Acoustic Evidence

[Steve M. Galbraith]

This is a mix of your usual evasion, omission, and confusion, coupled with some downright silly stuff. I'm only going to bother answering some of the points.

How would Newman's being in "close proximity" to the headshot have caused Newman to hear a bullet whiz by him from behind? Newman was 15 feet from the limo at Z313 and the limo was to his left front. So do tell me how a bullet traveling from the sixth-floor window and hitting JFK's head 15 feet away to Newman's left front would have caused him to hear a bullet whiz by him from behind. You realize that Newman was so certain that gunfire was coming from behind him that he dropped down to the ground, right?

Oh, yes, Zapruder most certainly did categorically tell the SS that the gunman was positioned behind him. He expressed no qualification or uncertainty whatsoever, nor did he say that this was merely his "impression." He only started to waffle about the gunman's location later on.

So three cars doing an obvious recon in the parking lot behind the knoll in the 25 minutes leading up to the shooting, after the area had been sealed off by police, and with one of the drivers talking into a microphone -- nah, that's not suspicious at all, huh? Yeah, okay. You'll never admit anything if it contradicts the lone-gunman myth.

Show me where in Lee Bowers' WC testimony he said he did not see a gunman behind the fence. Give me the page number. His testimony is in 6 H 284-289. Where does he say he didn't see a gunman behind the fence?

Lee Bowers told Mark Lane there was no one behind the fence at the time of the shooting:

"Now I could see back or the South side of the wooden fence in the area, so that obviously that there was no one there who could have, uh - had anything to do with either - as accomplice or anything else because there was no one there, um, at the moment the shots were fired."

He also said he heard three shots. Not four. Or five. And they all came from either end of Elm Street; either by the Depository or "the mouth of the triple underpass". He wasn't sure. Three shots. All from one location.

This key witness you are promoting completely demolishes your conspiracy.

Link: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/pdf/lane_interviews/bowers.pdf

[Steve Barber]

 MTG said:

-- William Newman, a combat veteran, said he heard a shot come from behind him on the knoll and that he heard the whiz of the bullet as it passed near him. As someone who heard bullets whiz above him in the Army, I know exactly what Newman was describing."

 Bill Newman did not serve in the military, and certainly wasn't a "Vet"...  Look it up! 

You conjure up some real fantasies, MTG!:

 https://www.dallasnews.com/news/2012/11/10/couple-who-witnessed-jfk-assassination-recall-infamous-day-the-shots-rang-out/

[Michael T. Griffith]

Lee Bowers told Mark Lane there was no one behind the fence at the time of the shooting:

"Now I could see back or the South side of the wooden fence in the area, so that obviously that there was no one there who could have, uh - had anything to do with either - as accomplice or anything else because there was no one there, um, at the moment the shots were fired."

He also said he heard three shots. Not four. Or five. And they all came from either end of Elm Street; either by the Depository or "the mouth of the triple underpass". He wasn't sure. Three shots. All from one location.

This key witness you are promoting completely demolishes your conspiracy. Link: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/pdf/lane_interviews/bowers.pdf

No, he does not. By the time Bowers talked with Mark Lane, he was afraid to say anything that would expressly place a gunman on the grassy knoll. Were both of his friends who spoke on the record lying when they disclosed that Bowers did not tell the WC everything he saw? Was Bowers' wife lying when she said her husband was warned not to talk?

And you guys do nothing but present labored, dubious denials when it comes to the clear implication of Bowers' testimony about the three cars that did an obvious recon of the area behind the knoll in the 20-30 minutes leading up to the assassination. The cars clearly weren't looking for a parking space. Bowers himself noted that the cars appeared to be "probing" the area, and that the second car's driver appeared to be talking into a microphone. But, oh, nah, according to you, this was just some strange, cosmic coincidence that just "must" have an innocent explanation, even though you can't provide one that makes any sense.

As for the number of shots that Bowers said he heard, it is rather lame to cite this as some kind of concrete proof that only three shots were fired. Some witnesses said they heard four or more shots. A number of witnesses said they only heard two shots. A few witnesses said they only heard one shot. The scientific acoustical evidence proves that at least four shots were fired, and the Zapruder film shows six reactions to gunfire.

And I notice you said nothing about Bowers' statement that two of the shots came in very rapid succession, too quickly to have been fired by the same person if using a bolt-action rifle. In fact, a number of witnesses said the thing, that two of the shots came right on top of each other, as "bang, bang," with virtually no break in between. But, yeah, never mind that, right?

Bill Newman did not serve in the military, and certainly wasn't a "Vet"...  Look it up!

You are correct. I was thinking of Charles Brehm.

[John Corbett]

And I notice you said nothing about Bowers' statement that two of the shots came in very rapid succession, too quickly to have been fired by the same person if using a bolt-action rifle. In fact, a number of witnesses said the thing, that two of the shots came right on top of each other, as "bang, bang," with virtually no break in between. But, yeah, never mind that, right?

You are correct. I was thinking of Charles Brehm.

I almost had the big one when I read this. MTG admitted he was wrong. Surely this is a sign of the Apocalypse.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

No, he does not. By the time Bowers talked with Mark Lane, he was afraid to say anything that would expressly place a gunman on the grassy knoll. Were both of his friends who spoke on the record lying when they disclosed that Bowers did not tell the WC everything he saw? Was Bowers' wife lying when she said her husband was warned not to talk?

And you guys do nothing but present labored, dubious denials when it comes to the clear implication of Bowers' testimony about the three cars that did an obvious recon of the area behind the knoll in the 20-30 minutes leading up to the assassination. The cars clearly weren't looking for a parking space. Bowers himself noted that the cars appeared to be "probing" the area, and that the second car's driver appeared to be talking into a microphone. But, oh, nah, according to you, this was just some strange, cosmic coincidence that just "must" have an innocent explanation, even though you can't provide one that makes any sense.

As for the number of shots that Bowers said he heard, it is rather lame to cite this as some kind of concrete proof that only three shots were fired. Some witnesses said they heard four or more shots. A number of witnesses said they only heard two shots. A few witnesses said they only heard one shot. The scientific acoustical evidence proves that at least four shots were fired, and the Zapruder film shows six reactions to gunfire.

And I notice you said nothing about Bowers' statement that two of the shots came in very rapid succession, too quickly to have been fired by the same person if using a bolt-action rifle. In fact, a number of witnesses said the thing, that two of the shots came right on top of each other, as "bang, bang," with virtually no break in between. But, yeah, never mind that, right?

You are correct. I was thinking of Charles Brehm.

Bowers said he didn't see anyone behind the fence at the time of the shooting. Period. He testified that the two people he did see were standing IN FRONT of the fence towards the mouth of the underpass. Not behind it. You cannot stand behind the fence and be near the mouth of the underpass. And he said the shots he heard - three - came from either the TSBD or the underpass. Nowhere else. None from behind the fence. He alone completely demolishes all of your conspiracy beliefs.

Here is his testimony on the men he saw:

Mr. BOWERS - Directly in line, towards the mouth of the underpass, there were two men. One man, middle-aged, or slightly older, fairly heavy-set, in a white shirt, fairly dark trousers. Another younger man, about midtwenties, in either a plaid shirt or plaid coat or jacket.

Later:
Mr. BOWERS - At the time of the shooting there seemed to be some commotion, and immediately following there was a motorcycle policeman who shot nearly all of the way to the top of the incline.
Mr. BALL - On his motorcycle?
Mr. BOWERS - Yes.
Mr. BOWERS - He came up into this area where there are some trees, and where I had described the two men were in the general vicinity of this.
Mr. BALL - Were the two men there at the time?
Mr. BOWERS - I--as far as I know, one of them was. The other I could not say. The darker dressed man was too hard to distinguish from the trees. The white shirt, yes; I think he was.

So the motorcycle officer (Haygood) went up to where the two men were standing (he was wrong about this; Haygood got off his motorcycle). That was in FRONT of the fence NOT behind it. And again he heard no shot from behind the fence. He testified that he thought the three shots - three not four or five but three - all came from either the TSBD or the underpass.

Again: Bowers said he never saw anyone BEHIND the fence. Could he be wrong? Of course, witnesses often are. But that's not the question here.

The two men he saw - the older man and the man in the plaid shirt/jacket - can be seen in the Muchmore film (frame below). Why he didn't see the black man/couple is a good question.

[Mitch Todd]

No, he does not. By the time Bowers talked with Mark Lane, he was afraid to say anything that would expressly place a gunman on the grassy knoll. Were both of his friends who spoke on the record lying when they disclosed that Bowers did not tell the WC everything he saw? Was Bowers' wife lying when she said her husband was warned not to talk?

And you guys do nothing but present labored, dubious denials when it comes to the clear implication of Bowers' testimony about the three cars that did an obvious recon of the area behind the knoll in the 20-30 minutes leading up to the assassination. The cars clearly weren't looking for a parking space. Bowers himself noted that the cars appeared to be "probing" the area, and that the second car's driver appeared to be talking into a microphone. But, oh, nah, according to you, this was just some strange, cosmic coincidence that just "must" have an innocent explanation, even though you can't provide one that makes any sense.

As for the number of shots that Bowers said he heard, it is rather lame to cite this as some kind of concrete proof that only three shots were fired. Some witnesses said they heard four or more shots. A number of witnesses said they only heard two shots. A few witnesses said they only heard one shot. The scientific acoustical evidence proves that at least four shots were fired, and the Zapruder film shows six reactions to gunfire.

And I notice you said nothing about Bowers' statement that two of the shots came in very rapid succession, too quickly to have been fired by the same person if using a bolt-action rifle. In fact, a number of witnesses said the thing, that two of the shots came right on top of each other, as "bang, bang," with virtually no break in between. But, yeah, never mind that, right?

You are correct. I was thinking of Charles Brehm.

MG: No, he does not.

No, it's exactly what he says. Did you not read the interview transcript?


MG: By the time Bowers talked with Mark Lane, he was afraid to say anything that would expressly place a gunman on the grassy knoll. Were both of his friends who spoke on the record lying when they disclosed that Bowers did not tell the WC everything he saw? Was Bowers' wife lying when she said her husband was warned not to talk?

You did read Six Seconds in Dallas and Last Second in Dallas, specifically where Thompson discusses Bowers and relates what Bowers told him, right? Also, the source for Bowers' widow is Penn Jones, who is worth less than a hill of beans as a source. 


MG: And you guys do nothing but present labored, dubious denials when it comes to the clear implication of Bowers' testimony about the three cars that did an obvious recon of the area behind the knoll in the 20-30 minutes leading up to the assassination.

He saw three cars cruising around a parking lot. Like people do when they are looking for a place to park for an impending event about to occur nearby. The sort of thing that people see every day, everywhere. There is no mystery here, no matter what you and your fellow CTs so desperately want to believe.


MG: The scientific acoustical evidence proves that at least four shots were fired

The "acoustic evidence" is crap, based on a novel and unproven procedure. With the changes that were made by the courts in the 1990s, it probably wouldn't be admissible in a trial today.


the Zapruder film shows six reactions to gunfire.

And we're back to that happy little game where every movement someone in the limo makes is "a reaction" and then "a reaction to a gunshot."

[Michael T. Griffith]

Galbraith: Bowers said he didn't see anyone behind the fence at the time of the shooting.

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.

Mitch Todd: He saw three cars cruising around a parking lot. Like people do when they are looking for a place to park for an impending event about to occur nearby. The sort of thing that people see every day, everywhere. There is no mystery here, no matter what you and your fellow CTs so desperately want to believe.

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?

Mitch Todd: The "acoustic evidence" is crap, based on a novel and unproven procedure.

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.

Mitch Todd:With the changes that were made by the courts in the 1990s, it probably wouldn't be admissible in a trial today.

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).   

Mitch Todd:And we're back to that happy little game where every movement someone in the limo makes is "a reaction" and then "a reaction to a gunshot."

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).

MG: 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.

Corbett: One deployed his men to the railroad yard and one to the overpass.

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."

Corbett: Both [Curry and Decker] were guessing.

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.