Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: Acoustic Evidence  (Read 319 times)

Online John Corbett

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2471
Re: Acoustic Evidence
« Reply #7 on: Yesterday at 03:04:56 PM »
"Premier Kissov."? <chuckle> Of Dr. Strangelove fame? <chuckle>

Was he assisted by Boris and Natasha Badanov?
« Last Edit: Yesterday at 03:07:11 PM by John Corbett »

Online Royell Storing

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5688
Re: Acoustic Evidence
« Reply #8 on: Yesterday at 03:10:14 PM »

  Thompson is now 91 yrs old. He wrote his final book 5 yrs ago. Do the math. The man is and has been incapable of coherently defending his long held JFK Assassination positions for a while now. He more than merits being left alone at this point in his life.

Offline Steve Barber

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 571
Re: Acoustic Evidence
« Reply #9 on: Yesterday at 03:34:08 PM »
Mr. Sanders, I would actually encourage you to read the sources that Steve Barber cites, in addition to reading the sources that I've cited. If you do, you will see that Barber's sources do not even address the main points of evidence that support the findings of the HSCA's acoustical scientists.

One of the most frequently cited attacks on Dr. Thompson's 100-plus-page presentation on the acoustical evidence in his book Last Second in Dallas is a 14-page critique written by Louis Girdler, writing under the pseudonym "Premier Kissov." If you read it, you'll notice that Girdler says absolutely nothing about the new BBN research (such as Dr. Richard Mullen's PCC testing of the Decker transmission, which proves it is an overdub and not crosstalk), and says nothing about the impossible recording-pause theory, which was the crucial assumption of the debunked Decker-crosstalk argument ("'Your Lying Eyes'--Josiah Thompson's Lonely Labrinth: A Critical Review of 'Last Second in Dallas,'" pp. 27-40, published on the Kennedy Assassination Home Page, a pro-Warren Commission website).

Instead, Girdler simply rehashes some of the arguments made (1) by the NRC/NAS panel, (2) by Anthony Pellicano (who actually accidentally provided strong evidence against the recording-pause theory and provided evidence that the bell sound on the dictabelt does not prove it was not recorded in Dealey Plaza during the shooting), (3) by the FBI's Technical Services Division (who employed no acoustical scientists and proved they didn't even understand how N-waves can be identified in audio recordings), (4) by some Sonalyst analysts (who didn't even understand how AGC works), and (5) by amateurs such as Jim Bowles and Michael O'Dell.

The foundational assumption of the argument that the Decker transmission proved the impulse patterns on the dictablet were recorded after the assassination was the specious (and now debunked) assumption that Channel 2 on the dictabelt stopped recording for 31 to 60 seconds.

As several scientists pointed out years ago, for this recording-pause theory to even be theoretically possible, there would have to be an offset in the dispatcher time notations on the dictabelt after that point, but there is none. The 12:35 and 12:36 time notations occur exactly five and six minutes respectively after the 12:30 time notation. The NRC/NAS failed to explain this fact, as did Linsker, Garwin, Chernoff, Horowitz, and Ramsey in their 2005 rebuttal to Dr. Don Thomas's 2001 article on the acoustical evidence.

You would think that any critical review of Thompson's book would deal with the historic new BBN research on the acoustical evidence, especially the two appendices written by Dr. Barger and Dr. Mullen, but Girdler says nothing about any of this. Girdler also says nothing about the NRC/NAS panel's admissions about the high probabilities of the timing-movement correlations and the grassy knoll shot, nor about the windshield-distortion correlations.

 Mr. Sanders,

 In response to what M. Griffith is saying, I am merely pointing out to you one simple fact regarding your question about the contents in the acoustics chapter in Tink Thompson's book:  The fact that there are heterodyne tones surrounding the transmission about 3 seconds before the first  "shot" sound that was said to have been recorded on the Dictabelt, proves that the speech on the Dictabelt that Don Thomas claims is crosstalk is not and can not be crosstalk for the reasons I stated in my article.  I don't have to get into a lot of mumbo-jumbo to try to prove my point, as it is a fact that disproves the conclusions by Don Thomas.

 Here is the link to my appearance during an interview with Fred Litwin earlier this year on his YouTube "On The Trail of Delusion" .  Move to 38:40 into the video where I am discussing-and Fred is playing-the two separate recordings, comparing the channel 1 transmission which Thomas claimed contains "crosstalk" and the channel two transmission itself, made by police officer N.T. Fisher.

 

 I hope this will be of some help .

Online Michael T. Griffith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
    • JFK Assassination Website
Re: Acoustic Evidence
« Reply #10 on: Yesterday at 08:10:25 PM »
Thompson is now 91 yrs old. He wrote his final book 5 yrs ago. Do the math. The man is and has been incapable of coherently defending his long held JFK Assassination positions for a while now. He more than merits being left alone at this point in his life.

When I talked with Thompson in 2022, he seemed quite lucid and in full possession of his faculties.

Online Royell Storing

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5688
Re: Acoustic Evidence
« Reply #11 on: Yesterday at 10:00:44 PM »
When I talked with Thompson in 2022, he seemed quite lucid and in full possession of his faculties.

    The presentation Thompson made at the Sixth Floor following the release of his last book was very disjointed. He even apologized at the conclusion of this presentation.  After that, I saw him give an extended interview on "NewsNation". I've also viewed him doing a YOU TUBE interview from inside his study. All 3 of these focusing on the acoustic issue. He just is Not up to discussing this very complicated issue in a coherent manner for an extended period of time. An extended period of time being More Than 2 minutes. He's just not up to it.

Online John Corbett

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2471
Re: Acoustic Evidence
« Reply #12 on: Yesterday at 10:01:30 PM »
Age is just a number. Warren Buffet is well into his 90s and until recently was managing over a trillion dollars of other people's money. I wish he had been managing some of mine but at Berkshire-Hathaway's current stock price north of $757,000 a share, it was a little out of my price range.

People were constantly making an issue of Joe Biden's age, which wasn't the problem. It was his obvious decline in mental acuity. Trump is only a few years younger than Biden and yet he remains vibrant. I know the lefties want to compare his acuity to Biden's which is a joke. Biden worked at most 4 hours a day. Trump has been known to be tweeting well past midnight. As many Diet Cokes as he drinks, it's a wonder he can sleep at all.  Reportedly, he only sleeps 4 - 5 hours a night.
« Last Edit: Yesterday at 10:04:38 PM by John Corbett »

Online Royell Storing

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5688
Re: Acoustic Evidence
« Reply #13 on: Yesterday at 11:28:25 PM »
Age is just a number. Warren Buffet is well into his 90s and until recently was managing over a trillion dollars of other people's money. I wish he had been managing some of mine but at Berkshire-Hathaway's current stock price north of $757,000 a share, it was a little out of my price range.

People were constantly making an issue of Joe Biden's age, which wasn't the problem. It was his obvious decline in mental acuity. Trump is only a few years younger than Biden and yet he remains vibrant. I know the lefties want to compare his acuity to Biden's which is a joke. Biden worked at most 4 hours a day. Trump has been known to be tweeting well past midnight. As many Diet Cokes as he drinks, it's a wonder he can sleep at all.  Reportedly, he only sleeps 4 - 5 hours a night.

   I don't know what Trump is drinking, but the Coca-Cola of today is Not the Coca-Cola of yesterday. And that goes for the Coca-Cola in the Slurpee's at 7-11. A Coke Slurpee today is pure  BS: compared to the slurpee's coming out of 7-11 in the 70's.