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

Acoustic Evidence

<< < (13/18) > >>

Michael T. Griffith:

--- Quote from: John Corbett on September 21, 2026, 08:23:57 PM ---Translation: MTG has no rebuttal to the points made.
--- End quote ---

LOL! Oh, yeah, you bet! I'm still waiting for you to provide credible, factual responses to the points I've made, but instead you've offered nothing but your usual error-filled, illogical, and evasive polemic.

Let's just briefly look at three examples:


--- Quote ---But for some strange reason she [Mercer] decided that wasn't worth notifying law enforcement about what she saw.
--- End quote ---

HUH?! She gave her account to the Dallas Sheriff Department a Secret Service agent on the day of the shooting. Sheesh, how can you not know this and yet pretend to have any business talking about her account? Her account has been discussed in a zillion books on the JFK case. Even John McAdams acknowledged that she told the Sheriff Department and a Secret Service agent about what she saw on 11/22/63. Indeed, in a tacit admission that her initial accounts were credible, McAdams suggested she innocently mistook a tool box for a rifle case.

Yet you get on here and claim she didn't tell "law enforcement about what she saw"!

This is just further proof that you have no business pretending that you're in any position to credibly comment on the JFK case. You repeatedly show that you don't even know what your side's leading advocates have said on the case.


--- Quote ---You were given two possible but mundane reasons why three cars might have entered that parking lot and then left.
--- End quote ---

You didn't offer one syllable to explain the facts I cited that show those "mundane reasons" make no sense. You ignored all the points I made and just repeated your claim. You didn't explain why a car would need several minutes to see if there was a parking space in that small parking lot. Nor did you explain why a car would need several minutes and longer to figure out that the extension road was the only way in and out of the small parking lot. Nor did you explain why three cars in a row in the space of 25 minutes would have turned onto the extension road in the first place when it obviously led to a small parking lot that was next to the railroad yard.


--- Quote ---Keep clinging to your discredited acoustics evidence that flies in the face of the entire body of evidence. It's all you have going for you 62+ years after the fact.
--- End quote ---

LOL! Hello? Did you simply not read all of the information that I've documented about the acoustical evidence and about the errors and omissions in the attacks on the acoustical evidence in my previous replies? Was the vocabulary too challenging? What "entire body of evidence" are you talking about?

I know you've probably already tuned out and that this will go in one ear and out the other, but I present the following for the sake of newcomers to the thread:

The entire "scientific" case against the acoustical evidence was based (1) on the NRC/NAS panel's bogus assumption that there was a 60-second recording pause on Channel 2, and (2) on the resulting claim that the Decker "hold everything" transmission was crosstalk and that therefore the dictabelt's impulses were recorded after the assassination. Linsker and his buddies whittled down the alleged recording pause to 35 seconds, but they did not explain, and still have not explained, how this could have occurred without disrupting the timing of the dispatcher's subsequent transmissions (those transmissions came 60 seconds apart, just as they should have, proving there was no recoding pause on Channel 2).

As mentioned in previous replies, several scientists pointed out years ago that for the recording-pause theory to even be theoretically possible, there would have had to be an offset in the dispatcher time notations on the dictabelt after that point, but there isn't one. The 12:35 and 12:36 time notations occur exactly five and six minutes respectively after the 12:30 time notation.

The new research, including a new PCC test, done by BBN acoustical scientists from 2015-2018 proves (1) that the Fisher "I'll check" transmission is crosstalk, which means the tape's impulse patterns must have been recorded during the assassination, and (2) that the Decker transmission is an overdub created during the copying process and wasn't even recorded at the same speed as the acknowledged crosstalk transmissions.

BTW, are Linsker and his colleagues (all of whom served on the NRC/NAS panel) ever going to respond to Dr. Thomas's 2010 53-page demolition of their 2005 attack on Thomas's 2001 article on the acoustical evidence? Just wondering. Are they going to respond to the appendices on the acoustical evidence written by Dr. Barger and Dr. Richard Mullen in Thompson's 2021 book Last Second in Dallas? Again, just wondering.

It bears repeating that the NRC/NAS panel made no effort to explain the presences of gunfire N-waves on the dictabelt and the windshield-distortion correlations identified in the tape's impulse patterns. What's more, the NRC/NAS panel (1) acknowledged there was a 93% probability that the timing-movement correlations identified by the HSCA's acoustical experts occurred because the dictabelt was recorded during the assassination, and (2) acknowledged there was a 77.7% probability that the 144.9 impulse pattern was caused by gunfire from the grassy knoll, and they only rejected the HSCA's 95+% probability for the grass knoll shot by introducing two egregious errors into their calculations.

You might want to know that, contrary to what your fellow WC apologists usually pretend, we're not "only" talking about Barger, Weiss, and Aschkenasy as the HSCA's acoustical experts, although they were outstanding acoustical scientists who were recommended to the HSCA by the Acoustical Society of America. There were actually 11 acoustical scientists who worked on the HSCA's acoustical evidence: BBN scientists James E. Barger, Scott P. Robinson, Edward C. Schmidt, Jared J. Wolf, Joseph F. Colaruotolo, Daniel N. Kalikow, Nancy M. McMahon, Theodore L. Rhyne, and Leo A. Sledjeski, and Queens College scientists Mark Weiss and Ernest Aschkenasy.

You should Google those scientists and see all of their accomplishments and the recognition they achieved in the field of acoustical science. Some of them are still active. Not a single critic of the acoustical evidence had/has credentials in acoustics that even come close to the credentials of HSCA acoustical scientists Barger, Colaruotolo, Rhyne, Schmidt, Wolf, Robinson, McMahon, Weiss, and Aschkenasy, and to the credentials of Dr. Mullen, the BBN acoustical scientist who conducted the new PCC test and authored an appendix in Thompson's 2021 book.

John Mytton:
Bowers first day affidavit.

I was on duty today and about 11:55 am I saw a dirty 1959 Oldsmobile Station Wagon come down the street toward my building. This street dead ends in the railroad yard. This car had out of state license plats with white background and black numbers, no letters. It also had a Goldwater for "64" sticker in the rear window. This car just drove around slowly and left the area. It was occupied by a middle aged white man partly grey hair.



At about 12:15 pm another car came into the area with a white man about 25 to 35 years old driving. This car was a 1957 Ford, Black, 2 door with Texas license. This man appeared to have a mike or telephone in the car. Just a few minutes after this car left at 12:20 pm.....



...at 12:20 pm another car pulled in. This car was a 1961 Chevrolet, Impala, 4 door, am not sure that this was a 4 door, color white and dirty up to the windows. This car also had a Goldwater for "64" sticker. This car was driven by a white male about 25 to 35 years old with long blond hair. He stayed in the area longer than the others. This car also had the XXX [strikeout] same type license plates as the 1959 Oldsmobile. He left this area about 12:25 pm. About 8 or 10 minutes after he left I heard at least 3 shots very close together.





Conclusion.

Over a timespan of just under half an hour, three cars looked for a place to park and then all three just left.
Nobody was dropped off, no car doubled parked because a parking ticket is so much more serious than murder!
This is one of the most lamest attempts of linking an innocent observation with a conspiracy, it's no wonder that Griffith is yet again grasping at straws and is yet again desperately endorsing go nowhere nonsense!

BTW, how does Bowers recall so many intricate details of three separate insignificant events??

JohnM

John Corbett:

--- Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on September 22, 2026, 01:09:07 AM ---LOL! Oh, yeah, you bet! I'm still waiting for you to provide credible, factual responses to the points I've made, but instead you've offered nothing but your usual error-filled, illogical, and evasive polemic.
--- End quote ---

You reject my credible, logical responses but that doesn't mean they haven't been given to you......multiple times.
--- Quote ---
Let's just briefly look at three examples:

HUH?! She gave her account to the Dallas Sheriff Department a Secret Service agent on the day of the shooting. Sheesh, how can you not know this and yet pretend to have any business talking about her account? Her account has been discussed in a zillion books on the JFK case. Even John McAdams acknowledged that she told the Sheriff Department and a Secret Service agent about what she saw on 11/22/63. Indeed, in a tacit admission that her initial accounts were credible, McAdams suggested she innocently mistook a tool box for a rifle case.

Yet you get on here and claim she didn't tell "law enforcement about what she saw"!
--- End quote ---

Did she tell them what she saw before or after the shooting? I think we both know the answer to that. I don't know what she saw or what she thought she saw but it's easy to embellish a story to make it seem relevant to the assassination. Her story would have had far more credibility and significance had she told law enforcement about it BEFORE the assassination. That's what I meant when I said she didn't tell law enforcement. She didn't tell them before the shooting when it could have made a difference.
--- Quote ---
This is just further proof that you have no business pretending that you're in any position to credibly comment on the JFK case. You repeatedly show that you don't even know what your side's leading advocates have said on the case.
--- End quote ---

If credibility were a requirement for commenting on the JFK assassination, you would have been banned from every JFK assassination forum decades ago.
--- Quote ---
You didn't offer one syllable to explain the facts I cited that show those "mundane reasons" make no sense.
--- End quote ---

Your excuses made no sense.
--- Quote ---
You ignored all the points I made and just repeated your claim. You didn't explain why a car would need several minutes to see if there was a parking space in that small parking lot. Nor did you explain why a car would need several minutes and longer to figure out that the extension road was the only way in and out of the small parking lot. Nor did you explain why three cars in a row in the space of 25 minutes would have turned onto the extension road in the first place when it obviously led to a small parking lot that was next to the railroad yard.
--- End quote ---

As long as we are demanding explanations, explain why your conspirators would drive around for several minutes in a small parking lot and then leave. You are the one claiming these cars had some connection to the shooting so the burden is on you to establish that. I have no burden to prove that they were not connected. Once more you have assumed something you cannot prove.
--- Quote ---
LOL! Hello? Did you simply not read all of the information that I've documented about the acoustical evidence and about the errors and omissions in the attacks on the acoustical evidence in my previous replies? Was the vocabulary too challenging? What "entire body of evidence" are you talking about?
--- End quote ---

For starters, Lee Bowers' observation that there was no gunman behind the stockade fence at the time he heard the shots.

Despite numerous people rushing to the area immediately after the shooting, no one saw a man with a rifle in the area behind the stockade fence.

There were no wounds to either JFK or JBC that were caused by a frontal shot.

So if someone fired a shot from the GK, he did so without being seen during or immediately after the shooting.
 
The vast majority of earwitnesses, regardless of where they believed the shots came from, said they heard 3 shots which matches the number of spent shell found in the sniper's nest.

The GK shooter left no spent shells.

No bullets were recovered except for the two fire from Oswald's rifle.

No wounds to either JFK or JBC caused by a shot from the GK.

You made a big deal about Oswald missing the whole limo with his first shot. Apparently your GK shooter did the same.
--- Quote ---
I know you've probably already tuned out and that this will go in one ear and out the other, but I present the following for the sake of newcomers to the thread:

The entire "scientific" case against the acoustical evidence was based (1) on the NRC/NAS panel's bogus assumption that there was a 60-second recording pause on Channel 2, and (2) on the resulting claim that the Decker "hold everything" transmission was crosstalk and that therefore the dictabelt's impulses were recorded after the assassination. Linsker and his buddies whittled down the alleged recording pause to 35 seconds, but they did not explain, and still have not explained, how this could have occurred without disrupting the timing of the dispatcher's subsequent transmissions (those transmissions came 60 seconds apart, just as they should have, proving there was no recoding pause on Channel 2).

As mentioned in previous replies, several scientists pointed out years ago that for the recording-pause theory to even be theoretically possible, there would have had to be an offset in the dispatcher time notations on the dictabelt after that point, but there isn't one. The 12:35 and 12:36 time notations occur exactly five and six minutes respectively after the 12:30 time notation.

The new research, including a new PCC test, done by BBN acoustical scientists from 2015-2018 proves (1) that the Fisher "I'll check" transmission is crosstalk, which means the tape's impulse patterns must have been recorded during the assassination, and (2) that the Decker transmission is an overdub created during the copying process and wasn't even recorded at the same speed as the acknowledged crosstalk transmissions.

BTW, are Linsker and his colleagues (all of whom served on the NRC/NAS panel) ever going to respond to Dr. Thomas's 2010 53-page demolition of their 2005 attack on Thomas's 2001 article on the acoustical evidence? Just wondering. Are they going to respond to the appendices on the acoustical evidence written by Dr. Barger and Dr. Richard Mullen in Thompson's 2021 book Last Second in Dallas? Again, just wondering.

It bears repeating that the NRC/NAS panel made no effort to explain the presences of gunfire N-waves on the dictabelt and the windshield-distortion correlations identified in the tape's impulse patterns. What's more, the NRC/NAS panel (1) acknowledged there was a 93% probability that the timing-movement correlations identified by the HSCA's acoustical experts occurred because the dictabelt was recorded during the assassination, and (2) acknowledged there was a 77.7% probability that the 144.9 impulse pattern was caused by gunfire from the grassy knoll, and they only rejected the HSCA's 95+% probability for the grass knoll shot by introducing two egregious errors into their calculations.

You might want to know that, contrary to what your fellow WC apologists usually pretend, we're not "only" talking about Barger, Weiss, and Aschkenasy as the HSCA's acoustical experts, although they were outstanding acoustical scientists who were recommended to the HSCA by the Acoustical Society of America. There were actually 10 acoustical scientists who worked on the HSCA's acoustical evidence: BBN scientists James Barger, Daniel Kalikow, Theodore L. Rhyne, Edward C. Schmidt, Jared Wolf, Scott P. Robinson, and Nancy M. McMahon, and Queens College scientists Mark Weiss, Ernest Aschkenasy, and Ali Ghozati.

You should Google those scientists and see all of their accomplishments and the recognition they achieved in the field of acoustical science. Some of them are still active. Not a single critic of the acoustical evidence had/has credentials in acoustics that even come close to the credentials of HSCA acoustical scientists Barger, Rhyne, Schmidt, Wolf, Robinson, McMahon, Weiss, and Aschkenasy, and to the credentials of Dr. Mullen, the BBN acoustical scientist who conducted the new PCC test and authored an appendix in Thompson's 2021 book.

--- End quote ---

The following website give a good summation of the arguments for an against the acoustic evidence showing a GK shooter. The following passage sums up the situation fairly succinctly:

"Sources do not provide a single, universally accepted resolution; expert opinion remains divided and many critiques focus on timing, statistical assumptions and recording artifacts rather than on the raw waveform matches alone."

Notice I did not resort to MTG's practice of clipping a few words out of context. I quoted an entire sentence and provided a link to the entire article for others to judge.

Michael T. Griffith:

--- Quote from: John Corbett on September 22, 2026, 11:33:31 AM ---You reject my credible, logical responses but that doesn't mean they haven't been given to you......multiple times.
Did she tell them what she saw before or after the shooting? I think we both know the answer to that. I don't know what she saw or what she thought she saw but it's easy to embellish a story to make it seem relevant to the assassination. Her story would have had far more credibility and significance had she told law enforcement about it BEFORE the assassination. That's what I meant when I said she didn't tell law enforcement. She didn't tell them before the shooting when it could have made a difference.
If credibility were a requirement for commenting on the JFK assassination, you would have been banned from every JFK assassination forum decades ago.
Your excuses made no sense.
As long as we are demanding explanations, explain why your conspirators would drive around for several minutes in a small parking lot and then leave. You are the one claiming these cars had some connection to the shooting so the burden is on you to establish that. I have no burden to prove that they were not connected. Once more you have assumed something you cannot prove.
For starters, Lee Bowers' observation that there was no gunman behind the stockade fence at the time he heard the shots.

Despite numerous people rushing to the area immediately after the shooting, no one saw a man with a rifle in the area behind the stockade fence.

There were no wounds to either JFK or JBC that were caused by a frontal shot.

So if someone fired a shot from the GK, he did so without being seen during or immediately after the shooting.
 
The vast majority of earwitnesses, regardless of where they believed the shots came from, said they heard 3 shots which matches the number of spent shell found in the sniper's nest.

The GK shooter left no spent shells.

No bullets were recovered except for the two fire from Oswald's rifle.

No wounds to either JFK or JBC caused by a shot from the GK.

You made a big deal about Oswald missing the whole limo with his first shot. Apparently your GK shooter did the same.
The following website give a good summation of the arguments for an against the acoustic evidence showing a GK shooter. The following passage sums up the situation fairly succinctly:

"Sources do not provide a single, universally accepted resolution; expert opinion remains divided and many critiques focus on timing, statistical assumptions and recording artifacts rather than on the raw waveform matches alone."

Notice I did not resort to MTG's practice of clipping a few words out of context. I quoted an entire sentence and provided a link to the entire article for others to judge.

--- End quote ---

I've already proved to you in numerous exchanges in this forum that every one of these arguments is either false or misleading or irrelevant. And I notice you again made no effort to explain the facts that validate the HSCA's acoustical findings.

Let's try this: How about if you just answer one straightforward question? Here it is:

If the dictabelt did not record gunfire in Dealey Plaza during the assassination, how did N-waves get on the dictabelt -- not crude, superficial N-waves from random noise but gunfire N-waves with muzzle blasts and muzzle-blast echoes, in the correct order and interval, and only when the microphone was in position to record them?

I'll even give you a big hint: The NRC/NAS panel did not even mention the N-wave evidence, much less try to explain it, even though they knew it was a major item of evidence that the HSCA's acoustical scientists justifiably cited as powerful support for their findings.

Ah, heck, I'll give you another big hint: The Linsker group (Linsker, Garwin, Chernoff, Horowitz, and Ramsey) that responded to Dr. Thomas's 2001 article on the acoustical evidence did not lay a finger on the N-wave evidence either, even though four of them had served on the NRC/NAS panel and thus were well aware that this was a major item of evidence that the panel had ignored.

I'll even give you some study notes to help you answer the question.

Dr. David Scheim, who holds a doctorate in mathematics from MIT:

Moreover, an "N-wave," characteristic of supersonic gunfire, appeared in each dictabelt impulse for which the police microphone was in an appropriate position to detect it, including the recorded sound of the third shot [i.e., 144.9 impulse pattern/the grassy knoll shot]. (The Mafia Killed President Kennedy, 1988, pp. 27-28)

Dr. G. Paul Chambers, a physicist who has worked with NASA, with the Naval Surface Warfare Center, and with the Naval Research Laboratory:

In Dealey Plaza, echoes from gunshot test patterns arrive in two discrete [different] clusters, differing in time by about 190 ms. Echoes originating from structures along Elm Street arrive within 85 ms, while echoes from structures farther back on Houston Street arrive in the last 95 ms of a typical 370-ms-duration test pattern. In addition, a “muzzle blast” is usually prominent at the beginning of a gunshot acoustical pattern, while an N-wave (a shock wave traveling faster than the speed of sound due to the rifle bullet exceeding the sound barrier) arrives prior to the muzzle blast. The waveform identified as the grassy knoll shot is shown in figure 13. The presence of an N-wave in this waveform was consistent with the acoustical signature of a supersonic rifle bullet. (Head Shot: The Science Behind the JFK Assassination, 2010 pp. 101-102)

John Corbett:

--- Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on September 22, 2026, 05:10:36 PM ---I've already proved to you in numerous exchanges in this forum that every one of these arguments is either false or misleading or irrelevant.
--- End quote ---

You've declared that many times. We have yet to see the proof.
--- Quote ---

And I notice you again made no effort to explain the facts that validate the HSCA's acoustical findings.
--- End quote ---

Unlike you, I don't pretend to be an expert in all these highly technical fields pertaining to the JFKA. i've seen how foolish you make yourself look when you try,
--- Quote ---
Let's try this: How about if you just answer one straightforward question? Here it is:

If the dictabelt did not record gunfire in Dealey Plaza during the assassination, how did N-waves get on the dictabelt -- not crude, superficial N-waves from random noise but gunfire N-waves with muzzle blasts and muzzle-blast echoes, in the correct order and interval, and only when the microphone was in position to record them?
--- End quote ---

There are no muzzle blasts on the Dictabelt recording. That much I do know. I know what a muzzle blast from a rifle sounds like and it sounds nothing like the impulses on the recording.
--- Quote ---
I'll even give you a big hint: The NRC/NAS panel did not even mention the N-wave evidence, much less try to explain it, even though they knew it was a major item of evidence that the HSCA's acoustical scientists justifiably cited as powerful support for their findings.
--- End quote ---

Apparently, they too recognized those weren't muzzle blasts.
--- Quote ---
Ah, heck, I'll give you another big hint: The Linsker group (Linsker, Garwin, Chernoff, Horowitz, and Ramsey) that responded to Dr. Thomas's 2001 article on the acoustical evidence did not lay a finger on the N-wave evidence either, even though four of them had served on the NRC/NAS panel and thus were well aware that this was a major item of evidence that the panel had ignored.
--- End quote ---

They also didn't hear muzzle blasts.
--- Quote ---
I'll even give you some study notes to help you answer the question.

Dr. David Scheim, who holds a doctorate in mathematics from MIT:

Moreover, an "N-wave," characteristic of supersonic gunfire, appeared in each dictabelt impulse for which the police microphone was in an appropriate position to detect it, including the recorded sound of the third shot [i.e., 144.9 impulse pattern/the grassy knoll shot]. (The Mafia Killed President Kennedy, 1988, pp. 27-28)

Dr. G. Paul Chambers, a physicist who has worked with NASA, with the Naval Surface Warfare Center, and with the Naval Research Laboratory:

In Dealey Plaza, echoes from gunshot test patterns arrive in two discrete [different] clusters, differing in time by about 190 ms. Echoes originating from structures along Elm Street arrive within 85 ms, while echoes from structures farther back on Houston Street arrive in the last 95 ms of a typical 370-ms-duration test pattern. In addition, a “muzzle blast” is usually prominent at the beginning of a gunshot acoustical pattern, while an N-wave (a shock wave traveling faster than the speed of sound due to the rifle bullet exceeding the sound barrier) arrives prior to the muzzle blast. The waveform identified as the grassy knoll shot is shown in figure 13. The presence of an N-wave in this waveform was consistent with the acoustical signature of a supersonic rifle bullet. (Head Shot: The Science Behind the JFK Assassination, 2010 pp. 101-102)

--- End quote ---

Being a mathematician or a physicist does not qualify one as an expert in acoustics. What we have are conflicting opinions of people who are experts as to whether the Dictabelt recording is of gunshots fired during the assassination. Jurors in both civil and criminal cases are often presented with conflicting expert testimony. They are tasked with determining which side has presented the more credible expert testimony. One of the ways they have of doing that is determining which viewpoint fits the body of evidence as a whole. There is absolutely no other credible evidence of a gunshot on the GK. No bullets were recovered except for the two fired by Oswald's rifle. No discarded shells were found except for the three in the sniper's nest which was on the same floor as Oswald's rifle which was positively matched to the only recovered bullets and shells. Neither JFK nor JBC were hit by shots fired fro anywhere in front of them. A witness with a perfect view of the area behind the stockade fence didn't see a shooter at any time before, during, or after he heard the shots. Neither did any of the people who raced to that area following the shots. In short, their is no credible evidence to corroborate the opinion that the Dictabelt recorded gunshots during the shooting. That makes it easy for me to decide whether to believe the experts who said the recording was of gunshots or the experts who said it was not. 

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page