The JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate

Acoustic Evidence

<< < (10/18) > >>

Steve M. Galbraith:

--- Quote from: John Corbett on September 18, 2026, 05:15:42 PM ---Isn't it amazing how often the official records differ sharply from what MTG claims?

--- End quote ---
It's why he doesn't link to them.

Notice that Curry insisted he heard three and only three shots? That alone undermines Griffith's theory of five/six shots. Could Curry have been wrong? Of course. It's why we have to take into account the totality of evidence, weigh it all, make a judgment, consider alternative explanations, and try to re-create what happened as best as we can.

Michael T. Griffith:

--- Quote from: Steve M. Galbraith on September 18, 2026, 05:01:21 PM ---Mr. Griffith is a hopeless cause. He simply makes things up, is caught doing so, then repeats the original claim in a different manner. He doesn't link to primary sources; he takes sources and then re-interprets what he thinks they say. It's endless. His entire conspiracy explanation is a mish mash of contradictory evidence and claims, of sources who are odds with one another, with evidence that actually counters his conspiracy theory.
--- End quote ---

You are among the hopeless causes, not I. I didn't make up anything. I quoted verbatim what Curry ordered his men to do seconds after the shots were fired.

Your answer to this is to quote Curry's WC testimony given months later, after the government had bombarded the public with the story that all the shots came from behind the limo.


--- Quote from: Steve M. Galbraith on September 18, 2026, 05:01:21 PM ---Curry specifically testified that he didn't know where the reports/shots came from.

Mr. CURRY - I didn't do that, sir. That was one of my inspectors, I believe that gave that order. I was riding in the Presidential parade and approximately a hundred feet, I guess, ahead of the President's car, and when we heard this first report, I couldn't tell exactly where it was coming from.
Representative FORD - What report are you talking about now?
Mr. CURRY - A sharp report as a firecracker or as it was it was the report of this rifle.
We were just approaching an underpass, and there were some people around on each side of the underpass, up in the railroad yards, and I thought at first that perhaps this was a railroad torpedo, it was a sharp crack.
Mr. CURRY - I said what was that, was that a firecracker, or someone said this, I don't recall whether it was me or someone else, and from the report I couldn't tell whether it was coming from the railroad yard or whether it was coming from behind but I said over the radio, I said, "Get someone up in the railroad yard and check."
And then about this time, I believe it was motorcycle Officer Chaney rode up beside of me and looking back in the rear view mirror I could see some commotion in the President's car and after this there had been two more reports, but these other two reports I could tell were coming behind instead of from the railroad yards.
Mr. RANKIN - What do you mean by reports?
Mr. CURRY - Sharp reports as a rifle or a firecracker, and looking in the rear view mirror then I could see some commotion in President Kennedy's car.
Mr. RANKIN - You could distinctly hear and tell that the two later reports were from behind?
Mr. CURRY - Behind.
Mr. RANKIN - Rather than front?
Mr. CURRY - That is right.
Mr. RANKIN - You weren't sure whether the first one was from behind or in front?
Mr. CURRY - I couldn't tell because perhaps of the echo or the----

Curry's full testimony is here: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/curry1.htm

--- End quote ---

Well, of course, by the time the WC rolled around, Curry was not about to admit that he had believed gunfire came from the front. Notice he never explained why he ordered a man be put on the triple underpass to "see what happened there," if he had no idea where the shots came from.

I ask again, What area do you think Curry wanted the officer to look at from the triple underpass to "see what happened there"? Huh? The freeway?! The TSBD?! The obvious answer -- and yes, it is obvious -- is that Curry believed gunfire came from the area behind the grassy knoll and that he ordered that an officer get on top of the underpass to "see what happened there."

And, gee, I guess it's just yet another remarkable coincidence that this is the same area, the rail yard behind the knoll and right next to the triple underpass, that Sheriff Decker ordered to be sealed off "to determine just what and where it happened down there," the same area to which dozens of people, including some police officers, rushed after the shots were fired. I guess Corbett would say they were all just taking a wild guess. Right, it just couldn't be that they ran toward the knoll because they heard gunfire from there. Nah, forget it!

The fact that you make a big deal over Curry's belief that three shots were fired, as if this is more of your supposed evidence against the acoustical evidence, is just more silliness. What about the 58 witnesses who said they heard gunfire from the grassy knoll? Why don't you quote them? How about the fact that a number witnesses said they only heard two shots? Why don't you quote them? How about all the witnesses who said two of the shots came in very rapid succession, with virtually no interval between them? Why don't you quote them? Oh, that's right, because if two of the shots came that quickly, your theory of the shooting collapses.

But, oh, Curry says he heard three shots, and you act like you've made some grand discovery that refutes the acoustical evidence. It's always amateur hour with you guys.

I can't help but notice that you guys aren't laying a finger on any of the scientific evidence that supports the HSCA's acoustical findings, because you have no answer for it and would never gather up enough objectivity to read the detailed explanations of that evidence in the reports submitted by the BBN and Queens College acoustical scientists. No, you'd rather cling for dear life to the NRC/NAS panel's refuted claims, many of which were based on embarrassing blunders or outright distortions, in addition to the fact that the panel did not even mention, much less address, much of the evidence that the HSCA's acoustical scientists documented.

Finally, I would just point out for the sake of any newcomers and silent readers that Galbraith, Todd, Corbett, etc., belong to the decided minority of the Western world who still believe that a lone nut acting completely alone shot JFK.

John Corbett:

--- Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on September 18, 2026, 06:17:23 PM ---You are among the hopeless causes, not I. I didn't make up anything. I quoted verbatim what Curry ordered his men to do seconds after the shots were fired.
--- End quote ---

 BS: Quoting someone verbatim means you quoted them word for word. This is how you described Curry's (and Decker's) orders:

"You surely know this is misleading. Decker ordered his officers to seal off the area of the railroad yard behind the knoll and the triple underpass. Curry ordered his officers to check the area of the triple underpass and said to get a man on top of the underpass to see what happened there. Anyone who looks at a map of Dealey Plaza and understands English can see that Decker and Curry sent their men to essentially the same area."

Is the above quote Curry's words or yours? That's a rhetorical question which pretty much answers itself.
--- Quote ---
Your answer to this is to quote Curry's WC testimony given months later, after the government had bombarded the public with the story that all the shots came from behind the limo.
--- End quote ---

At least he quoted Curry, something you didn't do.
--- Quote ---
Well, of course, by the time the WC rolled around, Curry was not about to admit that he had believed gunfire came from the front. Notice he never explained why he ordered a man be put on the triple underpass to "see what happened there," if he had no idea where the shots came from.
--- End quote ---

So when a witness gives testimony that is contrary to the narrative you are pushing, your answer is to insinuate the witness perjured himself. A fine example of trying to make the evidence fit your theory rather than making your theory fit the evidence.
--- Quote ---
I ask again, What area do you think Curry wanted the officer to look at from the triple underpass to "see what happened there"? Huh? The freeway?! The TSBD?! The obvious answer -- and yes, it is obvious -- is that Curry believed gunfire came from the area behind the grassy knoll and that he ordered that an officer get on top of the underpass to "see what happened there."
--- End quote ---

Curry thought a shot MIGHT HAVE come from the overpass. it makes sense he would send someone up there to find out. No gunman was found up there nor was one found in the railroad yard or the area behind the stockade fence. The only physical evidence of a gunman was on the 6th floor of the TSBD.
--- Quote ---
And, gee, I guess it's just yet another remarkable coincidence that this is the same area, the rail yard behind the knoll and right next to the triple underpass, that Sheriff Decker ordered to be sealed off "to determine just what and where it happened down there," the same area to which dozens of people, including some police officers, rushed after the shots were fired. I guess Corbett would say they were all just taking a wild guess. Right, it just couldn't be that they ran toward the knoll because they heard gunfire from there. Nah, forget it!
--- End quote ---

It wasn't a wild guess because the sound indicated a shot MIGHT HAVE come from that area, but it was a guess. At the time the men were ordered to those TWO areas, there was no hard evidence of a shot having been fired from either place. Just impressions based on the sound.
--- Quote ---
The fact that you make a big deal over Curry's belief that three shots were fired, as if this is more of your supposed evidence against the acoustical evidence, is just more silliness. What about the 58 witnesses who said they heard gunfire from the grassy knoll? Why don't you quote them? How about the fact that a number witnesses said they only heard two shots? Why don't you quote them? How about all the witnesses who said two of the shots came in very rapid succession, with virtually no interval between them? Why don't you quote them? Oh, that's right, because if two of the shots came that quickly, your theory of the shooting collapses.
--- End quote ---

What about the body of witnesses whose impression was that the shots they heard came from the direction of the TSBD. We even have Altgens 6 showing agents in the follow up car looking back in the direction of the TSBD. Do you think these two groups of witnesses heard a different set of shots or does it make more sense that they all heard the same shots and one group got it right and the other was mistaken?
--- Quote ---
But, oh, Curry says he heard three shots, and you act like you've made some grand discovery that refutes the acoustical evidence. It's always amateur hour with you guys.
--- End quote ---

Oh, the irony of you accusing others of amateurish analysis. If you threw out all your amatuer analysis, what would you be left with?
--- Quote ---
I can't help but notice that you guys aren't laying a finger on any of the scientific evidence that supports the HSCA's acoustical findings, because you have no answer for it and would never gather up enough objectivity to read the detailed explanations of that evidence in the reports submitted by the BBN and Queens College acoustical scientists. No, you'd rather cling for dear life to the NRC/NAS panel's refuted claims, many of which were based on embarrassing blunders or outright distortions, in addition to the fact that the panel did not even mention, much less address, much of the evidence that the HSCA's acoustical scientists documented.
--- End quote ---

A few days ago, I posted a litany of reasons for doubting the acoustical team's conclusion, the most compelling being the complete absence of corroborating physical evidence or eyewitness testimony. On top of that we have Bowers who had a perfect view of the area behind the stockade fence and so no gunman there during the shooting.
--- Quote ---
Finally, I would just point out for the sake of any newcomers and silent readers that Galbraith, Todd, Corbett, etc., belong to the decided minority of the Western world who still believe that a lone nut acting completely alone shot JFK.

--- End quote ---

MTG takes great comfort in the fact that a majority of a population that knows very little about the evidence in the JFK assassination agrees with him that JFK died as the result of a conspiracy. Since he has no real evidence on his side, it's the best he can do. He seems to think truth is subject to popular opinion.

Tommy Shanks:

--- Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on September 18, 2026, 06:17:23 PM ---
Your answer to this is to quote Curry's WC testimony given months later, after the government had bombarded the public with the story that all the shots came from behind the limo.


--- End quote ---

This is at least the second time in the past couple of days (Lee Bowers thread) that you've just thrown up your hands and offered the very lame excuse that the witness in question was somehow unduly influenced by some evil forces and "couldn't" testify truthfully about what they "actually" saw or heard -- as opposed to, you know, actually taking their words at face value.

Mitch Todd:

--- Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on September 18, 2026, 03:42:15 PM ---No, he said he didn't see the two men behind the fence during the shooting. You guys brush them aside, but two of Bowers' friends said he didn't publicly reveal everything he saw. And, naturally, you dismiss journalist Penn Jones' report that Bowers' wife told him on the record that her husband was told not to talk.

LOL! Bowers certainly didn't think they were "looking for a place to park." They certainly didn't act like they were just "looking for place to park."

Have you actually read Bowers' account? Have you ever been in that parking lot? I have. There would have been no need to spend several minutes "probing," as Bowers put it, if they were merely looking for a parking spot. That lot is quite small. They could have spotted a parking place in a matter of seconds.

And never mind that the area had been sealed off since 11:00 and that there had been virtually no movement in the area since then, which is why the three cars' strange behavior caught Bowers' attention, right?

Oh, yeah, sure it is. You don't even know what you're talking about, and I can tell you've read next to nothing on the subject. The BBN acoustical scientists used the same methods and scientific principles in analyzing the DPD dictabelt that they used when they analyzed the audio recording of the 1970 Kent State shooting.

Nonsense. The military uses the same scientific principles and methodology to acoustically locate gunfire today that the HSCA's acoustical scientists used. In fact, Dr. Barger, as I've pointed out, developed patented new technology for the military and police forces to acoustically locate gunfire. 

BTW, the new research done by BBN scientists, including Dr. Barger, from 2015-2018 proves that the dictabelt's impulse patterns were recorded in Dealey Plaza during the assassination and debunks the NRC/NAS's claim that the Decker "hold everything" transmission is crosstalk.

I notice you haven't laid a finger on any of the evidence that the HSCA's acoustical scientists documented in support of their findings (the timing-movement correlations, the sonar analysis that verified the grassy knoll shot, the windshield-distortion correlations, and the presence of N-waves, muzzle blasts, and muzzle-blast echoes in the correct order and interval and only when the microphone was in position to record them).   

You know that's not what I'm talking about. I'll let readers decide if this is a case of "every movement" being "a reaction to a gunshot" when they read my article "Reactions to Six Shots in the Zapruder Film."

I think one of the first things people will notice is that you ignore the fact that five of the reactions are supported by the recognized science of blur analysis (I only mention four blur events in the article because I don't mention that a marked blur episode occurs around the time of the Z313 headshot, since no one questions that Z313-317 shows a reaction to a shot).

Wow, you just can't admit anything, can you? What area do you suppose Curry wanted to "see what happened there" by ordering to "get a man on top of that triple underpass"? What area do you think Curry wanted the officer to look at from the triple underpass to "see what happened there"? Huh? The freeway?! The TSBD?! Huh? The obvious answer to anyone with a functioning brain and some integrity is that Curry believed shots came from the area behind the grassy knoll and that he ordered that an officer get on top of the underpass to "see what happened there."

And that's the same area, the rail yard behind the knoll, that Sheriff Decker ordered to be sealed off "to determine just what and where it happened down there."

LOL! They were just "guessing"?! They ordered men deployed to check out the same area because they were just "guessing"?! Of course this is just pure silliness. A police chief and a sheriff are not going to deploy their men after shots have been fired at a presidential motorcade in which they themselves were riding based on just a guess. You'll never admit it, but it's obvious that Curry and Decker deployed their men to check out the same general area because they clearly believed that gunfire had come from that area.

--- End quote ---
MG: No, he said he didn't see the two men behind the fence during the shooting. You guys brush them aside, but two of Bowers' friends said he didn't publicly reveal everything he saw. And, naturally, you dismiss journalist Penn Jones' report that Bowers' wife told him on the record that her husband was told not to talk.

Which side of the fence is "behind," from Bowers' perspective? Bowers told both Thompson and Lane that one of the men kept disappearing from his view behind the fence. The only way that would work was that the man was on the south side of the fence.  In his interview for Lane's film, in a bit left of the cutting room floor for some reason, Bowers is clear that he saw no one north of the fence at the time of the shooting. And (again!) if you've read Thompson's books, you know he gives short shrift to Bowers' "friends."


MG: LOL! Bowers certainly didn't think they were "looking for a place to park." They certainly didn't act like they were just "looking for place to park."
Have you actually read Bowers' account? Have you ever been in that parking lot? I have. There would have been no need to spend several minutes "probing," as Bowers put it, if they were merely looking for a parking spot. That lot is quite small. They could have spotted a parking place in a matter of seconds.

Bowers said that the first was driving around "as if he was searching for a way out, or was checking the area." Checking the area is indeed what someone would do if they were looking for a parking spot. Or, since this was one of the cars with out-of-state plates, it might have just been someone unfamiliar with Dallas streets taking a wrong turn and was looking for the way back to pavement. But, when you read Bowers' testimony, there's nothing more than three cars driving around in a parking lot. Nothing special at all in itself. To make anything more out of it, you have to project sinister motive. But that is just your own projection.


MG: And never mind that the area had been sealed off since 11:00 and that there had been virtually no movement in the area since then, which is why the three cars' strange behavior caught Bowers' attention, right?
 
The area was never "sealed off" until after the assassination. That is just Bowers' inference or yours. The officers stationed in and around Dealey Plaza said that they didn't stop traffic until a few minutes before the motorcade arrived. No one was going to split the downtown of a major American city in two for an hour and a half (beginning a half-hour before the President even landed!) for a motorcade.


MG: Oh, yeah, sure it is. You don't even know what you're talking about, and I can tell you've read next to nothing on the subject. T

I've read and written quite a bit on the acoustic analysis. Enough that I was name-checked in Michael O'Dell's response to Thomas. You're the guy who has no idea what he's talking about.


MG: The BBN acoustical scientists used the same methods and scientific principles in analyzing the DPD dictabelt that they used when they analyzed the audio recording of the 1970 Kent State shooting.

As far as I've ever been able to find, the BBN methodology used for the Dictabelt has never been thoroughly tested in a controlled environment, so we have no idea if it really works as well as Barger, et al, would have us believe. Just from the match data that Barger presented in HSCA exhibit F-367 implies that the BBN method isn't very sensitive to source location, which is of course critical to the analysis.


The military uses the same scientific principles and methodology to acoustically locate gunfire today that the HSCA's acoustical scientists used. In fact, Dr. Barger, as I've pointed out, developed patented new technology for the military and police forces to acoustically locate gunfire.

No, they don't! The HSCA analysis used a correlative methodology comparing a test recording against a library of recordings of test shots. Modern shot location detection systems use either epicentric methods, stereophonic methods, or a combination of stereophonic+shockwave detection and only operate on live acoustic input. Like  I said, you're the guy who doesn't know what he's talking about.


BTW, the new research done by BBN scientists, including Dr. Barger, from 2015-2018 proves that the dictabelt's impulse patterns were recorded in Dealey Plaza during the assassination and debunks the NRC/NAS's claim that the Decker "hold everything" transmission is crosstalk.

At best, the latest bit of face-saving from BBN shows that PCC is so dependent on the assumptions input into it that it can't prove or disprove anything. The heterodyning that accompanies and corresponds exactly with the channel 1 "I'll check it" proves that it's a native channel 1 transmission and not crosstalk.


MG: I notice you haven't laid a finger on any of the evidence that the HSCA's acoustical scientists documented in support of their findings (the timing-movement correlations, the sonar analysis that verified the grassy knoll shot, the windshield-distortion correlations, and the presence of N-waves, muzzle blasts, and muzzle-blast echoes in the correct order and interval and only when the microphone was in position to record them).

I only have so much time to devote to these exchanges, and your dedicated posts on the matter are so full of misunderstandings, misapprehensions, and misrepresentations that I'd be pulling 24/7 shifts to devote justice to each and every one of your "points." By the way, an "N"-wave is a waveform so-named mererly because it is shaped like a capital letter "N," and are not unique to shock waves. 


MG: I think one of the first things people will notice is that you ignore the fact that five of the reactions are supported by the recognized science of blur analysis (I only mention four blur events in the article because I don't mention that a marked blur episode occurs around the time of the Z313 headshot, since no one questions that Z313-317 shows a reaction to a shot).

Is blur analysis actually a "recognized science" and who recognizes it as such?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page