JFK Assassination Autopsy Details Revealed After 55 Years

banie01 · 06-08-2019 1:12pm

King Mob wrote: »

Nope. It's pretty clear that's not what they said based on the quote you provided.
I think it's a case of yourpoor reading ability again.

It's an issue on every single thread CS or their new alter ego gets involved in.

They are clearly a non native English speaker.
They lack the comprehension of nuance and Syntax and the effect they can have on meaning, even the difference that context of a remark can make is lost on them.

They seem to regularly misinterpret documents and prose, and then latch onto that as their breakthrough moment of proof and understanding.

I've said this to CS multiple times, and each time it's swerved and avoided as where they are from doesn't matter.
I'd agree with that, the "where" doesn't.
What does matter IMO is that CS at least acknowledges that their comprehension, particularly of technical/legal English is not to sufficient standard to be relied on to break open a conspiracy.

The Nal · 06-08-2019 1:25pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Ascoutic evidence was never debunked, it was disputed evidence. Constantly saying otherwise does not change the facts.

Nope its been completely debunked. HB McClain was not where he had to be for the evidence to have any validity. Simple.

The HSCA said he had to be in a very specific spot at the time of the first shot and we now know that he wasn't in that spot so the acoustic evidence is invalid.

"If you could prove to me that there was no police officer in the place where he had to be, you would falsify [the acoustics evidence]." -- G. Robert Blakey

Well here you go
http://jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/report_download.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOBAFqeaKgw&t=1385s

Cheerful Spring2 · 06-08-2019 1:30pm

banie01 wrote: »

It's an issue on every single thread CS or their new alter ego gets involved in.

They are clearly a non native English speaker.
They lack the comprehension of nuance and Syntax and the effect they can have on meaning, even the difference that context of a remark can make is lost on them.

They seem to regularly misinterpret documents and prose, and then latch onto that as their breakthrough moment of proof and understanding.

I've said this to CS multiple times, and each time it's swerved and avoided as where they are from doesn't matter.
I'd agree with that, the "where" doesn't.
What does matter IMO is that CS at least acknowledges that their comprehension, particularly of technical/legal English is not to sufficient standard to be relied on to break open a conspiracy.

Opposite i worry about you. It clearly understand by everyone involved with JFK research the HSCA concluded it was probably a conspiracy involving organised crime.

You obviously not bright enough to figure out whom they referring to.

banie01 · 06-08-2019 1:33pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Opposite i worry about you. It clearly understand by everyone in JFK research the HSCA concluded it was probably a conspiracy involving organised crime.

You obviously not bright enough to figure out whom they referring to.

See what I mean.

I know what you are trying to say.

But your phrasing and Syntax is so poor, that anyone not familiar with your scattergun phrasing will be struggling to immediately understand you without rereading and making a guess or 2.

But you carry on CS, you and your English dictionary will break open JFK, 9/11, UFO's and you may even figure out where Jimmy Hoffa is buried yet!

The Nal · 06-08-2019 1:35pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Opposite i worry about you. It clearly understand by everyone involved with JFK research the HSCA concluded it was probably a conspiracy involving organised crime.

You obviously not bright enough to figure out whom they referring to.

So why would you say "ruled in 1976 Kennedy was killed by the mafia"?

Now you're saying probably a conspiracy involving organised crime. Such desperate garden variety conspiracy theorist wording.

Whats wrong with fact?

Cheerful Spring2 · 06-08-2019 1:48pm

banie01 wrote: »

See what I mean.

I know what you are trying to say.

But your phrasing and Syntax is so poor, that anyone not familiar with your scattergun phrasing will be struggling to immediately understand you without rereading and making a guess or 2.

But you carry on CS, you and your English dictionary will break open JFK, 9/11, UFO's and you may even figure out where Jimmy Hoffa is buried yet!

I posted what their conclusions are.

That you are unable and can't decipher their language it not my problem

HSCA conclusions facts not your interpretation
The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the national syndicate of organized crime, as a group, was not involved in the assassination of Kennedy, but that the available evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have been involved."

I broke it down for you guys in this thread.
National Crime Syndicate is a collection of organised crime families spread out across America. It an organistion a group. The commitee then said then we don't preclude-" individual members" involved in the syndicate were involved in a plot to kill the President.

I understood what they saying here, you obviously don't. If i am wrong please highlight were exactly and rambling abouts not understanding the english language is meaningless. Who is the HSCA referencing here if not the Mafia?

King Mob · 06-08-2019 1:54pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I broke it down for you guys in this thread.
National Crime Syndicate is a collection of organised crime families spread out across America. It an organistion a group. The commitee then said then we don't preclude-" individual members" involved in the syndicate were involved in a plot to kill the President.

That doesn't mean "We rule that Kennedy was killed by the mafia."

I don't think you know what "preclude" means.
Define it please.

Cheerful Spring2 · 06-08-2019 2:00pm

The difference is the Warren commission claimed Lee Harvey acted alone there was nobody else involved.

The HSCA said based on the evidence available to them- they don't preclude, in other words rule it out individual members of an organised crime syndicate were involved in a plot to kill Kennedy. This is very different stance taken by the HSCA.

The Nal · 06-08-2019 2:09pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I posted what their conclusions are.

That you are unable and can't decipher their language it not my problem

HSCA conclusions facts not your interpretation
The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the national syndicate of organized crime, as a group, was not involved in the assassination of Kennedy, but that the available evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have been involved."

I broke it down for you guys in this thread.
National Crime Syndicate is a collection of organised crime families spread out across America. It an organistion a group. The commitee then said then we don't preclude-" individual members" involved in the syndicate were involved in a plot to kill the President.

I understood what they saying here, you obviously don't. If i am wrong please highlight were exactly and rambling abouts not understanding the english language is meaningless. Who is the HSCA referencing here if not the Mafia?

Yes exactly. So based on since debunked acoustic evidence, they say its impossible to rule out that a member of the mafia may have been involved in a possible conspiracy. They can't say either way. In the same way they can't preclude that it was a 20 stone woman from Japan.

Clearly, again by something you posted, that does not mean "that Kennedy was killed by the mafia"

This isn't even semantics. Its just lies.

Cheerful Spring2 · 06-08-2019 2:09pm

The Nal wrote: »

So why would you say "ruled in 1976 Kennedy was killed by the mafia"?

Now you're saying probably a conspiracy involving organised crime. Such desperate garden variety conspiracy theorist wording.

Whats wrong with fact?

HSCA did not say agree with the Warren commission findings, you know this.

They concluded and Nal you know this.

Quote
The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee was unable to identify the other gunmen or the extent of the conspiracy.

The Nal · 06-08-2019 2:14pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

HSCA did not say agree with the Warren commission findings, you know this.

They did by admitting that would be the case if the acoustic evidence was proved as false.

Which it was.

Heres theres report. Have you even read it? Or read about it?

https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report

Finding #1
Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots at Kennedy. The second and third shots Oswald fired struck the President. The third shot he fired killed the President.

King Mob · 06-08-2019 2:19pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

The difference is the Warren commission claimed Lee Harvey acted alone there was nobody else involved.

The HSCA said based on the evidence available to them- they don't preclude, in other words rule it out individual members of an organised crime syndicate were involved in a plot to kill Kennedy. This is very different stance taken by the HSCA.

Lol. You are now saying that the HSCA said they are ruling out that it was the mafia.
You are also saying that the HSCA disagrees with the HSCA.

Cheerful Spring2 · 06-08-2019 2:22pm

The Nal wrote: »

They did by admitting that would be the case if the acoustic evidence was proved as false.

Which it was.

Heres theres report. Have you even read it? Or read about it?

https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report

Finding #1
Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots at Kennedy. The second and third shots Oswald fired struck the President. The third shot he fired killed the President.

Wrong it not debunked. You're lying. Its only disputed evidence with two different opposing sides fighting over it since.. HSCA experts have never accepted the FBI evidence as proof they are wrong.

The Nal · 06-08-2019 2:28pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Wrong it not debunked. You're lying. Its only disputed evidence with two different opposing sides fighting over it since.. HSCA experts have never accepted the FBI evidence as proof they are wrong.

No one is fighting over it. The acoustic evidence is invalid.

"If you could prove to me that there was no police officer in the place where he had to be, you would falsify [the acoustics evidence]." -- G. Robert Blakey

Thats been done. Across multiple studies, 3D reconstructions, film and photo time matching etc. He wasn't in the position he had to be in. Simple facts they didn't have in the 70s. Technology, provable science and fact always prevail.

Cheerful Spring2 · 06-08-2019 2:29pm

Mary Ferrell and others brought to the attention of the HSCA the existence of a police dictabelt which might contain sounds of the shooting in Dealey Plaza. One channel of police transmissions had been open during this time due to a stuck microphone switch. The HSCA hired two outside laboratories to analyze the dictabelt. While the roar of motorcycle engine noise drowned out much of the audio from a human listener’s perspective, distinct spikes in volume could be analyzed statistically, based on comparison between the pattern of such spikes and the echo patterns which the buildings in the Plaza would create. The experts found 6 impulses on the dictabelt whose echo patterns matched what one would expect from gunfire in the plaza. The HSCA then conducted a field study, placing microphones in Dealey Plaza and firing rifles fired from the Book Depository’s "sniper's nest" and from spots behind the fence on the grassy knoll.

In the end, the scientists found a solid match for a shot from the grassy knoll. Due to its medical conclusions that all shots which struck the motorcade came from the rear, a finding which has long been questioned, the Committee determined that the grassy knoll shot missed. This strange juxtaposition of the existence a shot from the knoll, but calling it a missed shot, opened the Committee to disbelief and ridicule from all sides.

The HSCA’s analysis was later called into question by a panel of scientists headed by Norman Ramsey. But that “debunking” has itself been called into serious question by the re-analysis of scientist D.B. Thomas, described most thoroughly in his book Hear No Evil.

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Acoustics_Evidence.html

Two different labs both agreed with each other the acoustic evidence was scientifically sound and reliable. They even carried out experiments to match the spikes and shots.

The Nal · 06-08-2019 2:37pm

You've just copied and pasted a whole page of another website after a quick google. Word for word.

Cited one single book (which you haven't read) as a source apparently backing up the acoustic evidence.

Now go read these ones. The ones under "Although there has been some recent back and forth between different researchers, the HSCA's acoustic analysis is widely considered to be discredited.[4][12]:377[16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Select_Committee_on_Assassinations#Dictabelt_audio_recording

14 or 15 books, essays and studies widely debunking it.

Answer me this though, how can the acoustic evidence be valid if McClain wasn't in the spot he had to be in?

King Mob · 06-08-2019 2:52pm

The Nal wrote: »

You've just copied and pasted a whole page of another website after a quick google. Word for word.

Cited one single book (which you haven't read) as a source apparently backing up the acoustic evidence.

Now go read these ones. The ones under "Although there has been some recent back and forth between different researchers, the HSCA's acoustic analysis is widely considered to be discredited.[4][12]:377[16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Select_Committee_on_Assassinations#Dictabelt_audio_recording

14 or 15 books, essays and studies widely debunking it.

Answer me this though, how can the acoustic evidence be valid if McClain wasn't in the spot he had to be in?

Also reading that link I see that the HSCA clearly concludes:
"The Secret Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Central Intelligence Agency were not involved in the assassination of Kennedy."

So how does cheerful reconcile that with his belief that they were involved...

Cheerful Spring2 · 06-08-2019 2:56pm

The Nal wrote: »

You've just copied and pasted a whole page of another website after a quick google. Word for word.

Cited one single book (which you haven't read) as a source apparently backing up the acoustic evidence.

Now go read these ones. The ones under "Although there has been some recent back and forth between different researchers, the HSCA's acoustic analysis is widely considered to be discredited.[4][12]:377[16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Select_Committee_on_Assassinations#Dictabelt_audio_recording

14 or 15 books, essays and studies widely debunking it.

Answer me this though, how can the acoustic evidence be valid if McClain wasn't in the spot he had to be in?

Has to be done, when you right now making wild claims the acoustic evidence is debunked. Two independent labs verified the spikes match the shots.. One shot matching is coincidence not three. You go ahead and explain this?

McClain was riding a cop motorcycle bike and he was speeding up to catch the motorcade as it was slowly turning the corner to go left at Texas book depository. The video as you well know does not show the position of his bike at the time of the shooting. It just shows him heading down houston street on his motorcycle before the shooting and video ends there. We know Kennedy was not shot till he reached the sign near the grassy knoll.

Guy:Incognito · 06-08-2019 3:00pm

They could have put in there that they cannot rule out that aliens were involved. That wouldnt mean they ruled that aliens killed Kennedy.

The Nal · 06-08-2019 3:22pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Has to be done, when you right now making wild claims the acoustic evidence is debunked. Two independent labs verified the spikes match the shots.. One shot matching is coincidence not three. You go ahead and explain this?

Yup, easy. As below.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

McClain was riding a cop motorcycle bike and he was speeding up to catch the motorcade as it was slowly turning the corner to go left at Texas book depository. The video as you well know does not show the position of his bike at the time of the shooting. It just shows him heading down houston street on his motorcycle before the shooting and video ends there. We know Kennedy was not shot till he reached the sign near the grassy knoll.

McClain had to be in a certain spot at shot #1 for the acoustic evidence to have any validity right?

Here he is (bottom left) arriving at that exact spot he needed to be at shot #1. The issue of course is that we can clearly see he arrived there after the shooting is over.

He is 174 feet from where he has to be in order for the acoustic evidence to be valid.

The acoustic evidence is invalid.

Sorry for posting so much fact and proof.

Also as for the book you posted about - the one you haven't read and didn't know about until you googled it - here are the main points of it torn apart

http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2008/04/photographic-proof-hb-mclain-and_9100.html

Cheerful Spring2 · 06-08-2019 3:49pm

The Nal wrote: »

Yup, easy. As below.

McClain had to be in a certain spot at shot #1 for the acoustic evidence to have any validity right?

Here he is (bottom left) arriving at that exact spot he needed to be at shot #1. The issue of course is that we can clearly see he arrived there after the shooting is over.

The acoustic evidence is invalid.

Sorry for posting so much fact and proof.

An isolated photograph is not proving McClain arrived late after the shooting.

You have to show me exactly, preferably using documentary film, this is accurate. The film i saw McClain was just behind Johnson limo when it turned onto houston street. He was only few cars behind Kennedy limo. McClain would have to have stopped his motorbike completely to have not closed the distance.

The Nal · 06-08-2019 3:57pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

An isolated photograph is not proving McClain arrived late after the shooting.

You have to show me exactly, preferably using documentary film, this is accurate.

A page ago I posted exactly, documentary film, showing this is accurate. I even time stamped the video at the relevant point.

You ignored it clearly. That photo above is from the said documentary.

You utter time waster.

banie01 · 06-08-2019 3:57pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You have to show me exactly, preferably using documentary film, this is accurate.

Never change CS!
I think its great that you can post debunked, copy/paste, stream of consciousness, gonzo nonsense with no proof other than your MS Paint additions...

But to refute your nonsense others, must show incontrevertible proof that you won't dismiss out of hand as fake.

It actually really is a window into the effects of selective Confirmation Bias on a person.
You are like Mel Gibson in Conspiracy Theory, only without the actual conspiracy proof he had to hand

I hope you find your Julia Roberts and live happily ever after

Cheerful Spring2 · 06-08-2019 4:00pm

The Nal wrote: »

A page ago I posted exactly, documentary film, showing this is accurate. I even time stamped the video at the relevant point.

You ignored it clearly. That photo above is from the said documentary.

You utter time waster.

Show it again i missed it.

The Nal · 06-08-2019 4:03pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOBAFqeaKgw&t=1385s

The entire documentary is excellent

Cheerful Spring2 · 06-08-2019 4:19pm

The Nal wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOBAFqeaKgw&t=1385s

The entire documentary is excellent

Dale Myers is a fraud. We discussed this idiot before.

He just completely ignores the HSCA findings, and their analysis, the bike had to be only half way down houston street to pick up the first shot!

Everyone knows the shooting did not start at the TBD, the shooting started when the limo approached the Stemmons Freeway sign. Myers is clearly manipulating the evidence. We even see McClain turning into Houston street just behind President Johnson limo and he was only a few cars lanes behind Kennedy.

The Nal · 06-08-2019 4:26pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Dale Myers is a fraud. We discussed this idiot before.

He just completely ignores the HSCA findings, and their analysis, the bike had to be only half way down houston street to pick up the first shot!

Everyone knows the shooting did not start at the TBD, the shooting started when the limo approached the Stemmons Freeway sign. Myers is clearly manipulating the evidence. We even see McClain turning into Houston street just behind President Johnson limo and he was only a few cars lanes behind Kennedy.

Nope thats not him. Hes behind where he needed to be.

Did you read this?

https://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2008/04/photographic-proof-hb-mclain-and_9100.html

Or any of the other 15 links I suggested which widely debunk this?

Actually, scrap that, stupid question. You posted a link to a book earlier which you haven't even read yourself, citing it as proof.

Great banter.

Cheerful Spring2 · 06-08-2019 4:37pm

The Nal wrote: »

Nope thats not him. Hes behind where he needed to be.

Did you read this?

https://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2008/04/photographic-proof-hb-mclain-and_9100.html

Or any of the other 15 links I suggested which widely debunk this?

Actually, scrap that, stupid question. You posted a link to a book earlier which you haven't even read yourself, citing it as proof.

Great banter.

Know he was wasn't in wrong spot. There even a HSCA diagram in the documentry you provided showing were the bike had to be when the first shot was fired. Just halfway down houston street. Myers is lying about it being 180 feet long also. Bike would reach it about a second not five seconds like he claimed on this video.

You can even see with this photograph the length of the street to TBD. Halfway down take no time at all on a motorbike.

The Nal · 06-08-2019 4:54pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Know he was wasn't in wrong spot. There even a HSCA diagram in the documentry you provided showing were the bike had to be when the first shot was fired. Just halfway down houston street. Myers is lying about it being 180 feet long also. Bike would reach it about a second not five seconds like he claimed on this video.

You can even see with this photograph the length of the street to TBD. Halfway down take no time at all on a motorbike.

Im glad you're dealing in specifics.

"no time at all".

Amateur hour.

This is a silly conversation anyway about a debunked theory. Go read about it. Its widely accepted as being invalid.

You want things to be conspiracies so much but you can't provide any evidence. Its fascinating to watch.

My favourite part of the last few pages is when you cited a book you haven't even read as evidence. Fantastic.

King Mob · 06-08-2019 5:06pm

The Nal wrote: »

My favourite part of the last few pages is when you cited a book you haven't even read as evidence. Fantastic.

My fave was when he showed everyone how good his reading was by not understanding what "preclude" meant and used grammar so bad he was arguing against himself.

JFK Assassination Autopsy Details Revealed After 55 Years

Comments