberations?
Mr. HARKNESS - Yes.

LEE BOWERS:
Mr. BALL - Were you in a position where you could see the corner of Elm and Houston from the tower?
Mr. BOWERS - No; I could not see the corner of Elm and Houston. I could see the corner of Main and Houston as they came down and turned on, then I couldn't see it for about half a block, and after they passed the corner of Elm and Houston the car came in sight again.
Mr. BALL - You saw the President's car coming out the Houston Street from Main, did you?
Mr. BOWERS - Yes; I saw that.
Mr. BALL - Then you lost sight of it?
Mr. BOWERS - Right. For a moment.
Mr. BALL - Then you saw it again where?
Mr. BOWERS - It came in sight after it had turned the corner of Elm and Houston.
Mr. BALL - Did you hear anything?
Mr. BOWERS - I heard three shots. One, then a slight pause, then two very close together. Also reverberation from the shots.
Mr. BELIN - And were you able to form an opinion as to the source of the sound or what direction it came from, I mean?
Mr. BOWERS - The sounds came either from up against the School Depository Building or near the mouth of the triple underpass.
Mr. BALL - Were you able to tell which?
Mr. BOWERS - No; I could not.
Mr. BALL - Well, now, had you had any experience before being in the tower as to sounds coming from those various places?
Mr. BOWERS - Yes; I had worked this same tower for some 10 or 12 years, and was there during the time they were renovating the School Depository Building, and had noticed at that time the similarity of sounds occurring in either of those two locations.
Mr. BALL - Can you tell me now whether or not it came, the sounds you heard, the three shots came from the direction of the Depository Building or the triple underpass?
Mr. BOWERS - No; I could not.
Mr. BALL - From your experience there, previous experience there in hearing sounds that originated at the Texas School Book Depository Building, did you notice that sometimes those sounds seem to come from the triple underpass? Is that what you told me a moment ago?
Mr. BOWERS - There is a similarity of sound, because there is a reverberation which takes place from either location.

MicahJava said:
The HSCA earwitness report did note that firing shots in Dealey Plaza creates echoes, but their two observers reported data indicates that the noise of an unsuppressed rifle doesn't just "bounce around". The HSCA experiment observers found it easy almost all of the time to tell where a shot originated.

Your problem is that you are ignoring the conclusions of the experts who conducted the very study you site. We dealt with this as recently as ten days ago, and other times in the past. You simply repeat YOUR opinion, ignore the experts' opinion, and pretend your opinion is somehow justified because of the study. It's not.

Here's where we discussed it on March 17th:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11760483&postcount=2538

Remember the conclusions of the experts you're ignoring?
The experts conclusion is that more than four witnesses would have reported shots from multiple directions if, indeed, there had been shots from multiple locations ("...a second shot from a different location should be distinctive and different enough to cause more than four witnesses to report multiple origins for the shots). They also concluded "It is hard to believe a rifle was fired from the knoll."
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/html/HSCA_Vol8_0077b.htm

MicahJava said:
So any speculation about the acoustics of Dealey Plaza being like that is total discredited hogwash.

Tell that to the witnesses who were actually there like Lee Bowers and D.V.Harkness. Or the experts who conducted the study you like to site, but whose conclusions you ignore. Your opinion is valueless here. You're neither a witness nor an expert.

MicahJava said:
The burden of proof has been on the Lone Nutters since the 70's to show how ~40% of witnesses could think shot(s) came from the knoll area.

Well, isn't that precious.

Previously, you were claiming HALF the witnesses claimed the knoll.

MicahJava said:
Since we have half of all Dealey Plaza witnesses screaming from the highest mountains they heard shots from the Knoll area, we can't just say it was confusion or something like that.

Now it's approximately 40%. It's not.

I'm getting serious Robert Prey 40 + medical witnesses flashbacks. When challenged, he couldn't document his claims. I'm willing to bet you won't be able to come close to 40% of the witnesses claiming the knoll.

Previously, you were also claiming the witnesses were mistaken in their perceptions. You cannot salvage your argument by turning around and claiming they can't be mistaken in their perceptions.

Remember arguing for that misperception here?

MicahJava said:
Wouldn't your perception of the origin of the last shot you hear skew your perception of the other shots that came before?

MicahJava said:
I already proposed one idea: guns with noise-suppressors in conjunction with supersonic ammunition. What's yours?

The same thing some of the witnesses said. Echoes. Reverb.

Hank

HSienzant · Mar 28, 2017

MicahJava said:
BStrong, when's the last time you read the Dealey Plaza witness statements?

Coming from you, that's hilarious. Remember claiming testimony is "boring" and making up answers instead of actually reading the testimony I cited for you?

MicahJava said:
There's just too much of a consensus to say it's confusion. There were witnesses thinking the shot(s) came from the knoll no matter where they were standing.

We KNOW the EARwitnesses who thought they heard shots from the Depository are correct because:
(a) Numerous EYEwitnesses saw a man with a rifle, or just a rifle in the sixth floor southeast corner window.
(b) A rifle was discovered in that building, on the sixth floor, about 42 minutes after the assassination.
(c) Three shells were found at the window that the EYEwitnesses pointed out as the shooter's location. Those shells were linked to the rifle found to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.
(d) Two large fragments were found in the limo by Secret Service agents on the evening of the assassination. Those fragments were linked to the rifle found to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.
(e) A nearly whole bullet was discovered in Parkland Hospital shortly after the victims arrived there. That bullet was linked to the rifle found to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.
(f) An autopsy conducted the night of the assassination concluded the only shots that struck JFK hit him from 'above and behind'. The Depository's sixth floor SE corner window was 'above and behind'. All the subsequent reviews of the extant autopsy material by qualified forensic pathologists reached the same conclusion.

See? The hard evidence confirms these Depository witnesses are correct. You understand what corroboration is?

Now, what corroboration is there for the EARwitnesses who claimed shots from the Knoll (can you name these witnesses, please, and detail the corroboration in the other evidence you found?)

MicahJava said:
Oh ok, so I guess witness confusion isn't a good enough explanation for you (and rightly so).

It was good enough for you a year ago. You were arguing for the misperception of the witnesses back in March of 2016:

MicahJava said:
Wouldn't your perception of the origin of the last shot you hear skew your perception of the other shots that came before?

You do remember arguing the witnesses might have misperceived the source of some of the shots back then, don't you? You can't salvage your argument by turning around and claiming the knoll witnesses could not be mistaken. You ALREADY admitted they could.

MicahJava said:
Like I said, there were knoll witnesses in every location of Dealey Plaza. If your assertion is true, the findings of the HSCA earshot experiment would have been more ambiguous. Rope off Dealey Plaza and do your own experiment that's even better than what the HSCA did, otherwise you can't argue acoustics. It's as simple as that.

You're the only one arguing with the witnesses and the conclusions of the experts who conducted the study you pretend to cite. But in reality, you ignore everything they said and just substitute your own opinion. Robert Harris did that a lot to add a "veneer of expertise" to his arguments -- citing some study, but ignoring the conclusions of the experts and substituting his own. You are doing the precise same thing.

Hank

MicahJava · Mar 28, 2017

I know that a couple or more witnesses suggested the knoll noises were only some kind of reverberation, but the HSCA earshot study provides clear evidence that 11/22/1963 was probably something other than a Carcano. I'm not even saying the knoll noises weren't some kind of reverberations, but not from a Carcano. Look at their raw data. Yes they padded their report with comments to make it sound more ambiguous, but look at the actual reporting the observers did. Yes it would be great if there was a new, similar experiment with more refinement, but as of now the best evidence for the issue of acoustics in Delaey Plaza is the HSCA report. It's written in plain English.

HSienzant · Mar 28, 2017

MicahJava said:
Axxman300, read this: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/html/HSCA_Vol8_0074b.htm

This is actual experimental evidence, not some crap like "Oliver Stone's sound man complained about how bad the echo was".

Add here's their actual conclusions, not some layman's impression of what they should have concluded:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/html/HSCA_Vol8_0077b.htm

And eyewitnesses to the assassination referenced how they couldn't tell where the shots came from.

D.V. HARKNESS:
Mr. BELIN - Where were you when you heard the shots?
Mr. HARKNESS - I had started west on Main Street to the, I don't know what they call this area here.
Mr. BELIN - Plaza.
Mr. HARKNESS - On the plaza area with the crowd to observe the President as he went west on Elm Street.
Mr. BELIN - How many shots did you hear?
Mr. HARKNESS - Three.
Mr. BELIN - What did you do after you heard those noises? Did you know they were shots, by the way?
Mr. HARKNESS - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - What did you do?
Mr. HARKNESS - When I saw the first shot and the President's car slow down to almost a stop----
Mr. BELIN - When you saw the first shot, what do you mean by that?
Mr. HARKNESS - When I heard the first shot and saw the President's car almost come to a stop and some of the agents piling off the car, I went back to the intersection to get my motorcycle.
Mr. BELIN - You were in the process of doing that when you heard the second and third shots?
Mr. HARKNESS - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Where did the shots sound like they came from?
Mr. HARKNESS - I couldn't tell. They were bouncing off the buildings down there. I couldn't tell.
Mr. BELIN - You mean the reverberations?
Mr. HARKNESS - Yes.

LEE BOWERS:
Mr. BALL - Were you in a position where you could see the corner of Elm and Houston from the tower?
Mr. BOWERS - No; I could not see the corner of Elm and Houston. I could see the corner of Main and Houston as they came down and turned on, then I couldn't see it for about half a block, and after they passed the corner of Elm and Houston the car came in sight again.
Mr. BALL - You saw the President's car coming out the Houston Street from Main, did you?
Mr. BOWERS - Yes; I saw that.
Mr. BALL - Then you lost sight of it?
Mr. BOWERS - Right. For a moment.
Mr. BALL - Then you saw it again where?
Mr. BOWERS - It came in sight after it had turned the corner of Elm and Houston.
Mr. BALL - Did you hear anything?
Mr. BOWERS - I heard three shots. One, then a slight pause, then two very close together. Also reverberation from the shots.
Mr. BELIN - And were you able to form an opinion as to the source of the sound or what direction it came from, I mean?
Mr. BOWERS - The sounds came either from up against the School Depository Building or near the mouth of the triple underpass.
Mr. BALL - Were you able to tell which?
Mr. BOWERS - No; I could not.
Mr. BALL - Well, now, had you had any experience before being in the tower as to sounds coming from those various places?
Mr. BOWERS - Yes; I had worked this same tower for some 10 or 12 years, and was there during the time they were renovating the School Depository Building, and had noticed at that time the similarity of sounds occurring in either of those two locations.
Mr. BALL - Can you tell me now whether or not it came, the sounds you heard, the three shots came from the direction of the Depository Building or the triple underpass?
Mr. BOWERS - No; I could not.
Mr. BALL - From your experience there, previous experience there in hearing sounds that originated at the Texas School Book Depository Building, did you notice that sometimes those sounds seem to come from the triple underpass? Is that what you told me a moment ago?
Mr. BOWERS - There is a similarity of sound, because there is a reverberation which takes place from either location.

Hank

HSienzant · Mar 28, 2017

MicahJava said:
I know that a couple or more witnesses suggested the knoll noises were only some kind of reverberation,

Sorry, you are misinformed. It was more than just a 'couple'.

MicahJava said:
... but the HSCA earshot study provides clear evidence that 11/22/1963 was probably something other than a Carcano.

That's not what the experts concluded.

MicahJava said:
I'm not even saying the knoll noises weren't some kind of reverberations, but not from a Carcano.

How would you know? What did the witnesses say? What corroboration is there for the EARwitnesses who you are claiming named the knoll? Please name these witnesses and cite the corroboration in the evidence.

MicahJava said:
Look at their raw data. Yes they padded their report with comments to make it sound more ambiguous, but look at the actual reporting the observers did.

Hilarious. You don't have the background to draw conclusions from data. You're not a recognized expert in the field, you couldn't get within 20 miles of testifying to your conclusions, and what are you citing? Why, your own NON-EXPERT conclusions. Nobody cares about what you concluded. Cite the experts conclusions.

MicahJava said:
Yes it would be great if there was a new, similar experiment with more refinement, but as of now the best evidence for the issue of acoustics in Delaey [sic] Plaza is the HSCA report. It's written in plain English.

Yep. And I already cited the conclusions of the experts. Ignore them all you want, it's your credibility at stake here.

The experts conclusion is that more than four witnesses would have reported shots from multiple directions if, indeed, there had been shots from multiple locations ("...a second shot from a different location should be distinctive and different enough to cause more than four witnesses to report multiple origins for the shots). They also concluded "It is hard to believe a rifle was fired from the knoll."
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/html/HSCA_Vol8_0077b.htm

Reheat · Mar 28, 2017

MicahJava said:
What you are describing is something out of a dictatorship. Of course people should have every right to understand the case against a suspect or convict in a high-profile crime case. The right is self-evidence. I don't need to argue that any further besides repeating the word "freedom".

Since when does a mass murder or someone like Oswald who murdered a President have "freedom". Yes, they deserve a fair trial (of course), but does concealing their name have to do with fascism. Once they're convicted of a heinous crime they have no freedom.

Some news organizations already refuse to publish or say their name and I support that wholeheartedly. It denies them the notoriety they seek.

HSienzant · Mar 28, 2017

MicahJava said:
Oops, Linked the wrong thing. Here is the KennedysAndKing page discussing the wallet issue in Dale Myers' book: https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/myers-dale-with-malice-part-2

If there was no film of the wallet, I wouldn't even bother bringing it up. But we do have a film with a decent enough picture to see it's probably not Tippit's wallet.

That doesn't make it Oswald's, either. Myers concluded it was probably the wallet of a witness.

Hank

BStrong · Mar 28, 2017

MicahJava said:
BStrong, when's the last time you read the Dealey Plaza witness statements? There's just too much of a consensus to say it's confusion. There were witnesses thinking the shot(s) came from the knoll no matter where they were standing.

Oh ok, so I guess witness confusion isn't a good enough explanation for you (and rightly so). Like I said, there were knoll witnesses in every location of Dealey Plaza. If your assertion is true, the findings of the HSCA earshot experiment would have been more ambiguous. Rope off Dealey Plaza and do your own experiment that's even better than what the HSCA did, otherwise you can't argue acoustics. It's as simple as that.

And they were wrong. Physical evidence (Rifle, bullets, LHO etc) beats earwitnesses every day of the week.

Not necessarily.

Audio, and I'm familiar with loud noises of every type, not just firearms:

3 of my four Gibson Les Paul guitars. I was practicing SRV's Riviera Paradise just before I signed on here tonight.

Sound and everything along with it is subjective. Take a group of ten people and expose them to sound w/o a visual clue of what they're listening to and in all likelihood you'll get 10 different answers.

Recording equipment is not a hell of a lot better. Produce a loud noise - the mic picks it up, an engineer can determine what the sound level was in Db's but the Db level isn't going to be a reliable tool to determine what the source of the sound was - take an empty 55 gallon metal drum and chuck it off the roof of a two story building. Sounds pretty close to a 12 gauge shotgun. Be inside a structure when a GluLam supporting the roof fails, it sounds like a big bore rifle shot. When a huge eucalyptus tree falls, it sounds like a Mk 82 500 lb'er detonating, and if you're close, the ground shakes pretty good too. I've witnessed two tree's fail and I've seen more than a few Mk82's detonate.

I know it serves your confirmation bias to buy into everything that might support the grand CT, but like your inexperience with the ballistic evidence and the mechanics of LHO's shooting, hanging your hat on something as subjective as what people thought they heard as opposed to what the hard evidence demonstrates isn't going to get you very far.

turingtest · Mar 28, 2017

BStrong said:
...
[qimg]http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/923/OgrF42.jpg[/qimg]

3 of my four Gibson Les Paul guitars. I was practicing SRV's Riviera Paradise just before I signed on here tonight.
...

Not to ignore the rest of that excellent post, but...omg, omg, omg! And a Fulltone man too. MJ, you need to stop arguing acoustics issues with BStrong right now. (And I'm only about half joking)

BStrong · Mar 28, 2017

MicahJava said:
What you are describing is something out of a dictatorship. Of course people should have every right to understand the case against a suspect or convict in a high-profile crime case. The right is self-evidence. I don't need to argue that any further besides repeating the word "freedom".

Another concept that goes right over your head.

I and my buddy aren't exactly the folks that came up with the idea of denying criminal bad actors the notoriety they are looking for.

That well know right-wing propaganda organ Mother Jones published this:

"Since the 1980s, forensic investigators have found examples of mass killers emulating their most famous predecessors. Now, there is growing evidence that the copycat problem is far more serious than is generally understood. Ever since the 1999 massacre at Colorado's Columbine High School, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has been studying what motivates people to carry out these crimes. Earlier this year, I met with supervisory special agent Andre Simons, who until recently led a team of agents and psychology experts who assist local authorities in heading off violent attacks around the country, using a strategy known as threat assessment. Since 2012, according to Simons, the FBI's unit has taken on more than 400 cases—and has found evidence of the copycat effect rippling through many of them."

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/10/media-inspires-mass-shooters-copycats

Here's an actual campaign ( No Notoriety) to persuade the media to stop disseminating reports focusing on mass shooters:

"Recognize that the prospect of infamy could serve as a motivating factor for other individuals to kill others and could inspire copycat crimes. Keep this responsibility in mind when reporting."

https://nonotoriety.com/

L.A. Times weighs in:

"But Hanlin, who says he will not "glorify" the perpetrator's name by uttering it on national television, has suggested one factor driving the murderous actions of 26-year-old Chris Harper-Mercer: a quest for fame.

Hanlin's suspicion is shared by many who probe the minds of mass shooters. In a society saturated by firearms and preoccupied by celebrity, these experts say that those who perpetrate such armed mayhem often seek to break the bonds of their invisibility and achieve what they feel life has denied them:

Recognition. Glory. Respect.

On Friday, evidence mounted that Harper-Mercer was acutely attuned to the fame that comes to those who commit armed murder on a spectacular scale. Combing through the gunman's online comments for clues to his motives, investigators found Harper-Mercer recently extolled the benefits of armed mayhem.

"I have noticed that so many people like him are all alone and unknown, yet when they spill a little blood, the whole world knows who they are," Harper-Mercer wrote in a post about Vester Flanagan, who in August shot two news reporters on live television in Roanoke, Va.

"A man who was known by no one, is now known by everyone. His face splashed across every screen, his name across the lips of every person on the planet, all in the course of one day. Seems the more people you kill, the more you're in the limelight," Mercer wrote.

University of Alabama criminologist Adam Lankford said that fame -- or infamy -- has emerged as a common thread in mass shootings since Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold predicted on videotapes left behind that their armed rampage at Columbine High School would be one for the history books."

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-mass-shooters-fame-infamy-20151002-story.html

Contrary to your opinion, there is -0- right to notoriety.

A suspect has rights recognized in the BoR. Nowhere will you find any right to have their picture in the paper or on TV.

And again, LHO would be the happiest man on earth if he knew people in the 21st century were discussing him.

Unfortunately the only way anybody would know that name is if he became famous or infamous and he wasn't smart enough or talented enough to be famous.

BStrong · Mar 28, 2017

turingtest said:
Not to ignore the rest of that excellent post, but...omg, omg, omg! And a Fulltone man too. MJ, you need to stop arguing acoustics issues with BStrong right now. (And I'm only about half joking)

Not a Chibson in the bunch, and I've got a Fulltone Robin Trower overdrive coming in to fool around with.

I am suffering from Acute GAS*

*Gear Acquisition Syndrome.

Tolls · Mar 28, 2017

Reheat said:
I'd like to thank you for getting me started on the right track. It's a long story which I'll condense. But, you didn't go far enough.
...
In conclusion, I am obligated to accept the Warren Commission conclusion that LHO acted along in the assassination of JFK.
.

I take my hat off to you.
:thumbsup:

Sorry if I seemed a bit rude initially. It was a bit of a shock, after having read your stuff on 9/11.

I can see where you would feel the plausibility of it all, with your view of LBJ. I've met one or two people who hold him in equally high esteem! I was hoping you'd come round, especially with the recommendations people here can give, as well as their breadth of knowledge (far beyond mine!), and you didn't disappoint.

MicahJava · Mar 28, 2017

In the interest of not having a particular subject last forever with infinite pointless forum comments, I will not answer responses that obviously have no interest in the truth. You can have your ideas, if they are truly your ideas.

I'm pretty disturbed by BStrong and Reheat thinking it would ever be ok to not release the name of a convict or even suspect in a high-profile crime case. I don't care about whatever hypothetical you pull out about copycats, or how the suspect/convict feels about what they did, people should have the freedom to know. I have a respect for people's freedom and the establishment of history. Lone Nutters don't respect history.

HSienzant · Mar 28, 2017

MicahJava said:
In the interest of not having a particular subject last forever with infinite pointless forum comments, I will not answer responses that obviously have no interest in the truth. You can have your ideas, if they are truly your ideas.

Translation: I'm all out of conspiratorial explanations for the evidence and can't come up with reasonable explanations for how the evidence got planted.

MicahJava said:
I'm pretty disturbed by BStrong and Reheat thinking it would ever be ok to not release the name of a convict or even suspect in a high-profile crime case.

Why are you disturbed by this?

MicahJava said:
I don't care about whatever hypothetical you pull out about copycats, or how the suspect/convict feels about what they did, people should have the freedom to know.

Is the "people's right to know' an absolute? Or does the constitution circumscribe some limits to this?

MicahJava said:
I have a respect for people's freedom and the establishment of history.

Neither of which has anything to do the JFK assassination or the people's right to know. What you have is, without realizing it perhaps, is a respect for the establishment of mythology. There is no factual evidence for a conspiracy. None. It's all bunkum.

MicahJava said:
Lone Nutters don't respect history.

Is the tar warm yet? The feathers are ready when you are.

Hank

MicahJava · Mar 28, 2017

HSienzant said:
Translation: I'm all out of conspiratorial explanations for the evidence.

You couldn't reconcile the autopsy witnesses claim that the doctors probed the throat wound with the FBI story that they always thought the throat wound was a tracheotomy.

You couldn't reconcile the cranial opening visible on the back wound photo with Dr. Finck's testimonies that he saw an entry wound within the area of skull that was removed for said cranial opening.

You couldn't reconcile the grassy knoll earwitnesses with the HSCA earshot study which provided no evidence that the acoustics in Dealey Plaza would distort the noise of a shot enough.

I just tend to stop responding when I feel like the replies aren't sufficiently concerned with the truth.

Reheat · Mar 28, 2017

MicahJava said:
I'm pretty disturbed by BStrong and Reheat thinking it would ever be ok to not release the name of a convict or even suspect in a high-profile crime case.

That's too bad. I've felt that way for a long time. You are not likely to persuade me otherwise with rhetoric. Here's an article from a rather liberal Web Site expressing the same opinion.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/10/media-inspires-mass-shooters-copycats

It would be virtually impossible to quote statistics because motive is frequently elusive and difficult to identify.

MicahJava said:
I don't care about whatever hypothetical you pull out about copycats, or how the suspect/convict feels about what they did, people should have the freedom to know.

It's really not hypothetical. Explain why people need to know about miscreants and their delusions of grandeur.

MicahJava said:
I have a respect for people's freedom and the establishment of history. Lone Nutters don't respect history.

This is gibberish. What this has to do with freedom is anyone's guess. You can immortalize impotent perverts all you want. Please leave me out of that equation. The true history of JFK's assassination is recorded just fine. I don't think it needs any more help from conspiracy theorists,

BTW, you recommended Bugliosi's Reclaiming History. Have you actually read it? How do you reconcile that with your devotion to alternative minutiae.

Reheat · Mar 28, 2017

MicahJava said:
You couldn't reconcile the autopsy witnesses claim that the doctors probed the throat wound with the FBI story that they always thought the throat wound was a tracheotomy.

It was a tracheotomy. They just didn't know that it was done thru a wound. They found out later in phone conversations with the Parkland Dr.'s. What's the problem?

MicahJava said:
You couldn't reconcile the cranial opening visible on the back wound photo with Dr. Finck's testimonies that he saw an entry wound within the area of skull that was removed for said cranial opening.

What difference does it make regarding a would to the back of the head? It blew off about a third of his skull. Who cares exactly where the entry wound was?

MicahJava said:
You couldn't reconcile the grassy knoll earwitnesses with the HSCA earshot study which provided no evidence that the acoustics in Dealey Plaza would distort the noise of a shot enough.

How many witnesses said the shots were all from the same location i.e. exact same sound?

MicahJava said:
I just tend to stop responding when I feel like the replies aren't sufficiently concerned with the truth.

That's understandable when there is only your version of the troof.

BStrong · Mar 28, 2017

MicahJava said:
In the interest of not having a particular subject last forever with infinite pointless forum comments, I will not answer responses that obviously have no interest in the truth. You can have your ideas, if they are truly your ideas.

I'm pretty disturbed by BStrong and Reheat thinking it would ever be ok to not release the name of a convict or even suspect in a high-profile crime case. I don't care about whatever hypothetical you pull out about copycats, or how the suspect/convict feels about what they did, people should have the freedom to know. I have a respect for people's freedom and the establishment of history. Lone Nutters don't respect history.

Translated: Now I'll pound on the table and assert my commitment to "freedom."

As far as the underlined, you're projecting again. How close are you to throwing the "sheeple" card?

HSienzant · Mar 28, 2017

MicahJava said:
You couldn't reconcile the autopsy witnesses claim that the doctors probed the throat wound with the FBI story that they always thought the throat wound was a tracheotomy.

False. I pointed out that David Lifton covered the various transmissions of the information in his book BEST EVIDENCE. He spoke of the transmission of two different sets of conclusions - the FBI conclusions vs what he calls the Navy (Bethesda Doctors) conclusions and traced out how those conclusions were disseminated through news reports. He credited Judge Fein with coming up with the argument originally, and showed how the FBI conclusion was based on the autopsy conclusion at the end of the autopsy that night, but how the Navy conclusion was based on the revised conclusion after the Bethesda doctors learned of a throat wound that the trache was made through the next morning. I went into great detail on this, you ignored it all.

MicahJava said:
You couldn't reconcile the cranial opening visible on the back wound photo with Dr. Finck's testimonies that he saw an entry wound within the area of skull that was removed for said cranial opening.

False. You haven't shown there's any true conflict there, as you're relying on recollections from years after the fact to make an appearance of a conflict. But no one here is going to be convinced there's a problem because you found an apparent conflict between the hard evidence and someone's recollection from years later. I went into great detail on this, you ignored it all.

MicahJava said:
You couldn't reconcile the grassy knoll earwitnesses with the HSCA earshot study which provided no evidence that the acoustics in Dealey Plaza would distort the noise of a shot enough.

False. I quoted both witnesses in Dealey Plaza who spoke of the confusion of sounds because of echoes and quoted the experts in that HSCA study that stated there was no reason to believe a rifle was fired from the Knoll. I also pointed out all the hard evidence confirming the witnesses who thought shots came from the Depository, and asked you to point out the evidence confirming the shots came from the knoll. You ignored that. As you ignored my request to name the supposed knoll witnesses you allege comprise 40 to 50 percent of the witnesses. You haven't named any. I went into great detail on this, you ignored it all.

MicahJava said:
I just tend to stop responding when I feel like the replies aren't sufficiently concerned with the truth.

So you say. But when you've supposedly exposed your opponent's weakness, isn't that time to go for the jugular, not drop the issue entirely?

But when I see the replies aren't sufficiently concerned with the truth, I hammer my opponent harder, pointing out how they are avoiding answering tough questions, like what's YOUR hypothesis for the source of the bullet recovered in Parkland?

Or how come YOU make up answers and call Warren Commission testimony 'boring', instead of reading the testimony and obtaining the answers?

Or why are YOU relying on 33-years after the fact recollections to build their case, instead of the contemporaneous evidence?

Or why do YOU cite a study, but ignore the expert conclusions, and substitute YOUR OWN non-expert conclusions for those of the actual experts?

Hank

BStrong · Mar 28, 2017

MicahJava said:
You couldn't reconcile the autopsy witnesses claim that the doctors probed the throat wound with the FBI story that they always thought the throat wound was a tracheotomy.

You couldn't reconcile the cranial opening visible on the back wound photo with Dr. Finck's testimonies that he saw an entry wound within the area of skull that was removed for said cranial opening.

You couldn't reconcile the grassy knoll earwitnesses with the HSCA earshot study which provided no evidence that the acoustics in Dealey Plaza would distort the noise of a shot enough.

I just tend to stop responding when I feel like the replies aren't sufficiently concerned with the truth.

And with that, he took his ball and went home.

HSienzant · Mar 28, 2017

BStrong said:
And with that, he took his ball and went home.

You found the words I was searching for.

Hank

No Other · Mar 28, 2017

HSienzant said:
Don't assume you know the point I was trying to make. Don't assume I thought you were doing anything other than JAQing off.

Fair enough and duly noted. btw, what is "jaqing off"? I know what it phonetically sounds like but does it mean something else? thx

BStrong · Mar 28, 2017

No Other said:
Fair enough and duly noted. btw, what is "jaqing off"? I know what it phonetically sounds like but does it mean something else? thx

Just Asking Questions.

It's a common dodge.

No Other · Mar 28, 2017

BStrong said:
He'd be very happy to know his name is recognized and he's being discussed in the 21st century.

Agreed, seeing that we are close to 1/6 of the century eaten up, it appears that the 22nd century will be blessed with this debate, too.

MicahJava · Mar 29, 2017

HSienzant said:
False. I pointed out that David Lifton covered the various transmissions of the information in his book BEST EVIDENCE. He spoke of the transmission of two different sets of conclusions - the FBI conclusions vs what he calls the Navy (Bethesda Doctors) conclusions and traced out how those conclusions were disseminated through news reports. He credited Judge Fein with coming up with the argument originally, and showed how the FBI conclusion was based on the autopsy conclusion at the end of the autopsy that night, but how the Navy conclusion was based on the revised conclusion after the Bethesda doctors learned of a throat wound that the trache was made through the next morning. I went into great detail on this, you ignored it all.

Not so fast. Doug Horne reckons that since the FBI left the autopsy at 11 PM, and carried the conclusions about the throat wound being a tracheotomy with them, it is only then that Friday night that Dr. Perry informed them that the throat wound was originally a bullet hole, and NOT Saturday morning like we've always been told. Then, after that is when the throat wound would have been probed.

From Dr. Malcolm Perry's Warren Commission testimony:

Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Perry, did you have occasion to discuss your observations with Comdr. James J. Humes of the Bethesda Naval Hospital?

Dr. PERRY - Yes, sir; I did.

Mr. SPECTER - When did that conversation occur?

Dr. PERRY - My knowledge as to the exact accuracy of it is obviously in doubt. I was under the initial impression that I talked to him on Friday, but I understand it was on Saturday. I didn't recall exactly when.

Mr. SPECTER - Do you have an independent recollection at this moment as to whether it was on Friday or Saturday?

Dr. PERRY - No, sir; I have thought about it again and the events surrounding that weekend were very kaleidoscopic, and I talked with Dr. Humes on two occasions, separated by a very short interval of, I think it was, 30 minutes or an hour or so, it could have been a little longer.

Mr. SPECTER - What was the medium of your conversation?

Dr. PERRY - Over the telephone.

Mr. SPECTER - Did he identify himself to you as Dr. Humes of Bethesda?

Dr. PERRY - He did.

Mr. SPECTER - Would you state as specifically as you can recollect the conversation that you first had with him?

Dr. PERRY - He advised me that he could not discuss with me the findings of necropsy, that he had a few questions he would like to clarify. The initial phone call was in relation to my doing a tracheotomy. Since I had made the incision directly through the wound in the neck, it made it difficult for them to ascertain the exact nature of this wound. Of course, that did not occur to me at the time. I did what appeared to me to be medically expedient. And when I informed him that there was a wound there and I suspected an underlying wound of the trachea and even perhaps of the great vessels he advised me that he thought this action was correct and he said he could not relate to me any of the other findings.

Mr. SPECTER - Would you relate to me in lay language what necropsy is?

Dr. PERRY - Autopsy, postmortem examination.

Mr. SPECTER - What was the content of the second conversation which you had with Comdr. Humes, please?

Dr. PERRY - The second conversation was in regard to the placement of the chest tubes for drainage of the chest cavity. And I related to him, as I have to you, the indications that prompted me to advise that this be done at that time.

We already have a whisper from Dr. Perry himself that a phone call might've happened on Friday, the day the President died, but apparently he "understood" it was Saturday. Hmmm. And as Doug Horne points out, Dr. Perry spoke of TWO phone calls to Dr. Humes, not just one like Humes always said.

Let's go to Nurse Audrey Bell's interview to the ARRB on 3/20/1997.

This part appears at 24:40 of this tape recording:

BELL: Can I just say one thing about the tracheostomy again?

- Please.

BELL: Saturday morning when I got over there, Doctor Perry came up to the office. He looked like pure hell. Of course he had been, you know, primary until Dr. Clark came down there with the President. He sat down in a chair and he was- I said, ‘You look awful. Did you get any sleep last night?’ And he said ‘Well, not too much between the calls from Bethesda that came in during the night.’ I said ‘What about?’ He said, ‘Oh. Whether that was an entrance wound or an exit wound in the throat.’ He said, 'They were wanting me to change my mind that it was an entrance wound.’

Wowza. Do we have any corroboration from the guys at the autopsy that this is the case?

How about Dr. Ebersole's testimony to the HSCA on 3/11/1978?

EBERSOLE: I believe by ten or ten thirty approximately a communication had been established with Dallas and it was learned that there had been a wound of exit in the lower neck that had been surgically repaired. I don't know if this was premortem or postmortem but at that point the confusion as far as we were concerned stopped.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=324&search=dallas#relPageId=6&tab=page

Dr. WESTON. But you said they didn't recognize this as being an exit wound until after the conversation with Dallas which was ten or ten thirty.

Dr. EBERSOLE. Or later.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=324#relPageId=51&tab=page

Dr. EBERSOLE. We can put this back on when we get the tape on but somewhere during the course of the evening the input came in from Dallas about the wound exit in the neck. That I think stopped the problem from my aspect of taking the X rays. I cannot tell you what time that was. The time is rather vague that night but it was quite late in the evening.

Dr. PETTY. Do you want him to repeat what he just said?

Mr. FLANAGAN. Yes, if you would, please.

Dr. EBERSOLE. The taking of the X rays again were stopped to the best of my remembrance once we had communication with Dallas and Dr. Humes had determined that there was a wounded exit in the lower neck anterior at the time that the President arrived at the hospital in Dallas. I think once that fact had been established that my part in the proceedings were finished.

Dr. PETTY. May I ask two questions further. One, did you see the wound in the neck and associate it with a bullet wound of exit after it had been pointed out that the tracheostomy had been through that area?

Dr. EBERSOLE. No, sir, I can't say that I did. After the dissection had started I saw the area that Dr. Humes was very interested in. He pointed out to us that this was a track running over the apex of the lung -- I think he used the term bruising the apex of the lung and pointed to the middle line. I remember the area was open and he was pointing this out to us. I cannot recollect if I saw this area again after that information was known to him.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=324#relPageId=55&tab=page

Mr. PURDY. One other question I have has to do with the nature of the information you received from other sources on the night of the autopsy. You mentioned a phone call which helped clear up confusion.

Dr. EBERSOLE. Somewhere in the course of the evening Dr. Humes received information from Dallas re the procedures that had been carried out there, number one. Number two, somewhere in the course of the evening Dallas sent to us the bony fragments you saw which were X rayed as to how this was carried out. The mechanics I don't know. Somewhere in the course of the autopsy Dr. Humes was made aware of the surgical procedures at Dallas vis-a-vis the neck.

Mr. PURDY. And what was that information?

Dr. EBERSOLE. The information was that there had been a wound of exit there, a tracheotomy and a suturing done.

Mr. PURDY. Do you recall how that information was conveyed to Dr. Humes?

Dr. EBERSOLE. I don't. I don't recall.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=324#relPageId=68&tab=page

And we've already tallied up the autopsy witnesses who recalled probing of the throat, including some later half-hearted and vague admissions by the autopsy physicians themselves that by the end of the autopsy they thought the trach incision represented an exit.

False. You haven't shown there's any true conflict there, as you're relying on recollections from years after the fact to make an appearance of a conflict. But no one here is going to be convinced there's a problem because you found an apparent conflict between the hard evidence and someone's recollection from years later. I went into great detail on this, you ignored it all.

Nonstop total fail. Did you short-circuit when you saw how big the cranial opening was on the photograph you can see with your own two eyes?

False. I quoted both witnesses in Dealey Plaza who spoke of the confusion of sounds because of echoes and quoted the experts in that HSCA study that stated there was no reason to believe a rifle was fired from the Knoll. I also pointed out all the hard evidence confirming the witnesses who thought shots came from the Depository, and asked you to point out the evidence confirming the shots came from the knoll. You ignored that. As you ignored my request to name the supposed knoll witnesses you allege comprise 40 to 50 percent of the witnesses. You haven't named any. I went into great detail on this, you ignored it all.

And there were a lot more witnesses who thought shots literally came from that area. It doesn't matter either way, whatever happened the HSCA earshot study showed that it probably wasn't just a naked Carcano. The HSCA earshot study showed that a shot from the Depository sounds like a shot from the Depository and a shot from the Knoll sounds like a shot from the knoll. Now you want me to quote and dissect every single knoll witness with you? No thank you, you'll just resort to BS.

BStrong · Mar 29, 2017

^^^How can we miss you if you won't leave?^^

HSienzant · Mar 29, 2017

MicahJava said:
Not so fast. Doug Horne reckons that since the FBI left the autopsy at 11 PM, and carried the conclusions about the throat wound being a tracheotomy with them, it is only then that Friday night that Dr. Perry informed them that the throat wound was originally a bullet hole, and NOT Saturday morning like we've always been told. Then, after that is when the throat wound would have been probed.

Who cares what Doug "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" Horne *reckons*?

It's clear there are two lines of communication after the autopsy... the FBI version (no transit) and the Navy (Bethesda) version (transit). It's clear that the communication between Bethesda and Parkland happened after the FBI left, and the conclusion was revised. I said all that. None of what you quote changes that one iota. You're now reduced to quibbling over whether it was 8am on Saturday morning Washington time, or 3am on Saturday morning Dallas time.

It's a meaningless quibble. What difference does it make? Can you show how the difference of a few hours somehow means conspiracy? Or are you just quibbling for the sake of quibbling?

MicahJava said:
From Dr. Malcolm Perry's Warren Commission testimony:

Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Perry, did you have occasion to discuss your observations with Comdr. James J. Humes of the Bethesda Naval Hospital?

Dr. PERRY - Yes, sir; I did.

Mr. SPECTER - When did that conversation occur?

Dr. PERRY - My knowledge as to the exact accuracy of it is obviously in doubt. I was under the initial impression that I talked to him on Friday, but I understand it was on Saturday. I didn't recall exactly when.

Perry isn't sure. You quote him merely to throw mud against the wall, hoping something sticks. But what's your point, exactly? That the call happened a few hours earlier than Humes testified? So what?

MicahJava said:
We already have a whisper from Dr. Perry himself that a phone call might've happened on Friday, the day the President died, but apparently he "understood" it was Saturday. Hmmm. And as Doug Horne points out, Dr. Perry spoke of TWO phone calls to Dr. Humes, not just one like Humes always said.

Perry also said "I didn't recall exactly when" the phone call(s) occurred. He admitted to not being sure. Pesky thing, that human memory. Failures of memory do not a conspiracy make. When do you intend to establish a conspiracy?

MicahJava said:
Let's go to Nurse Audrey Bell's interview to the ARRB on 3/20/1997.

You mean her recollection of events that occurred 33 and a third years earlier? No, it's worthless. We've established that.

MicahJava said:
Wowza. Do we have any corroboration from the guys at the autopsy that this is the case?

How about Dr. Ebersole's testimony to the HSCA on 3/11/1978?

No, that's pretty much meaningless too, as it's simply his best guess after nearly 15 years had expired since the event. Do you really want us to believe that all these witnesses had crystal-clear recollections, unaffected by time, unaffected by what they read or saw or learned since then? That's what your argument requires.

Good luck with that.

MicahJava said:
Dr. WESTON. But you said they didn't recognize this as being an exit wound until after the conversation with Dallas which was ten or ten thirty.

Dr. EBERSOLE. Or later.

Or later. Hmmm.

MicahJava said:
Dr. EBERSOLE. The information was that there had been a wound of exit there, a tracheotomy and a suturing done.

There was no suturing done in Dallas. Clearly, Ebersole's recollection is flawed. How far that extends is clearly debatable. But you'd like us to believe his recollections about the time are crystal clear and not up for debate. Clearly they are debatable.

MicahJava said:
Nonstop total fail. Did you short-circuit when you saw how big the cranial opening was on the photograph you can see with your own two eyes?

I honestly have no idea what you're alluding to about a short-circuit. What point are you trying to make? The Boswell drawing you compare to the autopsy photo is clearly meaningless. It was made nearly 34 years after the assassination. His recollections from that late date don't mean doodily-squat. But that's what you got, anomalies in recollections from more than a third of a century after the event. Who honestly thinks this kind of selection from the record is meaningful?

MicahJava said:
And there were a lot more witnesses who thought shots literally came from that area.

Whom you curiously will neither name nor quote. We're supposed to accept your assertions on faith, I guess.

MicahJava said:
It doesn't matter either way

Curiously, you previously alleged the witnesses weren't reliable when it suited your purposes, now you allege they are. I think you need to plant both feet on one side of that fence.

MicahJava said:
...whatever happened the HSCA earshot study showed that it probably wasn't just a naked Carcano. The HSCA earshot study showed that a shot from the Depository sounds like a shot from the Depository and a shot from the Knoll sounds like a shot from the knoll.

I'm sorry, did I ask you for your opinion? No. As I explained, your opinion of the study is meaningless. What was the experts conclusions -- you know, the people who actually conducted the study? You avoid that like the plague, telling us only what you think. Nobody cares what you think.

MicahJava said:
Now you want me to quote and dissect every single knoll witness with you? No thank you, you'll just resort to BS.

Translation: You couldn't make a case for 40% - 50% of the witnesses being knoll witnesses to save your life. We understand. It's a heavy burden to be asked to prove your faith and not to have sufficient evidence to do so. You made the claim. It's still unproven. We're awaiting your proof.

Got any?

Apparently you want us to just accept your assertions without challenge. No, it doesn't work that way. You make claims, you need to prove them.

Your disinclination to post this material or even discuss further doesn't speak well for your assertions, and in fact, pretty much establishes the claim about the number of witnesses is false (as does your waffling on the exact percentage).

Hank

MicahJava · Mar 29, 2017

Excuses, excuses.

Hans · Mar 29, 2017

MicahJava said:
Excuses, excuses.

No evidence, no evidence

See we can do that too!

lol

BStrong · Mar 29, 2017

MicahJava said:
Excuses, excuses.

You're full of 'em, but it's no virtue.

BStrong · Mar 29, 2017

Hans said:
No evidence, no evidence

See we can do that too!

lol

I once had an individual explain to my why the .50 BMG round was supernaturally (he used the term) deadly.

For my edification, he explained that the round traveled at such a high velocity and contained such energy that if the round passed a person within two feet without impacting them, the "shock wave" would break an arm or a leg as it missed, but if the round passed close by the head without hitting, the shock wave would shatter the skull.

No ****.

Until I encountered MJ here at ISF I thought I had maxxed out my lifetime ballistic ignorance quota, but this thread has provided much material. The "ventriloquist" suppressor has been a real comedy gem.

Hans · Mar 29, 2017

BStrong said:
I once had an individual explain to my why the .50 BMG round was supernaturally (he used the term) deadly.

For my edification, he explained that the round traveled at such a high velocity and contained such energy that if the round passed a person within two feet without impacting them, the "shock wave" would break an arm or a leg as it missed, but if the round passed close by the head without hitting, the shock wave would shatter the skull.

No ****.

Until I encountered MJ here at ISF I thought I had maxxed out my lifetime ballistic ignorance quota, but this thread has provided much material. The "ventriloquist" suppressor has been a real comedy gem.

I use to fire a M113 mounted M2 and one time while engaging a flying target at the NTC I fired directly over my driver whose hatch was open, other than frightening him he survived! I do remember that the barrel was about 8 or so inches beyond his hatch but still damn close.

HSienzant · Mar 29, 2017

MicahJava said:
Excuses, excuses.

No games, no excuses.

Just awaiting your evidence.

Not your opinion. Or the reckoning of a conspiracy theorist. Or the anomalous recollections from a third of a century after the assassination. Or assertions you make but cannot prove. Or what you read on some conspiracy site.

Evidence.

Got any?

Apparently not.

Hank

Axxman300 · Mar 29, 2017

MicahJava said:
And there were a lot more witnesses who thought shots literally came from that area. It doesn't matter either way, whatever happened the HSCA earshot study showed that it probably wasn't just a naked Carcano. The HSCA earshot study showed that a shot from the Depository sounds like a shot from the Depository and a shot from the Knoll sounds like a shot from the knoll. Now you want me to quote and dissect every single knoll witness with you? No thank you, you'll just resort to BS.

The HSCA's research was a waste of time.

To get an accurate accounting they would have had to recreate the scenario with the exact number of people present in Dealey Plaza, but not tell the stand-ins what's about to happen, otherwise all you get is cold observation without the distortion of shock and surprise which colors everything people think they see and hear.

They'd also have to perform that experiment 100 times to get a reliable data set.

If you're standing past the freeway sign on Elm the shot from the 6th floor sounds like it came from the overpass. If you're standing near the Grassy Knoll on the TSBD side the shot will come from behind you, but if you're across the street you'll hear the report echo from three different directions.

The obvious problem with a shot from the Grassy Knoll is that it didn't hit anything, and vanished into thin air.

Honestly, at this point you will have better luck blaming this on time travelers. :thumbsup:

JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

Illuminator

Illuminator

Philosopher

Illuminator

Philosopher

Illuminator

Philosopher

Philosopher

Illuminator

Philosopher

Philosopher

Illuminator

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Mistral, mistral wind...

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Illuminator

Philosopher

Illuminator

Illuminator

Illuminator

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Muse

Penultimate Amazing

Muse

Illuminator

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Illuminator

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Philosopher

Philosopher