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 assassinations , JFK assassination , John F. Kennedy , Kennedy conspiracies

Reply
Old 10th October 2018, 05:05 AM   #1801
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,585
THIRD REQUEST!

Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Micah Java, still awaiting your reasoned response and your defense of John Armstrong, the conspiracy loon you cited. Please note that ignoring the below is not a reasoned response. A dismissal of the points made is not a reasoned response. Changing the subject is not a reasoned response.
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Hilarious. You've been told before that a conspiracy article isn't a valid citation. Armstrong (who believes there were TWO Lee Harvey Oswalds and TWO Marguerite Oswalds [Oswald's mother]) nonsense was reviewed above.

Quoting from the article YOU just cited:
Minutes before 12:30 PM, on the morning of November 22, 1963 many people observed two men on the 6th floor as the Presidential motorcade approached Dealey Plaza. [emphasis added]
Armstrong then goes on to name some witnesses and falsely summarize their testimony. I would like to point out the absolute false way Armstrong summarized Tom Dillard's testimony to the Warren Commission (this is prevalent throughout the conspiracy literature you read, believe, and cite here).
Tom Dillard, the chief news photographer of the Dallas Morning News, saw two men in the arched windows on the 6th floor of the Book Depository as the car he was riding in turned the corner from Main onto Houston. [emphasis added]
That's simply made up by Armstrong. Tom Dillard said no such thing. His testimony is here: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/dillard.htm
Mr. BALL - Did you hear something unusual as you were driving north on Houston?
Mr. DILLARD - Yes; I heard an explosion which I made the comment that I believe, in my memory, I believe I said, "My God, They've thrown a torpedo" and why I said "torpedo", I don't know. If you wish, I'll go ahead -
Mr. BALL - Go ahead with your story.
Mr. DILLARD - Well, then I later estimated, immediately later, estimated, oh, 4, about 3 or 4 seconds, another explosion and my comment was, "No, It's heavy rifle fire," and I remember very distinctly I said, "It's very heavy rifle fire."
Mr. BALL - How many explosions did you hear?
Mr. DILLARD - I heard three - the three approximately equally spaced.
Mr. BALL - What is your best estimate of the position of your car with reference to the turn at Main and Houston when you heard the first explosion?
Mr. DILLARD - Perhaps, oh, just a few feet around the corner and it seems we had slowed a great deal. It seems that our car had slowed down so that we were moving rather slowly and perhaps just passed the turn when I heard the first explosion.
Mr. BALL - Did you hear anyone in your car say anything?
Mr. DILLARD - Well, after the third shot I know my comment was, "They killed him." I don't know why I said that but Jackson - there was some running comment about what can we do or where is it coming from and we were all looking. We had an absolutely perfect view of the School Depository from our position in an open car, and Bob Jackson said, "There's a rifle barrel up there." I said, "Where?" I had my camera ready. He said, "It's in that open window." Of course, there were several open windows and I scanned the building.
Mr. BALL - Which building?
Mr. DILLARD - The School Book Depository. And at the same time I brought my camera up and I was looking for the window. Now this was after the third shot and Jackson said, "there's the rifle barrel up there." And then he said it was the second from the top in the right hand side, and I swung it and there was two figures below, and I just shot with one camera, 100-mm. Lens on a 35-mm. Camera which is approximately a two times daily photo twice normal lens and a wide angle on a 35-mm. Which took in a considerable portion of the building and I shot those pictures in rapid sequence with the two cameras.
Mr. BALL - You shot how many pictures?
Mr. DILLARD - Two pictures.
. . .
Mr. BALL - Did you see a rifle barrel?
Mr. DILLARD - No.
Mr. BALL - But you did see some figures or forms in the window?
Mr. DILLARD - Only in the windows which was the windows below.
[emphasis added]
Here's one of the photos Dillard took. It shows the two men in the fifth floor window. The sniper's nest window is vacant, because Dillard didn't snap his photo in time.

http://darkroom.baltimoresun.com/wp-...MC-683x540.jpg

Armstrong takes the mention of the two black men in the fifth floor windows below the sixth floor Sniper's nest window and presents Dillard's testimony as if Dillard said he saw two men in the Sniper's Nest window. That is false. That's not true. That's not easy to misunderstand, as Dillard's photographs were published within hours of the assassination, and show the two men Dillard later referenced in his testimony.

That's why you get no traction here. You quote lies by conspiracy authors and expect us to accept them simply because you do.

Thank you for providing me the opportunity to once again point out that your sources are lying to you, and lying to all their readers.

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto

Last edited by HSienzant; 10th October 2018 at 05:08 AM.
HSienzant is offline   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
Old 10th October 2018, 10:41 AM   #1802
bknight
Muse
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 923
Back to hiding mode?
bknight is offline   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
Old 10th October 2018, 11:04 AM   #1803
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,585
In the words of George Costanza -- "like a frightened turtle!"

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto
HSienzant is offline   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
Old 10th October 2018, 12:16 PM   #1804
CORed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 8,267
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
In the words of George Costanza -- "like a frightened turtle!"

Hank
What's the over/under on how many days before MicahJava poste exactly the same crap one more time.
CORed is offline   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
Old 10th October 2018, 12:58 PM   #1805
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Springwood, NJ
Posts: 29,272
While answering not one question. Reminds me of the boy that Tom Sawyer beat up who threw a rock while running away.
RoboTimbo is offline   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
Old 10th October 2018, 01:57 PM   #1806
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,585
Originally Posted by CORed View Post
What's the over/under on how many days before MicahJava poste exactly the same crap one more time.
I would guess about four to six weeks but that was his approximately cycle when posting more regularly. Call it five weeks. I did not keep track by number of intervening posts. Since he's posting a lot less frequently these days, it could be longer. But taking into account Heisenberg, now that he knows we're observing him, he may do something totally unexpected.

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto

Last edited by HSienzant; 10th October 2018 at 02:04 PM.
HSienzant is offline   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
Old 10th October 2018, 04:49 PM   #1807
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,854
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
In the words of George Costanza -- "like a frightened turtle!"

Hank
What are you complaining about? That articles by Armstrong are best read while verifying the sources provided? That applies to everything.
MicahJava is offline   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
Old 10th October 2018, 04:51 PM   #1808
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,585
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
In your sig line: I remember manifesto "claiming" to provide evidence, but I don't remember the second part.
Did he really post that to you?
No, he posted it to another poster [smartcooky] who defended my quoting his own demands for evidence back to him. The point I was making was that he demanded evidence but never provided any. And I used his own words to establish he wouldn't provide any. He uttered what's my signature line here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...n#post12323043

Here's an example of my utilizing his own demands for evidence to ask him to provide his evidence: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...7#post12322377

As smartcooky noted, it was rather duplicitous of manifesto to constantly demand evidence but seldom provide any to back up his own assertions.

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto

Last edited by HSienzant; 10th October 2018 at 04:54 PM.
HSienzant is offline   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
Old 10th October 2018, 05:00 PM   #1809
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,585
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
What are you complaining about? That articles by Armstrong are best read while verifying the sources provided? That applies to everything.
No, that's not what I'm complaining about. The article by Armstrong is rife with inaccuracies and outright falsehoods. I cited one example. You ignored it and raised a strawman issue instead.

Did you verify the sources provided? Obviously not. Otherwise you wouldn't have cited that John Armstrong nonsense.

Can you defend the accuracy of the article you cited? Also, clearly obviously not. Otherwise you would have done so, rather than deflecting the point from the inaccuracies in the article you cited to the silly straw man that claims should be verified.

Again, why should we accept conspiracy sources you cite, when they can be shown to be rife with falsehoods? And why do you cite these conspiracy sources, unless you didn't check them out and you believe they are accurate?

I was quite clear about what I asking of you. See my next post.

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto

Last edited by HSienzant; 10th October 2018 at 05:17 PM.
HSienzant is offline   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
Old 10th October 2018, 05:16 PM   #1810
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Springwood, NJ
Posts: 29,272
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
What are you complaining about? That articles by Armstrong are best read while verifying the sources provided? That applies to everything.
Time for you to throw a rock and run away.
RoboTimbo is offline   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
Old 10th October 2018, 05:17 PM   #1811
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,585
FOURTH REQUEST!

Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Micah Java, still awaiting your reasoned response and your defense of John Armstrong, the conspiracy loon you cited. Please note that ignoring the below is not a reasoned response. A dismissal of the points made is not a reasoned response. Changing the subject is not a reasoned response.
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Hilarious. You've been told before that a conspiracy article isn't a valid citation. Armstrong (who believes there were TWO Lee Harvey Oswalds and TWO Marguerite Oswalds [Oswald's mother]) nonsense was reviewed above.

Quoting from the article YOU just cited:
Minutes before 12:30 PM, on the morning of November 22, 1963 many people observed two men on the 6th floor as the Presidential motorcade approached Dealey Plaza. [emphasis added]
Armstrong then goes on to name some witnesses and falsely summarize their testimony. I would like to point out the absolute false way Armstrong summarized Tom Dillard's testimony to the Warren Commission (this is prevalent throughout the conspiracy literature you read, believe, and cite here).
Tom Dillard, the chief news photographer of the Dallas Morning News, saw two men in the arched windows on the 6th floor of the Book Depository as the car he was riding in turned the corner from Main onto Houston. [emphasis added]
That's simply made up by Armstrong. Tom Dillard said no such thing. His testimony is here: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/dillard.htm
Mr. BALL - Did you hear something unusual as you were driving north on Houston?
Mr. DILLARD - Yes; I heard an explosion which I made the comment that I believe, in my memory, I believe I said, "My God, They've thrown a torpedo" and why I said "torpedo", I don't know. If you wish, I'll go ahead -
Mr. BALL - Go ahead with your story.
Mr. DILLARD - Well, then I later estimated, immediately later, estimated, oh, 4, about 3 or 4 seconds, another explosion and my comment was, "No, It's heavy rifle fire," and I remember very distinctly I said, "It's very heavy rifle fire."
Mr. BALL - How many explosions did you hear?
Mr. DILLARD - I heard three - the three approximately equally spaced.
Mr. BALL - What is your best estimate of the position of your car with reference to the turn at Main and Houston when you heard the first explosion?
Mr. DILLARD - Perhaps, oh, just a few feet around the corner and it seems we had slowed a great deal. It seems that our car had slowed down so that we were moving rather slowly and perhaps just passed the turn when I heard the first explosion.
Mr. BALL - Did you hear anyone in your car say anything?
Mr. DILLARD - Well, after the third shot I know my comment was, "They killed him." I don't know why I said that but Jackson - there was some running comment about what can we do or where is it coming from and we were all looking. We had an absolutely perfect view of the School Depository from our position in an open car, and Bob Jackson said, "There's a rifle barrel up there." I said, "Where?" I had my camera ready. He said, "It's in that open window." Of course, there were several open windows and I scanned the building.
Mr. BALL - Which building?
Mr. DILLARD - The School Book Depository. And at the same time I brought my camera up and I was looking for the window. Now this was after the third shot and Jackson said, "there's the rifle barrel up there." And then he said it was the second from the top in the right hand side, and I swung it and there was two figures below, and I just shot with one camera, 100-mm. Lens on a 35-mm. Camera which is approximately a two times daily photo twice normal lens and a wide angle on a 35-mm. Which took in a considerable portion of the building and I shot those pictures in rapid sequence with the two cameras.
Mr. BALL - You shot how many pictures?
Mr. DILLARD - Two pictures.
. . .
Mr. BALL - Did you see a rifle barrel?
Mr. DILLARD - No.
Mr. BALL - But you did see some figures or forms in the window?
Mr. DILLARD - Only in the windows which was the windows below.
[emphasis added]
Here's one of the photos Dillard took. It shows the two men in the fifth floor window. The sniper's nest window is vacant, because Dillard didn't snap his photo in time.

http://darkroom.baltimoresun.com/wp-...MC-683x540.jpg

Armstrong takes the mention of the two black men in the fifth floor windows below the sixth floor Sniper's nest window and presents Dillard's testimony as if Dillard said he saw two men in the Sniper's Nest window. That is false. That's not true. That's not easy to misunderstand, as Dillard's photographs were published within hours of the assassination, and show the two men Dillard later referenced in his testimony.

That's why you get no traction here. You quote lies by conspiracy authors and expect us to accept them simply because you do.

Thank you for providing me the opportunity to once again point out that your sources are lying to you, and lying to all their readers.

Hank
And introducing a strawman argument is not a reasoned response.
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto

Last edited by HSienzant; 10th October 2018 at 05:20 PM.
HSienzant is offline   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
Old 10th October 2018, 06:08 PM   #1812
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 9,236
This is so wildly entertaining that it really is worth my time to come here just to see what micahjava is going to do next.

Currently he makes spurious claims, and when challenged on them, post links to documents and webpages that directly and specifically refute his claims!

Classy!
__________________
As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
- Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920
smartcooky is offline   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
Old 10th October 2018, 06:20 PM   #1813
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 9,236
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Here's one of the photos Dillard took. It shows the two men in the fifth floor window. The sniper's nest window is vacant, because Dillard didn't snap his photo in time.

http://darkroom.baltimoresun.com/wp-...MC-683x540.jpg
Hank

James Jarman(?) on the left, and Harold Norman on the right.
__________________
As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
- Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920
smartcooky is offline   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
Old 10th October 2018, 07:23 PM   #1814
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,231
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
What are you complaining about? That articles by Armstrong are best read while verifying the sources provided? That applies to everything.
No.

Everything Armstrong writes is based on cherry-picking by other hacks, and regurgitated.

The story about the power and phones being cut inside the TSBD is a lie.

Furthermore, if it was true it undermines YOUR CLAIM because it puts the shooter on the 6th floor of the TSBD.

You are really bad at this.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   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
Old 12th October 2018, 10:47 AM   #1815
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,231
Today, October 12, 1963, Oswald tells his landlady that he's going away for the weekend. She tells him she doesn't want him to come back, and to find a room elsewhere. She considered him odd.

Oswald spends the weekend with Marina at Ruth Paine's place.

In Washington D.C. the details of JFK's Texas trip are still being worked out.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   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
Old 12th October 2018, 12:29 PM   #1816
Pacal
Muse
 
Pacal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 961
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
James Jarman(?) on the left, and Harold Norman on the right.
According to The book Case Closed, Gerald Posner, 1993, in section of Photos. (Page title is Dealey Plaza: The Witnesses) The two men were Bonnie Ray Williams on the left and Harold Norman on the right.
Pacal is offline   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
Old 12th October 2018, 02:08 PM   #1817
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 18,093
Wait, is MJ resorting to seagulling fringe resets or what?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   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
Old 12th October 2018, 04:39 PM   #1818
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,634
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
No. You are really bad at this.
Was that previously in question? I mean if you believe in the JFK assassination CT's that is pretty much a black mark against your intellectual prowess.
Hans is offline   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
Old 12th October 2018, 05:43 PM   #1819
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,231
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Wait, is MJ resorting to seagulling fringe resets or what?
He'll duck out for another 6 weeks while he searches through more JFK-CT websites, and then do a drive-by posting like he just did. We shoot whatever new foolishness he posts, and he'll vanish without defending his latest post only to resurface with the next fringe re-set.

Most of thew redacted assassination files were released a year ago and he has yet to demonstrate that he has any interest in reading through what has been a goldmine of Cold War history, and that means he is not interested in the truth.

I even mentioned a 1968 FBI memo discussing a possible second bullet removed from JFK's head. (It was a fake, BTW), but MJ can't be bothered to do serious research.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   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
Old 12th October 2018, 06:44 PM   #1820
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,231
Originally Posted by Hans View Post
Was that previously in question? I mean if you believe in the JFK assassination CT's that is pretty much a black mark against your intellectual prowess.
Yes and no.

Hank and I are recovering JFK-CTists, but we're both over 45, and the CT's evolved between 1964 and 1974 as Vietnam and Watergate at a time before anybody saw the Zapruder Film, and all we had were small pictures from various publications to make independent judgement. What made us both give up on the CT's was that not one of them was successfully proved, and that the majority of the theories conflict with one another. Hank read the Warren Commission report while my big wake-up call came when I went to Dallas.

It was an easy shot... I mean EASY.

Then I learned about the rifle and it's over-powered bullet. I, like most CTists, believed that the Carcano was a hunk of junk incapable of getting three shots off in the allotted time. The FACT is that the Carcano was a capable battle rifle on par with the Springfield and Enfield, and Mauser, and is accurate out to 1,000 yards.

Before one can rule in a conspiracy one has to be able to rule out Lee Harvey Oswald, and nobody has been able to do this in 56 years.

That doesn't mean there wasn't a conspiracy, it just means the conspiracy would have to leave Oswald in place as the lone shooter.

The problem here is that there has never been any solid, or credible evidence that links Oswald to anyone. At least not some alphabet organization like the CIA, KGB, or FBI (In his New Orleans Fair Play for Cuba Committee -FPCC - he was the only member).

So, unlike MJ, the smart CTist would build on the mysterious Mexico City visit where the largest gaps involving possible contacts with Cuban embassy personnel represent the most realistic starting point, and a few guys like Gus Russo have done exactly this. The problem is, as with all things CT with this subject, is that at some point to solid evidence runs out leaving us only with speculation.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   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
Old 12th October 2018, 09:29 PM   #1821
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,634
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Yes and no.

Hank and I are recovering JFK-CTists, but we're both over 45, and the CT's evolved between 1964 and 1974 as Vietnam and Watergate at a time before anybody saw the Zapruder Film, and all we had were small pictures from various publications to make independent judgement. What made us both give up on the CT's was that not one of them was successfully proved, and that the majority of the theories conflict with one another. Hank read the Warren Commission report while my big wake-up call came when I went to Dallas.

It was an easy shot... I mean EASY.

Then I learned about the rifle and it's over-powered bullet. I, like most CTists, believed that the Carcano was a hunk of junk incapable of getting three shots off in the allotted time. The FACT is that the Carcano was a capable battle rifle on par with the Springfield and Enfield, and Mauser, and is accurate out to 1,000 yards.

Before one can rule in a conspiracy one has to be able to rule out Lee Harvey Oswald, and nobody has been able to do this in 56 years.

That doesn't mean there wasn't a conspiracy, it just means the conspiracy would have to leave Oswald in place as the lone shooter.

The problem here is that there has never been any solid, or credible evidence that links Oswald to anyone. At least not some alphabet organization like the CIA, KGB, or FBI (In his New Orleans Fair Play for Cuba Committee -FPCC - he was the only member).

So, unlike MJ, the smart CTist would build on the mysterious Mexico City visit where the largest gaps involving possible contacts with Cuban embassy personnel represent the most realistic starting point, and a few guys like Gus Russo have done exactly this. The problem is, as with all things CT with this subject, is that at some point to solid evidence runs out leaving us only with speculation.
Yes we talked about this before. I gave up my interest in the CT after reading Case Closed but still hold as many do that their might have been some Cuban inspiration - intended or not. I also have the same rifle too yep if you start with a round loaded its pretty easy. The question always was where did the missing bullet go?
Hans is offline   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
Old 12th October 2018, 10:40 PM   #1822
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,231
The theory is that it struck the curb, the segment that is in the National Archives today, but that was never conclusively proven. We know James Tague was struck by a fragment, and he was standing by the triple overpass. The question there is weather he was his by #1 or #3. We know the third round shattered when it struck JFK's head, and it fractured the front windshield (now in the National Archives), so we know bullet fragments were flying forward, and that shot would have been closer to Tague than the first shot, at least in theory since we don't know where that first bullet hit.

Then there is this fascinating PBS/Nova experiment which reveals how the Carcano round reacts to striking the pavement:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiUv2WQKBjo

For me the only two bullet that matter are the two that struck home.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   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
Old 13th October 2018, 12:36 AM   #1823
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,595
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
The theory is that it struck the curb, the segment that is in the National Archives today, but that was never conclusively proven. We know James Tague was struck by a fragment, and he was standing by the triple overpass. The question there is weather he was his by #1 or #3. We know the third round shattered when it struck JFK's head, and it fractured the front windshield (now in the National Archives), so we know bullet fragments were flying forward, and that shot would have been closer to Tague than the first shot, at least in theory since we don't know where that first bullet hit.

Then there is this fascinating PBS/Nova experiment which reveals how the Carcano round reacts to striking the pavement:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiUv2WQKBjo

For me the only two bullet that matter are the two that struck home.
It's one of those areas where a few other theories crop up, that it hit the traffic gantry, or kerb, and I think at one point there was deflected off the branches of a tree, etc.

What these theories have always suggested to me is that even if some of them are a bit out there, and unlikely to ever be proven, they offer a whole slew of perfectly plausible solutions of the "mystery" that should be considered before we leap directly to "cover up" or "conspiracy".

In other words, that we don't know what happened to it, isn't suspicious of itself.
__________________
@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).
Tomtomkent 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
Old 13th October 2018, 01:39 AM   #1824
Cosmic Yak
Master Poster
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 2,261
Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
It's one of those areas where a few other theories crop up, that it hit the traffic gantry, or kerb, and I think at one point there was deflected off the branches of a tree, etc.

What these theories have always suggested to me is that even if some of them are a bit out there, and unlikely to ever be proven, they offer a whole slew of perfectly plausible solutions of the "mystery" that should be considered before we leap directly to "cover up" or "conspiracy".

In other words, that we don't know what happened to it, isn't suspicious of itself.
Ah, but it is if you're a conspiracy theorist.
The psychology of the CT mindset has been discussed elsewhere, so I won't risk too much of a derail, but the gist is that conspiracy theorists have a need to impose order and meaning on a world that simply isn't that orderly and comprehensible. If they don't know something, that is scary, so an explanation is created to fill that gap, usually involving a secret agency, Thus, order is restored, and the CT believer can rest easy.
In this instance, the absence of knowledge about the third bullet would prompt an idea that They removed it, or it never existed because Oswald didn't fire it, etc.
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   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
Old 13th October 2018, 02:18 AM   #1825
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 9,236
Originally Posted by Pacal View Post
According to The book Case Closed, Gerald Posner, 1993, in section of Photos. (Page title is Dealey Plaza: The Witnesses) The two men were Bonnie Ray Williams on the left and Harold Norman on the right.
OK, maybe I stand corrected, but I did read somewhere in a description or maybe testimony, that Williams had been further back in the room.

I'm pretty sure all three (Jarman, Williams and Norman) were in the room when Oswald was firing the shots in the room above them.
__________________
As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
- Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920
smartcooky is offline   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
Old 13th October 2018, 07:01 AM   #1826
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,585
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Hank read the Warren Commission report ..
No, that wasn't it. I had read the Warren Commission Report ("WCR"- a one-volume compendium of the Warren Commission's conclusions and their summary of the evidence supporting their conclusions) a couple of times, sprinkled in with my reading of whatever else I could get my hands on - mostly conspiracy literature.

In the 1960s my conclusions depended on what I had read most recently, I would have to say. But in the 1970s my belief in a conspiracy strengthened as I read more and more conspiracy literature - there wasn't much on the other side being published to counter-balance the steady drumbeat of the conspiracy literature available. Watergate didn't help, and the Vietnam War turned me and a lot of other young Americans against the government, as you note.

What turned me from a conspiracy believer into an "Oswald committed the assassination alone and unaided" believer was deciding to attempt to solve the assassination and find the conspirators behind the assassination. Each particular conspiracy author had their own spin on many issues, each of which led to a different interpretation of the evidence and a different conclusion of who or what was behind the assassination. I felt they had to be missing something and a closer examination of the evidence by a fresh set of eyes would help.

I knew if I was to resolve the conflicts between the various conspiracy authors I had to get more familiar with the first hand evidence, and not rely on the individual authors varying interpretations of the evidence.

So I went to the nearest metropolitan library after work which was only blocks from my job and started reading the Warren Commission's (WC) 26 volumes of evidence and testimony -- not the one-volume WCR summary of their take on the evidence and their conclusions -- by this time I was fully inculcated into the Conspiracy Church and knew not to trust the Warren Commission's summary of the evidence and their conclusions.

When in the early 1980s I bought the WC's 26 volumes and the HSCA's 12 volumes of evidence I no longer had to to visit the library after work and that sped up my learning process greatly.

I remember nights I couldn't put the testimony down and was up to 2 or 3 am reading through a particular volume. I eventually read through all 40 books (including the HSCA and WC final reports) twice.

What I determined from all that reading was that contrary to the conspiracy literature the WC had been extremely faithful to the evidence and it was the conspiracy authors who weren't telling the truth to their readers. The picture they painted was a concerted effort on the part of the WC to cover up the truth and falsely inculpate Oswald in the crime. What I found was the conspiracy authors were the ones doing the very things the accused the WC of doing -- not being faithful to the evidence, falsely summarizing the evidence, and taking quotes out of context to paint Oswald as an innocent.

It wasn't reading the one volume WCR, it was reading all the first hand testimony and reviewing all the first hand evidence that convinced me that Oswald did it.

Just to clarify.

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto
HSienzant is offline   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
Old 13th October 2018, 07:39 AM   #1827
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,585
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
OK, maybe I stand corrected, but I did read somewhere in a description or maybe testimony, that Williams had been further back in the room.

I'm pretty sure all three (Jarman, Williams and Norman) were in the room when Oswald was firing the shots in the room above them.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/williams.htm

The third man was to the right of the other two (he is in the next set of windows to the left of the other two as you look at the photograph and the face of the building).

Mr. BALL. Last Friday you went up to the sixth floor, or the fifth floor with us, and a photographer, and you three men got into position, did you not?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. To have your pictures taken.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes; we did.
Mr. BALL. I can only ask you about your position. First of all, we will mark this as 485.
...
Mr. BALL. 485 is a picture of three men. You were there when that picture was taken?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Who are the men who are there?
Mr. WILLIAMS. First of all in the corner of the east of the building is Harold Norman. Secondly, the fellow over from me, that would be James Jarman.
Mr. BALL. Who is the man in the center?
Mr. WILLIAMS. That is me.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfki...bits/ce485.jpg

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto

Last edited by HSienzant; 13th October 2018 at 07:59 AM.
HSienzant is offline   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
Old 13th October 2018, 11:27 AM   #1828
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,231
Thanks for the clarification, Hank.

The most interesting revelation from the recent document release at the National Archives is that the FBI and CIA were working hard to FIND A CONSPIRACY. They weren't trying to cover anything up, they wanted to tie him to Castro, and later they wanted to tie him to the Chicago mafia.

They interviewed anybody with a story from mob informants to psychics.

The documents also reveal that the CIA and the FBI leadership felt that Oswald didn't act alone in spite of what their own evidence showed. The FBI continued to field reports and investigate claims through the late 1970's.

All of this is in stark contrast to the JFK-CT Church dogma of cover-up and the framing of an innocent communist.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   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
Old 14th October 2018, 09:27 AM   #1829
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,854
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
I even mentioned a 1968 FBI memo discussing a possible second bullet removed from JFK's head. (It was a fake, BTW), but MJ can't be bothered to do serious research.
Sounds like a garbled reference to the "bullet lodged behind the President's ear" memo from the day of the assassination.
MicahJava is offline   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
Old 14th October 2018, 09:34 AM   #1830
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,854
Also, the FBI does often keep records of seemingly worthless claims of conspiracy evidence like all the uncorroborated claims of other bullets found.
MicahJava is offline   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
Old 14th October 2018, 10:04 AM   #1831
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 18,310
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
What turned me from a conspiracy believer into an "Oswald committed the assassination alone and unaided" believer was deciding to attempt to solve the assassination and find the conspirators behind the assassination.
Lots of people, myself included, shared similar experiences. I wasn't quite so much interesting in finding out who were the true conspirators, but I really wanted to show how the evil government had covered up the plot, which I was sure existed, because those conspiracy books, and even the HSCA, had concluded there was a probable conspiracy.


At that time I had not read the actual Warren Report, but I picked it up so I could see firsthand that pack of lies, but an interesting thing happened. As soon as I started reading, I caught things where the conspiracy books had said one thing about the Warren Report, but the report itself said something else. I'm not talking about drawing different conclusions or even presenting different evidence. I'm talking about cases where the books had said, "The Warren Report says X", but when I read the Warren Report it didn't say that at all. If they couldn't even be correct about the contents of the Warren Report, I wondered if maybe some of their other stuff was wrong. As I dove into it, I found that not only was it wrong, a lot of it was ridiculous, and some of it could only be explained as outright lies in a cynical attempt to make money off the book-buying public.


I still wondered, though, because I had known that the HSCA had concluded a conspiracy was likely. When I finally investigated why that one had gone the way it did, I found it fascinating. I read the report that had led them to the conclusion, and I immediately spotted the flaw in that report. However, to do so, I had to draw on graduate school level knowledge of signal processing. I can see why some congressmen would be fooled by it. They should have held off on conclusions until they could get it checked, and they should have at least expressed far less certainty in their conclusions, but it's fascinating to see what happened, and the timing, and understand why they didn't.

The evidence of conspiracy used to reach their conclusion has since been debunked, but that report is still cited as evidence of conspiracy.

Last edited by Meadmaker; 14th October 2018 at 10:05 AM.
Meadmaker is offline   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
Old 14th October 2018, 11:18 AM   #1832
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,231
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Sounds like a garbled reference to the "bullet lodged behind the President's ear" memo from the day of the assassination.
Not even close.

I found it on my second afternoon going through the files.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   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
Old 14th October 2018, 11:28 AM   #1833
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,231
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Also, the FBI does often keep records of seemingly worthless claims of conspiracy evidence like all the uncorroborated claims of other bullets found.
Golly, if you spend more time reading real-world information - available for free through the National Archives - you'd know that FBI keeps all their records. You'd also know that FBI stands for Federal Bureau of Investigation, which means they investigate crimes.

Those memos are often updates on progress in an ongoing investigation, or simply field reports sent in near real time. Often the information in those reports is unsubstantiated, and more often hearsay, but agents are required to pass along any information acquired. The JFK FBI files are bloated with incongruities that have nothing to do with the assassination in any way thanks to the HSCA's fishing expedition.

The HSCA requisitioned files on Cuba and the Mafia going back to 1948, and they're all part of the collection. Just as the files reveal how hard the FBI and CIA worked to prove a conspiracy, these files outline what the members of the HSCA were thinking going into their probe.

If you bothered to sit down and read through a few hundred of them you'd quickly learn how impossible keeping a conspiracy would have been in 1963-64.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   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
Old 14th October 2018, 11:36 AM   #1834
bknight
Muse
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 923
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Lots of people, myself included, shared similar experiences. I wasn't quite so much interesting in finding out who were the true conspirators, but I really wanted to show how the evil government had covered up the plot, which I was sure existed, because those conspiracy books, and even the HSCA, had concluded there was a probable conspiracy.


At that time I had not read the actual Warren Report, but I picked it up so I could see firsthand that pack of lies, but an interesting thing happened. As soon as I started reading, I caught things where the conspiracy books had said one thing about the Warren Report, but the report itself said something else. I'm not talking about drawing different conclusions or even presenting different evidence. I'm talking about cases where the books had said, "The Warren Report says X", but when I read the Warren Report it didn't say that at all. If they couldn't even be correct about the contents of the Warren Report, I wondered if maybe some of their other stuff was wrong. As I dove into it, I found that not only was it wrong, a lot of it was ridiculous, and some of it could only be explained as outright lies in a cynical attempt to make money off the book-buying public.


I still wondered, though, because I had known that the HSCA had concluded a conspiracy was likely. When I finally investigated why that one had gone the way it did, I found it fascinating. I read the report that had led them to the conclusion, and I immediately spotted the flaw in that report. However, to do so, I had to draw on graduate school level knowledge of signal processing. I can see why some congressmen would be fooled by it. They should have held off on conclusions until they could get it checked, and they should have at least expressed far less certainty in their conclusions, but it's fascinating to see what happened, and the timing, and understand why they didn't.

The evidence of conspiracy used to reach their conclusion has since been debunked, but that report is still cited as evidence of conspiracy.
I have told both Hank and Axmann300 that I was impressed that they had exited fantasy land and rejoined reality by disavowing the CT mantra. I have the same thought for you.
Myself I was never in that camp, didn't read any of the CT's books. Didn't read the WR, but figured all had been done to solve the crime. I had a career to tend to and not much time for CT. That was until 2001 when some idiots wanted to make some money by claiming that Apollo was a hoax. From then on I lurked around hoax sites learning that they too used similar BS thinking as in the assassination of JFK. I was directed to this site, by an associate. I stepped into the similar world of CT about JFK as had been accomplished by Apollo hoax believers.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

I noticed your comment on the HSCA, and they were led by liberals to find the conspiracy so it didn't take a rocket scientist to know that they jumped at 98-99% positive about a second shooter on the grassy knoll, to find their conspiracy. Oh well that little bit of "evidence" blew up when the associated parameters were disclosed. Now we are left with MJ arguing trivial pursuit of the autopsy, as if this "proves" a conspiracy I only he had the facts correct.
bknight is offline   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
Old 14th October 2018, 12:12 PM   #1835
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 9,236
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
I read the report that had led them to the conclusion, and I immediately spotted the flaw in that report. However, to do so, I had to draw on graduate school level knowledge of signal processing. I can see why some congressmen would be fooled by it.
I'm pretty knowledgable on signal processing myself, having being an amateur radio operator as well an avionics engineer for 20+ years. I tried several times to get manifesto to front up with his understanding of how the dictabelt recording analysis worked; why the microphones were placed where they were; and why Officer McLain's motorcycle had to be the one with the open mic, and had to be in the right place at the right time for the whole thing to work. He dodged and weaved and refused to commit himself to a theory or explanation (which as we all know anyway, is Conspiracy Theory 101).

This told me that in actual fact, he didn't understand how it was all supposed to work himself, and that he was just parroting what he was reading on nut-job conspiracy sites.

Once Dale Myers' excellent work proved that the location of officer McLain's motorcycle was not where it needed to be, it utterly demolished the whole premise that his motorcycle was the one with the open mic, and overturned the conclusions of a fourth shot (and therefore a second shooter).
__________________
As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
- Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920

Last edited by smartcooky; 14th October 2018 at 12:31 PM.
smartcooky is offline   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
Old 14th October 2018, 12:43 PM   #1836
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 9,236
[deleted]
__________________
As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
- Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920

Last edited by smartcooky; 14th October 2018 at 12:46 PM.
smartcooky is offline   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
Old 14th October 2018, 02:49 PM   #1837
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 18,310
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
I'm pretty knowledgable on signal processing myself, having being an amateur radio operator as well an avionics engineer for 20+ years. I tried several times to get manifesto to front up with his understanding of how the dictabelt recording analysis worked; why the microphones were placed where they were; and why Officer McLain's motorcycle had to be the one with the open mic, and had to be in the right place at the right time for the whole thing to work. He dodged and weaved and refused to commit himself to a theory or explanation (which as we all know anyway, is Conspiracy Theory 101).

This told me that in actual fact, he didn't understand how it was all supposed to work himself, and that he was just parroting what he was reading on nut-job conspiracy sites.

Once Dale Myers' excellent work proved that the location of officer McLain's motorcycle was not where it needed to be, it utterly demolished the whole premise that his motorcycle was the one with the open mic, and overturned the conclusions of a fourth shot (and therefore a second shooter).
What leapt out at me first was on the first page of the technical portion of the report, they described that the first thing they did was to figure out the actual speed of the recording. There was a nominal speed, but various factors could speed it up or slow it down within a certain range, so what they did was they picked the recording speed that best matched the data to the gunshot sounds. Hmmmm? Isn't that assuming your conclusion and making the data fit?

Well, it isn't completely and utterly wrong. You can start with that process and still get good reports, but if you do that, you have to adjust your analysis later when you do the probabilities to reflect what you did. I looked for the adjustments. They weren't there.

They did similar things at other stages. They looked for data that fit what they wanted it to be, and then they analyzed that data as if all those variables were independent, and computed probabilities based on their independence, but their method of selecting the points for analysis made those variables dependent, so their analysis was invalid. The actual calculated probabilities should have been much lower than they presented to the HSCA.

So how did this get past the HSCA at all? Although the congresscritters couldn't understand it themselves, surely they had staff that could do it, or find people who could? Well, what happened was that the "experts" (it was a technique that had never been used, so no one was an expert) had done some investigation and had come back with inconclusive results. The committee set about writing a report that said there was no evidence of conspiracy, and most findings of the Warren Report were correct, especially that three shots were fired, with two hits, including the "magic bullet". Meanwhile, the "experts" went back and refined their analysis and, just before the final report was issued, I believe in fact the day before the report was to be issued, they came back with this refined analysis that showed a highly likely fourth shot, which had come from the grassy knoll, but missed. Some of the "refinements" were the very things I had noticed as suspicious about the report, which invalidated the probabilities.


At that point, the committee's time was up. They had a deadline, and they had spent all their budget. There was no time or money to pursue things further, so they voted to accept the refined analysis, publish a report that said there was probably a conspiracy, and directed the FBI to investigate further. The FBI then published an analysis that showed all the flaws in the probability estimates in the acoustic fingerprinting report. Meanwhile, it had been big news, and "Vanity Fair" published a cheap vinyl insert record in their magazine. Someone listened, heard voices on it, matched the words up with other recordings, and it was proven that the "gunshot" sounds did not happen when the motorcade was in Dealey Plaza.


That, and other things, showed that the clicks on the tape were not gunshots. They didn't actually match the acoustic fingerprints in the first place. They didn't happen when the motorcade was in Dealey Plaza, and they also didn't match the timing of the actual gunshots which could be demonstrated from other evidence.

Last edited by Meadmaker; 14th October 2018 at 02:52 PM.
Meadmaker is offline   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
Old 14th October 2018, 04:59 PM   #1838
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 9,236
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
What leapt out at me first was on the first page of the technical portion of the report, they described that the first thing they did was to figure out the actual speed of the recording. There was a nominal speed, but various factors could speed it up or slow it down within a certain range, so what they did was they picked the recording speed that best matched the data to the gunshot sounds. Hmmmm? Isn't that assuming your conclusion and making the data fit?
It certainly is, and furthermore, determining the relative timings of transmissions is exceedingly difficult when the recording medium does not run continuously, and does not contain a timecode signal (only the dispatcher's verbal timestamps were used)*.

Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Well, it isn't completely and utterly wrong. You can start with that process and still get good reports, but if you do that, you have to adjust your analysis later when you do the probabilities to reflect what you did. I looked for the adjustments. They weren't there.

They did similar things at other stages. They looked for data that fit what they wanted it to be, and then they analyzed that data as if all those variables were independent, and computed probabilities based on their independence, but their method of selecting the points for analysis made those variables dependent, so their analysis was invalid. The actual calculated probabilities should have been much lower than they presented to the HSCA.
And there is a danger in doing what they did; effectively they were reverse engineering the result in order to determine a cause so that they could reach the conclusions they were looking for. Americans have a term for such ways of doing things..... cockamamey!!

Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
So how did this get past the HSCA at all? Although the congresscritters couldn't understand it themselves, surely they had staff that could do it, or find people who could? Well, what happened was that the "experts" (it was a technique that had never been used, so no one was an expert) had done some investigation and had come back with inconclusive results. The committee set about writing a report that said there was no evidence of conspiracy, and most findings of the Warren Report were correct, especially that three shots were fired, with two hits, including the "magic bullet". Meanwhile, the "experts" went back and refined their analysis and, just before the final report was issued, I believe in fact the day before the report was to be issued, they came back with this refined analysis that showed a highly likely fourth shot, which had come from the grassy knoll, but missed. Some of the "refinements" were the very things I had noticed as suspicious about the report, which invalidated the probabilities.

At that point, the committee's time was up. They had a deadline, and they had spent all their budget. There was no time or money to pursue things further, so they voted to accept the refined analysis, publish a report that said there was probably a conspiracy, and directed the FBI to investigate further. The FBI then published an analysis that showed all the flaws in the probability estimates in the acoustic fingerprinting report. Meanwhile, it had been big news, and "Vanity Fair" published a cheap vinyl insert record in their magazine. Someone listened, heard voices on it, matched the words up with other recordings, and it was proven that the "gunshot" sounds did not happen when the motorcade was in Dealey Plaza.

That, and other things, showed that the clicks on the tape were not gunshots. They didn't actually match the acoustic fingerprints in the first place. They didn't happen when the motorcade was in Dealey Plaza, and they also didn't match the timing of the actual gunshots which could be demonstrated from other evidence.
And there are two basic problems with doing what they did...

1. You don't get a repeatable result, and
2. The result you do get could be produced by an entirely different set of circumstances.

The second problem is exactly what happened here. The FBI's Technical Services Division studied the acoustical data and issued a report on November 19, 1980, in which they concluded that the HSCA were unsuccessful, not only in proving that there were gunshots on the recording, they could not even prove that the recording was made in Dealey Plaza. Using the same techniques the HSCA investigators used, the FBI matched a gunshot recorded in Greensboro, NC in 1979 with the sound that was supposedly a shot from the grassy knoll, thereby proving that the initial investigation's methods were invalid. Essentially, the result they obtained in Dealey Plaza was not unique to that location.

* By timecode signal, I mean a literal time track that would give a continuous time reference for every moment on the recoding. One of the places I used to work was an Air Traffic Control Tower Equipment Room. In that room was a big cabinet containing a reel-to-reel tape recorder that used 12" diameter reels of 1" wide auto tape. It would stop and start as aircraft and the tower transmitted, and it contained a track directly piped in from a time-signal station called VNG (in Lyndurst, Australia). When you played the tape back, an LED display would show the exact "Zulu" time on the tape at any given point. No such system was used in the Dictabelt or the Grey Audiograph. Recording was triggered when a transmission was made; their timing relied only on occasional oral time stamps give by the police dispatcher, so they were the only timings you could be sure about; there was no time reference at all for the replies by Police officers in the field. so you could have, for example, three consecutive transmissions that would be equally spaced on the Dictabelt but the time gap between 1 and 2 might be 20 seconds, while the gap between 2 and 3 might be 20 minutes, and you have no technical way to determine that fact.
__________________
As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
- Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920

Last edited by smartcooky; 14th October 2018 at 05:00 PM.
smartcooky is offline   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
Old 14th October 2018, 07:09 PM   #1839
bknight
Muse
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 923
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
I'm pretty knowledgable on signal processing myself, having being an amateur radio operator as well an avionics engineer for 20+ years. I tried several times to get manifesto to front up with his understanding of how the dictabelt recording analysis worked; why the microphones were placed where they were; and why Officer McLain's motorcycle had to be the one with the open mic, and had to be in the right place at the right time for the whole thing to work. He dodged and weaved and refused to commit himself to a theory or explanation (which as we all know anyway, is Conspiracy Theory 101).

This told me that in actual fact, he didn't understand how it was all supposed to work himself, and that he was just parroting what he was reading on nut-job conspiracy sites.

Once Dale Myers' excellent work proved that the location of officer McLain's motorcycle was not where it needed to be, it utterly demolished the whole premise that his motorcycle was the one with the open mic, and overturned the conclusions of a fourth shot (and therefore a second shooter).
manifesto looked at the headlines, nothing else mattered to him.
bknight is offline   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
Old 14th October 2018, 08:13 PM   #1840
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,854
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Lots of people, myself included, shared similar experiences. I wasn't quite so much interesting in finding out who were the true conspirators, but I really wanted to show how the evil government had covered up the plot, which I was sure existed, because those conspiracy books, and even the HSCA, had concluded there was a probable conspiracy.


At that time I had not read the actual Warren Report, but I picked it up so I could see firsthand that pack of lies, but an interesting thing happened. As soon as I started reading, I caught things where the conspiracy books had said one thing about the Warren Report, but the report itself said something else. I'm not talking about drawing different conclusions or even presenting different evidence. I'm talking about cases where the books had said, "The Warren Report says X", but when I read the Warren Report it didn't say that at all. If they couldn't even be correct about the contents of the Warren Report, I wondered if maybe some of their other stuff was wrong. As I dove into it, I found that not only was it wrong, a lot of it was ridiculous, and some of it could only be explained as outright lies in a cynical attempt to make money off the book-buying public.


I still wondered, though, because I had known that the HSCA had concluded a conspiracy was likely. When I finally investigated why that one had gone the way it did, I found it fascinating. I read the report that had led them to the conclusion, and I immediately spotted the flaw in that report. However, to do so, I had to draw on graduate school level knowledge of signal processing. I can see why some congressmen would be fooled by it. They should have held off on conclusions until they could get it checked, and they should have at least expressed far less certainty in their conclusions, but it's fascinating to see what happened, and the timing, and understand why they didn't.

The evidence of conspiracy used to reach their conclusion has since been debunked, but that report is still cited as evidence of conspiracy.
For the uninitiated,

The EOP wound: https://www.reddit.com/r/Alternative...assassination/
MicahJava is offline   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 11:27 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

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.