Thompson's New Book Powerfully Confirms the HSCA Acoustical Evidence

[Pat Speer]

Dr. Thompson feels that Dr. Thomas has already sufficiently dealt with the issue of the photographic evidence regarding McClain's location.

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_The_Bike_With_the_Mike.html

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Debugging_Bugliosi.html

Dr. Thompson's approach is to show that the dictabelt recording absolutely, positively contains at least four gunshot impulse patterns that were recorded in Dealey Plaza during the assassination, and that one of the shots came from the grassy knoll. So someone's microphone in Dealey Plaza recorded those gunshots, whether it was McClain's, Beilharz's, Price's, or someone else's mike. Personally, I find Dr. Thomas's research on the bike with the mike convincing. 

The gunshot impulse patterns match the unique patterns of gunshots fired in Dealey Plaza. They have the echo speed and locational characteristics of shots that were fired in Dealey Plaza and that were recorded by a motorcycle moving in Dealey Plaza. Dr. Aschkenazy put it this way:

I think it would be helpful to keep in mind that even the NRC panel admitted that there was only a 7% probability that the numerous locational correlations between the dictabelt gunshots and the test-firing gunshots were the result of chance (https://miketgriffith.com/files/hscaacous.pdf, pp. 12-13).

As for the argument that the vast majority of plaza witnesses said they heard three shots and that therefore this disproves the acoustical evidence, it is hard to believe that anyone is still pushing this patently silly, lame argument after all we now know about how the FBI and the DPD manipulated the eyewitness accounts, given that we now know that the shots in two shot groups came within fractions of a second of each other, and given that the Zapruder film plainly and clearly shows reactions to at least five shots.

https://miketgriffith.com/files/6shots.htm

The acoustics experts didn't just say the tape demonstrated four or more shots, they stated the tape picked up these shots from specific locations within the plaza at specific times. The HSCA said the bike with the mic was McLain's, and Thomas agreed.

The Z-film, Dorman film and Hughes film prove, however, that McLain was not where the HSCA said he was when the first shot was fired.

As a consequence, Thomas moved back the time of the first shot to frame 175.

But the Wiegman film and Bond 4 prove Wiegman--who was supposedly 2 cars behind McLain at the time of the first shot--was on the knoll for 7 seconds or more before McLain passed him by. Well, this makes no sense, seeing as he was on foot, and McLain was on a motorcycle.

I pointed this out to those working with Tink on his book early last year. It was too big a problem to overcome, and was subsequently ignored.

Upon reading Tink's book, moreover, it's easy to see why. He spends much of the book going after the Ramsey Panel and Alvarez specifically. And he's probably right to do so. That they may have been correct about the sounds on the tapes not being shots, to be clear, shouldn't lead us to forgive the deceptions Tink discovered in the working papers provided by Hoch. 

As stated, my hope was Tink would find a way for the shots to be legit without their being recorded by McLain. I am disappointed that this was not done.

[Dan O'meara]

the vast majority of witnesses did indeed hear three shots and that this indisputable,

Yes,  you are absolutely right.... I'd say that about 98% of the witnesses who heard the explosions reported that they heard three shots....Although a significant number of them said they weren't sure that the first explosion was a rifle shot....

I'm sure that there were at least five shots fired ( maybe more) but a couple of the shots were inaudible....

Just out of curiosity Walt, what makes you sure there were inaudible shots?

[Michael T. Griffith]

Quote from: Walt Cakebread on Today at 03:59:00 AM

the vast majority of witnesses did indeed hear three shots and that this indisputable,

Yes,  you are absolutely right.... I'd say that about 98% of the witnesses who heard the explosions reported that they heard three shots....Although a significant number of them said they weren't sure that the first explosion was a rifle shot....

I'm sure that there were at least five shots fired ( maybe more) but a couple of the shots were inaudible....

Just out of curiosity Walt, what makes you sure there were inaudible shots?

It is astonishing to see anyone still arguing that there were only three shots because most of the witnesses reportedly only heard three shots, given that we know that the FBI and the DPD distorted what witnesses told them, given that some of the shots were fired nearly simultaneously and thus could have sounded like a single shot, given the accounts of extra shots hitting grass and pavement in Dealey Plaza (and some of those accounts are supported by photographic evidence), and given that the Zapruder film clearly shows reactions to six shots.

As for McClain, I quote from my article on the acoustical evidence:

Another claim that McClain made after he gave his HSCA testimony was that while he was still moving on Houston Street, he saw Mrs. Kennedy climb onto the trunk of the limousine. If true, this would put him in locations different from those indicated by the dictabelt recording at key times. However, McClain’s claim is unlikely. We know that Mrs. Kennedy climbed onto the limo’s trunk no more than 5 seconds after the final shot. Intervening crowds of people and structures would have been made it difficult for McClain to have seen Mrs. Kennedy on the trunk from Houston Street. But, if McClain was where the acoustical evidence places him at this time—on Elm Street—then he would have had a clear view of Mrs. Kennedy’s actions. Moreover, Patrolman Jimmy Courson, who was at least 40 feet behind McClain, said he saw Mrs. Kennedy on the trunk just as he was turning onto Elm Street. It appears that McClain changed his story in ways that would disqualify his motorcycle as the one whose mike recorded the sounds on the dictabelt tape. (https://miketgriffith.com/files/hscaacous.pdf)

[Walt Cakebread]

Just out of curiosity Walt, what makes you sure there were inaudible shots?

The major reason is the number of recorded bullet strikes .....

A) 2 bullets struck JFK ( possibly three )
B) 1 bullet struck Connally
C) 1  bullet stuck James Teague
D) 1 bullet struck the tuft on the south side of Elm
E) 1 bullet struck the cement curb along Elm street
f)  1 bullet struck the chrome molding

Some folks accept that some strikes were created by the same bullet.....Teague for example. Some folks believe that he was struck by a bullet that  ricocheted ..... That's Possible, but not established.

The damage to the chrome molding was not caused by a light weight particle from a 6.5mm bullet..... It was struck by a heavy slow moving projectile with poor penetrating power.

[Pat Speer]

My challenge remains...

IF, as claimed, McLain was near the corner of Houston and Elm at the time of the first shot and rode his motorcycle 10-11 mph across the plaza, how is it that he's at the left of Bond 4, a photo showing cameraman Dave Wiegman (who was two cars behind McLain's supposed position at the time of the first shot, and who climbed from his car and ran towards the grassy knoll) filming the Newman family--an event that is not captured in Wiegman's film till roughly 30 seconds after the shooting?

I mean, McLain is just past Wiegman in Bond 4. And this means Wiegman was on the knoll and filming for 8-10 seconds before McLain rode past...

So how is it that the pedestrian Wiegman, who started out two cars behind McLain (should McLain have been where the acoustics requires him to have been) not only raced past McLain (who was presumed to have been on a motorcycle traveling 10 mph), but blew by him at such a velocity it required McLain seconds to catch up?

[Dan O'meara]

It is astonishing to see anyone still arguing that there were only three shots because most of the witnesses reportedly only heard three shots, given that we know that the FBI and the DPD distorted what witnesses told them, given that some of the shots were fired nearly simultaneously and thus could have sounded like a single shot, given the accounts of extra shots hitting grass and pavement in Dealey Plaza (and some of those accounts are supported by photographic evidence), and given that the Zapruder film clearly shows reactions to six shots.

You've already made the above points and have yet to answer:

"...given that we know that the FBI and the DPD distorted what witnesses told them..."

Provide one scrap of evidence that any of the 160+ witnesses who testified to hearing three shots have had their testimony altered. To even suggest anything close to this amount of people had their testimonies altered, and not one instance has come to life is, is Tinfoil Town at it's best. I believe it's unacceptable to simply allow someone to spout such nonsense and go unchallenged.
If you cannot provide any evidence you are clearly wrong/deluded/tinfoil.

"...given that some of the shots were fired nearly simultaneously..."

Evidence for this assertion please.
It sounds like more made-up  to me.
How do you think you're just going to say these things and go unchallenged.

"...given that the Zapruder film clearly shows reactions to six shots."

It's astonishing you are still pushing this utter garbage considering the lesson you were taught on your own thread - "Reactions to 6 Shots in the Zapruder Film" - a thread you were forced to abandon after being schooled regarding your childish arguments.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Many of us here know that there are some people who will never admit there is hard evidence of conspiracy, no matter how powerful and clear the evidence is. They simply will not admit it because they are, for whatever reason, absolutely determined to accept the lone-gunman theory. Even after the irrefutable proof that has emerged that the autopsy skull x-rays were altered, there are still researchers, including some multiple-gunmen theorists, who refuse to acknowledge it.

To any open-minded, reasonable person, the HSCA acoustical evidence is clear, compelling evidence that more than one gunman was involved and that more than three shots were fired. In some ways, the acoustical evidence is the most intricate, sophisticated, and impressive evidence of conspiracy in existence. The locational correlations between the dictabelt gunshot impulse patterns and the test-firing shots are stunning. Even the NRC panel admitted that their own calculations showed that the probability that those correlations resulted from chance was only 7%.

There's an old saying: If someone is determined not to believe something, no amount of contrary evidence will change his mind.