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 poor research, 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. However, since you assume the Zapruder film is pristine, I should point out that Dr. Thompson has made a credible case that the dictabelt's gunshots can in fact be synced with wound events in the Zapruder film (Thompson also believes the film is pristine).

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 (and they only got the probability down to 77.7% by introducing two severe errors into their calculations).

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.

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.

No, it's just that you're too uneducated and/or too stubborn to see how absurd your "involuntary arm flip" argument is. Again, for the umpteenth time, forensic science tells us that the bullet would have pushed Connally's shoulder downward, caused his cheeks to puff, and caused a pained expression on his face in right around four frames, not 16 frames later, as you ridiculously claim (i.e., after your mythical Z222 hit). But you just don't care. You won't listen. You just keep repeating your argument over and over and over and over, and then accuse others of "ignoring" your points.

The Z226-228 arm flip, as I have explained to you several times, is hardly a wound reaction but clearly a nervous reaction to having just heard gunfire. This happens at the same time his body noticeably stiffens. Connally said he recognized the loud bang that he heard as gunfire right away, so of course he became nervous and his arm flipped as a nervous twitching reaction. But this sequence has nothing to do with the obvious wound reactions that start in Z238, as Connally himself made clear.

Connally did not select Z234 as the moment of impact based on "the cognitive reaction he made when he doubled over." You must be kidding. Your blind bias is showing again. No, Connally reached that conclusion after spending some two hours studying high-quality color prints of the Zapruder frames under high magnification and watching the film on a large screen in slow motion, and his analysis had the unique advantage of being informed by his having actually experienced the events seen in the Zapruder frames, especially by his actually having felt the bullet's impact.

But you just won't listen, either because you lack the reasoning power to understand why your argument is so implausible or you are too stubborn to admit it. It's like talking to a spoiled teenager who can't bring himself to admit he has so badly blundered.

This is evident in your juvenile attempt to blame AI for your blunder in claiming that the HSCA PEP put the first hit at Z223-224. The fact that you felt the need to ask AI about this shows what a joke you are. You should have already known when the PEP said the first hit occurred. If nothing else, you could have just looked at the PEP's report, for crying out loud. But, nah, you were too lazy to do that. This is even worse than your blundering use of a "fact check" site to get information on the acoustical evidence.



 

[John Corbett]

Just more of your poor research, distortions, and falsehoods. I've already answered your blundering arguments about the timing of the shots and the reactions.

You and Tony Marsh are like two peas in a pod. Every time I have challenged you with a question for which neither of you had an answer, you both resorted to the cowardly "I've already answered that" dodge which was a lie every time either of you resorted to it. Over the past 35 years, I have answered the same questions countless times without resorting to such a  dodge. The reason you won't provide a scenario with specific time frames and locations for each of the shots is because you know it would get ripped to shreds. There is no way you can sync up the BBN's shot scenario with the Z-film so you refuse to do it. Keep running and hiding from the tough questions. It's what you do best. You don't have the guts to lay your cards on the table.

You don't even know what your own side's experts have said on those subjects.

I do my own thinking and I don't need to know everything every LN has hypothesized over the years nor am I obligated to defend it. LN's agree that Oswald was the assassin and he fired the shots from the 6th floor sniper's nest. Beyond that there is a good deal of disagreement among LNs regarding the timing of the shots. We have LNs who don't accept the SBT and we even have at least one LN on this forum who thinks Oswald only fired two shots.

Now you're desperately trying to use the Zapruder film to refute the acoustical evidence,

Because it does. There is no way to sync the BBN conclusions with the Z-film which is why you won't even try.

when in fact the acoustical evidence is further scientific proof that the Zapruder film has been altered.

That statement deserves five 

This is the classic dodge every CT eventualy is forced to fall back on. When the evidence doesn't fit their belief in conspiracy, it is the evidence that is fraudulent. You just won't admit it it your beliefs which are FUBAR.

However, since you assume the Zapruder film is pristine, I should point out that Dr. Thompson has made a credible case that the dictabelt's gunshots can in fact be synced with wound events in the Zapruder film (Thompson also believes the film is pristine).

If Tink can do that, why can't you?

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 (and they only got the probability down to 77.7% by introducing two severe errors into their calculations).

Unlike you, I don't pretend to be an expert in highly technical fields and so I don't try to explain them to other people. I leave that to people who are experts in these various fields. As for probabilities, those are nothing more than SWAGs (scientific wild Bahookie guesses). There's a reason the FBI doesn't speculate on probabilities. They know they are nothing more than guesses. When they analyze a piece of evidence, they decide something is either positive, negative, or inconclusive. If it's not black-and-white, there is only one shade of gray. I know of one person who could tell you all about the value of probabilities. That would be President Hillary Clinton. Prior to the 2016 election, the New York Times gave her a 91% chance of being elected POTUS. How did that work out.

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

Now you're just blowing smoke. You have cited case studies regarding how other makes of FMJ bullets have behaved after striking a skull. Why don't you cite specific cases of how a 6.5mm FMJ Carcano bullet behaves when it strikes a skull. Let me guess. You've already done that.

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.

Why don't you cite one of his case studies of what a Carcano FMJ bullet will do when striking a skull.

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.

Unless you can cite a specific case of a 6.5mm Carcano bullet striking a skull, that is an empty claim. If you don't have a specific case study of such a bullet, striking a skull, there is no way to say how such a bullet will react.

FYI, some bullet calibers are identified by the company that introduced it. Early .38 rounds were called Short Colt and Long Colt. The .40 S&W round is a common caliber for semi-automatic hand guns, and it is called that no matter what make of handgun uses it or if the ammo was manufactured by Smith and Wesson or not. Whenever you try to play Mr Smarty Pants, you usually ended up making yourself look foolish. That's another trait you share with Tony Marsh.

No, it's just that you're too uneducated and/or too stubborn to see how absurd your "involuntary arm flip" argument is.

It is duly noted you have never offered a plausible reason why JBC would suddenly flip his right arm upward at the exact moment JFK also started raising his arms. Instead you act as if it never happened. Tony Marsh would refuse to acknowledge that arm flip as well. Are the two of you related by any chance?

Again, for the umpteenth time, forensic science tells us that the bullet would have pushed Connally's shoulder downward,

JBC's right shoulder was driven downward immediately after being struck. That can be seen on David von Pein's outstanding webpage devoted to the single bullet theory:
https://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/

Between Z224-225 we see his right shoulder dip and his left shoulder rise. The website shows toggling between the critical frames from Z223-226. In rapid succession we see the following:

Z223-224 The right side of JBC's jacket suddenly bulges out, the result of the bullet having just passed through it.
Z224-225 JBC's right shoulder dips. JFK's right hand is still moving downward, a motion started before he disappeared
Z225-226 JFK suddenly flips both arms upward in reaction to being shot a few frames early. At this same instant, JBC's right arm         suddenly flips upward, a motion which last 9 frames or about a half second.

All of the above motions are easily discernable with enlarged frames which DVP's website provides. These actions are perfectly consistent with a single bullet having passed through both men immediately preceding them.

caused his cheeks to puff, and caused a pained expression on his face in right around four frames, not 16 frames later, as you ridiculously claim (i.e., after your mythical Z222 hit). But you just don't care. You won't listen. You just keep repeating your argument over and over and over and over, and then accuse others of "ignoring" your points.

Oh, really. I'd love to see you cite a source for that claim. Just because CTs have repeated that same  line for years doesn't make it a scientific fact. You choose to ignore JBC's arm flip simply because you know what a powerful piece of evidence it is for the SBT.

The Z226-228 arm flip, as I have explained to you several times, is hardly a wound reaction but clearly a nervous reaction to having just heard gunfire. This happens at the same time his body noticeably stiffens. Connally said he recognized the loud bang that he heard as gunfire right away, so of course he became nervous and his arm flipped as a nervous twitching reaction. But this sequence has nothing to do with the obvious wound reactions that start in Z238, as Connally himself made clear.

Connally made it clear that when he first heard a shot he turned and looked over his right shoulder which we see him do at Z164. He made not sudden startle reaction upon hearing gunfire. But you would have us believe that after making such a measured reaction to the first shot, he would be startled by the second causing him to flip his right arm upward.

This is where your acoustics evidence falls completely apart. If JFK is making a delayed reaction to being hit by a Z196 shot, what shot do you think caused JBC to double over in the Z230s? According to the BBN team, the next shot didn't occur until Z296. At least the HSCA accepted that JFK and JBC were hit by the same shot. Since you reject the SBT, that leaves you with a real conundrum. How do you square JFK and JBC having been hit by separate shots if you accept the BBN analysis? The obvious answer is you can't which is why you won't even try.

Connally did not select Z234 as the moment of impact based on "the cognitive reaction he made when he doubled over." You must be kidding. Your blind bias is showing again. No, Connally reached that conclusion after spending some two hours studying high-quality color prints of the Zapruder frames under high magnification and watching the film on a large screen in slow motion, and his analysis had the unique advantage of being informed by his having actually experienced the events seen in the Zapruder frames, especially by his actually having felt the bullet's impact.

JBC was looking for the reaction he remembered making. He wasn't looking for when his arm flipped up because he had no memory of having made that reflexive, involuntary reaction.

But you just won't listen, either because you lack the reasoning power to understand why your argument is so implausible or you are too stubborn to admit it. It's like talking to a spoiled teenager who can't bring himself to admit he has so badly blundered.

Unlike you, I have the ability to apply critical thinking to the evidence.

This is evident in your juvenile attempt to blame AI for your blunder in claiming that the HSCA PEP put the first hit at Z223-224. The fact that you felt the need to ask AI about this shows what a joke you are. You should have already known when the PEP said the first hit occurred. If nothing else, you could have just looked at the PEP's report, for crying out loud. But, nah, you were too lazy to do that. This is even worse than your blundering use of a "fact check" site to get information on the acoustical evidence.

My "blunder" was simply accepting a source without getting confirmation. You on the other hand blunder badly when you try to analyze all the information you have accumulated over the years. Like Tony Marsh, you have accumulated a vast knowledge of the details of the JFK assassination but then apply the most FUBAR analysis imaginable to that wealth of knowledge, just like Marsh. It's amazing how similar you two are. Is it possible the two of you were separated at birth?