ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags !MOD BOX WARNING!

Reply
Old Today, 11:04 AM   #1761
manifesto
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 598
Originally Posted by traxy View Post
This should be fun.
Agree.

Quote:
Stop right there. This is the first place you're wrong.

The dictabelt finding was first refuted by the FBI Technical Services division in 1980, which disputed the finding that the dictabelt contained evidence of a shot at all.
1. Was it? Show me.

2. I thought that we discussed your claim that Dale Myers refuted the acoustical evidence. Was I wrong thinking that?

Quote:
The National Academy of Sciences also refuted the finding in 1982. In addition to the spoken phrase that happened a minute after the shooting, they found that the impulses thought to be gunshots were no different from static on the recording.
1. Did they? Show me.

2. I’ll take it you have stopped arguing Dale Myers findings, now wanting to show NRC’s ditto? Yeas? No?

Quote:
The Justice Department also weighed in in 1988 and found the finding of gunshots on the recording had no merit.
Do you agree with this finding?

Quote:
Several members of the National Academy of Sciences team re-analyzed the recording in 2001 for Science and Justice and reaffirmed that the impulses on the recording were not gunshots and were recorded a minute after the assassination. You can read their findings here:

http://jfk-records.com/ScienceAndJus...%282005%29.pdf
Do you agree with them claiming the HSCA acoustical evidence being mistaken? Why?

Quote:
Michael O'Dell did his own independent study in 2003 and once again refuted the finding of shots on the dictabelt. Feel free to read his findings here:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/odell/
Do you agree with O’Dells ”refuting”? Why?

Quote:
Myers just happens to be the one study we are discussing.
No. Myers study IS the subject of diskussion. Therefore I referenced to Myers in my listing of the schematic progress of the discussion of, yes, Myers study.

Quote:
Myers' study backs up the other half a dozen refutations with photographic evidence.
And I am still waiting for you to show how his study show this.

Quote:
  • I summarized Myers' findings for you. You asked for more proof.
  • I posted a video clip of Myers narrating and summarizing his method, complete with visual aids. You asked for more proof.
  • I posted a link to Myers' exhaustive study and invited you to read it...at which point you asked me to summarize it...

So which do you want? Facts and figures, or a summary? I've offered both, you don't seem to want either.
I asked for the information, the data, the numbers going in to Myers computer analysis he claims showing that McLain couldn’t be at the right spots at the right time for being the cop with the stuck mike.

Without the data, it’s ’just so’.

Quote:
What do you think I've been doing for the last 2 pages, a piece at a time?

When I try to hand-hold you through it, you ask me to summarize. I offer a summary, you ask how I came to that conclusion. I offer you the data, you want me to hand-hold you through it again.
I asked you to list your scheme of events and actors in order to be able to keep track on your line of thought.

An honest request for clarity preemting unnecessary misunderstandings.

Quote:
I thought you liked playing "process of elimination".
No, I like process of elimination as a necessary tool in science. Your claim that the Dorman cop had to be McLain was based on circular reasoning, not process of elimination. Circular reasoning is not science.

Quote:
Isn't that how you determined your shapeless blob HAD TO BE HB McLain?
No. I determined that IF the shapeless white blob is a MC helmet, process of elimination says it has to be McLain.

Quote:
Process of elimination. What other Dallas PD motorcycle officers were riding in the left-hand hand lane between Camera Car 3 and Congress 1
That is the question under concideration, yes, its answer not to be asumed a priori.

Quote:
with a white notepad clipped to their windshield?
McLain was not the only cop with a white notepad/ticketbook clipped to the left side of the windshield. The only other candidate for being the Dorman cop is officer Courson and there is no evidence of him, for or against, having a white ticketbook at the left or right side of the windshield.

Quote:
If no other officers with a white notepad were near that location at that timeframe, the Dorman figure is McLain.
Correct, but as I said, there is no known photographic (or other) evidence of Courson having/not having said ticketbook clipped anywhere on his MC.

Show me how Myers came to the conclusion that McLain at the end of the Hughes sequence only had 1/2 seconds to reach the spot for the picking up of the first shot.

Last edited by manifesto; Today at 11:13 AM.
manifesto is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:14 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.