Acoustic Evidence

[John Corbett]

Another long winded post by MTG in which he tries to make up with quantity what his posts lack in quality. I have things to do today and I have no intention of spending an hour or more going over the same well trodden ground again. I'll suffice with just a few comments.

I don't claim to be and never have been unbiased regarding the question of whether Oswald acted alone. For most of the past 62+ years I have believed that Oswald acted alone. There were a few years in the 1980s in which my bias had shifted to the conspiracy side, but even during that period, I never doubted that Oswald had fired the kill shot from the TSBD sniper's nest. I soon came to the realization that the evidence for conspiracy was mostly bogus and uncompelling and have firmly believed since the late 1980s that Oswald had indeed acted alone. While I still allow for a sliver of theoretical possibility that Oswald could have had one or a few co-conspirators for which there is no compelling evidence. If he had even a single accomplice, that would constitute a conspiracy. If that con-conspirator had escaped justice, the body of evidence would look pretty much the same as if Oswald had acted alone. I don't believe for a minute that is the case, but logically I cannot rule it out.

There is one exception to my position that there is no evidence of a conspiracy and that is the acoustic findings of BBN. While that evidence is controversial and disputed, it would probably be admissible had the case gone to trial and it had been discovered much earlier than it had been. It wouldn't have helped Oswald's cause much because whether he acted alone or as part of a conspiracy, in the eyes of the law, he would still be guilty of murder one and likely sentenced to death. I doubt very much if that sentence would have been carried out before SCOTUS invalidated all death penalty statutes in the early 1970s and commuted the sentences of all death row inmates to life in prison. Oswald might still be living out his final years in the Texas penitentiary as his 87th birthday approached.

As far as the acoustic evidence goes, there are arguments both for an against its credibility. It comes down to which set of scientists one chooses to believe. I look at that evidence the way a juror would at trial when presented with conflicting expert testimony. A juror does not have to be knowledgeable in highly technical areas to make a judgement about which side has presented the more compelling arguments. Having served on four juries, I know that judges instruct jurors to make up their minds as to which witnesses are more credible. In making such judgements, one of the ways jurors can determine which side has made the more compelling case is to look at the body of evidence as a whole to determine which side's arguments best fits the body of evidence as a whole. In the case of the acoustic evidence, that's an easy call. There simply is no corroborating evidence to support the conclusion that a shot was fired from the GK. No eyewitnesses. No recovered bullets or shells other than those fired by Oswald's rifle. No wounds suffered by either victim which could have been caused by a shot from the front right of them. There are good arguments that the recording is not even from Dealey Plaza during the shooting. There is crosstalk from the other channel which suggests the recording was made about a minute after the shooting. Dale Myers has put together photographic evidence that shows the motorcycle believed to have had the stuck open microphone could not have been where BBN determined it was during the shooting which BBN's own analysis said it needed to be for their findings to be valid. In short, the preponderance of evidence clearly indicates to me the Dictabelt recording does not indicate gunshots fired in Dealey Plaza at the time JFK was assassinated.

[Michael T. Griffith]

There are good arguments that the recording is not even from Dealey Plaza during the shooting. There is crosstalk from the other channel which suggests the recording was made about a minute after the shooting.

Are you kidding? Are you seriously repeating this bogus argument after all the information and sources I've presented to you on the subject? I devoted many paragraphs to explain to you how the crosstalk argument has been debunked and why the crosstalk argument was wrong from its inception because it was based on the scientifically impossible theory that Channel 2 stopped recording for 35-60 seconds.

It is unbelievable that you would repeat this false claim after all the information and sources you have been given on the subject. Why do you suppose that Linsker and his colleagues could offer no evidence that Channel 2 stopped recording for 35 seconds, and why they said nothing in response to Dr. Thomas's 53-page rebuttal to their 2005 article?

Are you going to continue to ignore the new research by BBN scientists that proves that the Decker transmission is not crosstalk but an overdub that wasn't even recorded at the same speed as the acknowledged crosstalk transmissions, and that proves that the Fisher transmission was crosstalk, proving that the impulse patterns were recording the during the assassination in Dealey Plaza? You might read Dr. Barger's and Dr. Mullen's appendices in Thompson's Last Second in Dallas.

Dale Myers has put together photographic evidence that shows the motorcycle believed to have had the stuck open microphone could not have been where BBN determined it was during the shooting which BBN's own analysis said it needed to be for their findings to be valid.

Huh? Did you miss the part in my reply where I noted that Dr. Thomas has refuted Myers' error-filled analysis? I even provided you with a link to Dr. Thomas's response to Myers' article and a lengthy extract from it. But you ignored the extract and obviously didn't bother to read the article.

This is another example of your habit of repeating false claims even after you have been given information and links to scholarly sources that document why they're false.

I ask again: If the dictabelt was not recorded in Dealey Plaza during the shooting, as Myers claims, then how does he explain (1) the fact that the dictabelt contains gunfire N-waves whose locations match two locations of gunfire from the HSCA test firing in Dealey Plaza, (2) the fact that the dictablet contains soundwaves that were slightly distorted by passing through a windshield and only at the precise times when the microphone was in position to record them in Dealey Plaza as established by the test firing, and (3) the fact that the HSCA's acoustical experts identified stunning timing-movement correlations between the microphone movement indicated by the dictabelt's impulse patterns and the microphone movement established by the impulse patterns from the test-firing recording, correlations that were so strong that even the NRC/NAS panel admitted there was a 93% probability they occurred because the dictablet recorded gunfire in Dealey Plaza?

In short, the preponderance of evidence clearly indicates to me the Dictabelt recording does not indicate gunshots fired in Dealey Plaza at the time JFK was assassinated.

In short, you should have stuck with your fallback line of "I'm just a layman and am not qualified to pass judgment on the acoustical evidence."

[John Corbett]

One more reason to doubt the HSCA acoustics team, perhaps the most compelling reason, is that their placement of the shots does not sync with the action in the Zapruder film as their own photographic panel recognized. The HSCA panel placed the shots that struck JFK at Z223-224 and Z313. If there is one thing EVERYONE seems to be agreement on is the headshot striking at Z313, which is pretty obvious. I think the single bullet struck at Z222 but I'm not going to quibble over a frame or two because there is room for debate on precisely when that shot struck. The HSCA placement of the shots based on what their acoustic team's analysis is a first shot miss occurred at Z166. The single bullet struck at Z196. the GK shot missed at Z296, and the headshot of course struck at Z313. Based on the simultaneous reaction of JFK and JBC at Z226 when they simultaneously raised their arms in reaction to having been struck by the single bullet. It is a virtual certainty they were struck 89-91 frames before the head shot but there is no way to sync that to the acoustics team's conclusion which had the shots fired at 30, 100, and 17 frame intervals. It is simply impossible that Oswald could have fired two shots 30 frames apart yet the HSCA determined that is what happened.

Of course, if the proponents of the acoustics evidence disagree with the HSCA's placement of the shots they are free to offer their own placement, but it is pretty much a given that the headshot occurred at Z313. How would they sync the shots to the Zapruder film, given the acoustics teams determination of the intervals between the shots.

[Michael T. Griffith]

So I guess John Corbett's new strategy is to ignore the scientific evidence that confirms the presence of gunfire on the dictabelt and to try to impugn the acoustical evidence on the unscientific basis that it disagrees with his theory of how the shooting occurred.

One more reason to doubt the HSCA acoustics team, perhaps the most compelling reason, is that their placement of the shots does not sync with the action in the Zapruder film as their own photographic panel recognized. The HSCA panel placed the shots that struck JFK at Z223-224. . . .

Man alive, you are just one never-ending clown show. The HSCA's Photographic Evidence Panel (PEP) did not say JFK was hit at Z223-224. They said he was hit at or slightly before Z190. How in the world can you not know this? How?

This is further proof that you really have no business posting in this forum under any pretense that you are competent to discuss the JFK case. You constantly blunder over basic, well-known facts, facts that have been known for decades. I'd bet that even some of your fellow WC apologists are wondering how in the world you could not know that the PEP determined that JFK was hit by Z190 and that he starts to react at Z200-202.

Your embarrassing ignorance on this point is especially baffling because the PEP's hit-by-Z190 finding has been discussed extensively in this forum, given the fact that the sixth-floor gunman's view of JFK would have been obstructed by the oak tree during this timeframe, strongly indicating that the shot must have come from somewhere else.

And, as I've told you before, the HSCA's acoustics team did not do their own analysis of the Zapruder film. Blakey simply told them which gunshot impulse patterns lined up with which Zapruder frames, as Barger later confirmed. Again, I've explained this to you before. Why you do keep saying things that you know are not true?

If there is one thing EVERYONE seems to be agreement on is the headshot striking at Z313, which is pretty obvious. I think the single bullet struck at Z222 but I'm not going to quibble over a frame or two because there is room for debate on precisely when that shot struck. The HSCA placement of the shots based on what their acoustic team's analysis is a first shot miss occurred at Z166. The single bullet struck at Z196. the GK shot missed at Z296, and the headshot of course struck at Z313. Based on the simultaneous reaction of JFK and JBC at Z226 when they simultaneously raised their arms in reaction to having been struck by the single bullet. It is a virtual certainty they were struck 89-91 frames before the head shot but there is no way to sync that to the acoustics team's conclusion which had the shots fired at 30, 100, and 17 frame intervals.

If the bullet struck at Z222, why does JFK start to react in Z200? Why does Jackie start to react to JFK's reaction by Z202?

As I've told you before but as you just keep ignoring, two of your side's own medical experts have acknowledged that it would have taken JFK at least 4 frames to begin to voluntarily react to his first wound, which is why Dr. Lattimer said JFK was already hit by Z221.

Of course, we both know that your Z222 hit is nonsense because Connally, the guy who actually experienced the wounding, insisted he was certain he was not hit before Z229. Starting in Z238, Connally's right shoulder is suddenly driven downward at the same time his cheeks puff and a pained expression appears on his face. Forensic science tells us that about four frames would elapse between the bullet's forceful impact and the start of involuntary body movement, cheek puffing, and the appearance of a pained expression.

And, gee, Connally said he was hit at Z234 and that the impact felt like he was hit hard with a doubled-up fist, and, four frames later, we see his right shoulder driven downward starting in Z238, in perfect accord with forensic science.

[quote author=John Corbett link=topic=5215.msg186707#msg186707 date=1790396Of course, if the proponents of the acoustics evidence disagree with the HSCA's placement of the shots they are free to offer their own placement, but it is pretty much a given that the headshot occurred at Z313. How would they sync the shots to the Zapruder film, given the acoustics teams determination of the intervals between the shots.[/quote]

One, again, the acoustical team did not do their own analysis of the Zapruder film. Two, I've already explained to you the reasons that any sync of the dictabelt shots with the Zapruder film is impossible given the scientific evidence that the film has been altered and is missing many frames that were in the original.

It is simply impossible that Oswald could have fired two shots 30 frames apart yet the HSCA determined that is what happened.

Oh my goodness. Another display of your blind bias. You again judge scientific fact by your lone-gunman theory, instead of the other way around.

We have also seen that you have no explanation for the fact that the ammo that hit JFK's head behaved nothing like the ammo that Oswald allegedly used, and that all experts who have commented on the subject have said that the skull damage must have been done by ammo moving at a high velocity, whereas the alleged murder weapon was a low-velocity rifle.

[John Corbett]

So I guess John Corbett's new strategy is to ignore the scientific evidence that confirms the presence of gunfire on the dictabelt and to try to impugn the acoustical evidence on the unscientific basis that it disagrees with his theory of how the shooting occurred.

I guess MTG's strategy is to ignore the fact it is impossible to sync the HSCA acoustics teams determination of the spacing of the shots to the Zapruder film in any way that fits the action in Zapruder film

Man alive, you are just one never-ending clown show. The HSCA's Photographic Evidence Panel (PEP) did not say JFK was hit at Z223-224. They said he was hit at or slightly before Z190. How in the world can you not know this? How?

That is what my AI search indicated. I know AI is not the most reliable source but it comes up with nothing on its own. Apparently AI found a source that indicated the photographic panel concluded JFK was hit in the  Z223-224 window. A strike at or slightly before Z190 makes no sense since JFK didn't exhibit a reaction until two seconds later at Z226.

This is further proof that you really have no business posting in this forum under any pretense that you are competent to discuss the JFK case. You constantly blunder over basic, well-known facts, facts that have been known for decades.

Anyone who makes the silly arguments you do has no business talking about somebody else's competence.

I'd bet that even some of your fellow WC apologists are wondering how in the world you could not know that the PEP determined that JFK was hit by Z190 and that he starts to react at Z200-202.

If you could only hear the chuckling from some of your fellow CTs when reading the nonsense you spew.

Your embarrassing ignorance on this point is especially baffling because the PEP's hit-by-Z190 finding has been discussed extensively in this forum, given the fact that the sixth-floor gunman's view of JFK would have been obstructed by the oak tree during this timeframe, strongly indicating that the shot must have come from somewhere else.

And, as I've told you before, the HSCA's acoustics team did not do their own analysis of the Zapruder film. Blakey simply told them which gunshot impulse patterns lined up with which Zapruder frames, as Barger later confirmed. Again, I've explained this to you before. Why you do keep saying things that you know are not true?

If the bullet struck at Z222, why does JFK start to react in Z200? Why does Jackie start to react to JFK's reaction by Z202?

JFK does not react to a gunshot at Z200. He simply starts to lower his right hand after waving to the spectators on Elm St. He apparently was reacting to the fact there were few spectators left as the limo proceeded down Elm St.

As I've told you before but as you just keep ignoring, two of your side's own medical experts have acknowledged that it would have taken JFK at least 4 frames to begin to voluntarily react to his first wound, which is why Dr. Lattimer said JFK was already hit by Z221.

ZZ26 is 4 frames after Z222 when I believe the bullet struck. Lattimer could be right but I would put the strike at Z222 plus or minus one frame. It's impossible to be more precise than that because JFK was hidden when the bullet struck and we are basing the estimated strike on JFK's reaction at Z226 and Zapruder's camera jiggle at Z227. Reaction times are measured in milliseconds and a single frame covers about 55 milliseconds in time.

Of course, we both know that your Z222 hit is nonsense because Connally, the guy who actually experienced the wounding, insisted he was certain he was not hit before Z229. Starting in Z238, Connally's right shoulder is suddenly driven downward at the same time his cheeks puff and a pained expression appears on his face. Forensic science tells us that about four frames would elapse between the bullet's forceful impact and the start of involuntary body movement, cheek puffing, and the appearance of a pained expression.

JBC based that on the cognitive reaction he made when he doubled over. That reaction followed his involuntary arm flip which began at Z226 and was immediately followed by his cognitive reaction 9 frames later. That's a reaction you have no explanation for and choose to ignore instead. That's the same sort of denial Tony Marsh exhibited for years.

And, gee, Connally said he was hit at Z234 and that the impact felt like he was hit hard with a doubled-up fist, and, four frames later, we see his right shoulder driven downward starting in Z238, in perfect accord with forensic science.

JBC gave a reasonable estimate on what he remembered and what he saw in the Z-film. He apparently didn't notice his Z226 arm flip which is understandable. I didn't notice if for decades until I saw the enhanced frames on DVP's website.

Oh my goodness. Another display of your blind bias. You again judge scientific fact by your lone-gunman theory, instead of the other way around.

The lone gunman finding syncs perfectly with the physical evidence and the action in the Z-film. Your beliefs, not so much.

We have also seen that you have no explanation for the fact that the ammo that hit JFK's head behaved nothing like the ammo that Oswald allegedly used, and that all experts who have commented on the subject have said that the skull damage must have been done by ammo moving at a high velocity, whereas the alleged murder weapon was a low-velocity rifle.

You have presented no case studies that shows how a 6.5mm CARCANO FMJ bullet behaves when striking a skull which would be the only case study pertinent to this case. It doesn't matter how a 5.56mm NATO FMJ round, a .30-06 FMJ round would behave after striking a skull. Since such ammo is not going to behave the same way every time it hits a skull, it would require dozens if not hundreds of test shots in to skulls to determine how an Carcano FMJ round might behave.

Do you accept the HSCA's determination that the shots were fired at Z166, Z196, Z296, and Z313? if so, where did BBN determine where each of these shots were fired from?

If not, tell us how you think the BBN shots sync with the Z-film and where you think each of those four shots were fired from.

[Michael T. Griffith]

I guess MTG's strategy is to ignore the fact it is impossible to sync the HSCA acoustics teams determination of the spacing of the shots to the Zapruder film in any way that fits the action in Zapruder film
That is what my AI search indicated. I know AI is not the most reliable source but it comes up with nothing on its own. Apparently AI found a source that indicated the photographic panel concluded JFK was hit in the  Z223-224 window. A strike at or slightly before Z190 makes no sense since JFK didn't exhibit a reaction until two seconds later at Z226.
Anyone who makes the silly arguments you do has no business talking about somebody else's competence.
If you could only hear the chuckling from some of your fellow CTs when reading the nonsense you spew.
JFK does not react to a gunshot at Z200. He simply starts to lower his right hand after waving to the spectators on Elm St. He apparently was reacting to the fact there were few spectators left as the limo proceeded down Elm St.
ZZ26 is 4 frames after Z222 when I believe the bullet struck. Lattimer could be right but I would put the strike at Z222 plus or minus one frame. It's impossible to be more precise than that because JFK was hidden when the bullet struck and we are basing the estimated strike on JFK's reaction at Z226 and Zapruder's camera jiggle at Z227. Reaction times are measured in milliseconds and a single frame covers about 55 milliseconds in time.
JBC based that on the cognitive reaction he made when he doubled over. That reaction followed his involuntary arm flip which began at Z226 and was immediately followed by his cognitive reaction 9 frames later. That's a reaction you have no explanation for and choose to ignore instead. That's the same sort of denial Tony Marsh exhibited for years.
JBC gave a reasonable estimate on what he remembered and what he saw in the Z-film. He apparently didn't notice his Z226 arm flip which is understandable. I didn't notice if for decades until I saw the enhanced frames on DVP's website.
The lone gunman finding syncs perfectly with the physical evidence and the action in the Z-film. Your beliefs, not so much.
You have presented no case studies that shows how a 6.5mm CARCANO FMJ bullet behaves when striking a skull which would be the only case study pertinent to this case. It doesn't matter how a 5.56mm NATO FMJ round, a .30-06 FMJ round would behave after striking a skull. Since such ammo is not going to behave the same way every time it hits a skull, it would require dozens if not hundreds of test shots in to skulls to determine how an Carcano FMJ round might behave.

Do you accept the HSCA's determination that the shots were fired at Z166, Z196, Z296, and Z313? if so, where did BBN determine where each of these shots were fired from?

If not, tell us how you think the BBN shots sync with the Z-film and where you think each of those four shots were fired from.

Just more of your ignorance, distortions, and falsehoods. I've already answered your blundering arguments about the timing of the shots and the reactions. You don't even know what your own side's experts have said on those subjects.

Now you're desperately trying to use the Zapruder film to refute the acoustical evidence, when in fact the acoustical evidence is further scientific proof that the Zapruder film has been altered.

You still, even now, weeks later, cannot provide a credible explanation as to how gunfire N-waves and gunfire windshield distortions got on the dictabelt if the dictabelt was not recorded in Dealey Plaza during the shooting. And you're still refusing to deal with the fact that even the NRC/NAS panel said that there was a 93% chance that the timing-movement correlations occurred because the dictabelt was recorded in the plaza during the shooting, and that there was a 77.7% chance that the 144.9 impulse pattern was caused by gunfire from the grassy knoll.

You have presented no case studies that shows how a 6.5mm CARCANO FMJ bullet behaves when striking a skull which would be the only case study pertinent to this case.

Uh, yes, I have. I've discussed two such tests. Sheesh, now you're just bald-face lying, or you have a terrible memory.

And, as you know but dishonestly ignore, Dr. Vincent DiMaio, considered one of the greatest forensic pathologists of the 20th and 21st centuries, said FMJ bullets will never, ever shatter into dozens of fragments after penetrating skull bone.

WCC 6.5 mm FMJ bullets (which you keep mislabeling as "6.5mm CARCANO FMJ bullets") do not behave any differently than other FMJ bullets, as numerous ballistics tests have proven. Regardless of the manufacturer, FMJ bullets behave in the same manner in every essential respect in terms of what they do when they hit bone and/or soft tissue.