JFK Assassination Forum
The JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Raine Hannula on November 12, 2025, 01:29:39 AM
-
In this DICTABELT RECORDING, you can see 3 SHOTS fired on Dealey Plaza
(https://scontent.fqlf1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/579312534_25407689735567043_8889346516037900576_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_p180x540_tt6&_nc_cat=100&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=aa7b47&_nc_ohc=htQuycEJgbgQ7kNvwEvpglz&_nc_oc=AdnYrfavPTuS6Kyi7KiETl8T0anreoZA3uyq4lRWAMbwtDA_MQlxsUTS3YAdES5Q1YClmE65pqdQwXpBiudoDSyI&_nc_zt=23&_nc_ht=scontent.fqlf1-2.fna&_nc_gid=CPKBs-6WWLfZdTv0hAU7Pw&oh=00_Afivex7MaVBctl5UD9KrhsGVY4aRVioQnofiWK2gKIR27Q&oe=6919AF1F)
-
But if you go to this site and download this file:
tr1_128.mp3
https://nap.nationalacademies.org/resource/JFK_audio/ (https://nap.nationalacademies.org/resource/JFK_audio/)
You can find 4 SHOTS fired in Dealey Plaza
(https://scontent.fqlf1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/582339884_25407729212229762_5223147695198657705_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_s960x960_tt6&_nc_cat=102&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=aa7b47&_nc_ohc=aBqdEOsEm-QQ7kNvwH50jbn&_nc_oc=Admh0kw1YWdh6nR198CegVxm777Hmpwo53IOIekP2epJ7dY_SoLw1HvwlwFu2hVfGBBKuPheSGs4LcNZVTTMFpdk&_nc_zt=23&_nc_ht=scontent.fqlf1-2.fna&_nc_gid=_GFZfmM8FASKmoyWDkRiaA&oh=00_Afg4llWv0PfO5_D5kcB8wUSJfwgfiBNcPHv_PNJ5qi45HQ&oe=6919B86C)
-
There realy was fired a firecracker and which can be heard by the dictabelt recording, but this firecracker was fired when Kennedy motorcade was next to Sanger-Brother building.
-
No!
1. McLain's bike was too far back.
2. According to the bike expert and actual rider, McClain, he said motor sound on the dictabelt is from a three wheeled bike.
3. Sheriff Bill Decker saying "hold everything secure" in the exact place where the shots supposedly occurred. Yet Decker was known to have said "hold everything secure" about a minute after the real shots in Dealey Plaza.
And this is only a small part of the refuted dictabelt evidence.
Steve Barber as seen below is the actual expert on the dictabelt evidence and Steve's initial interest came from when he heard the "hold everything secure" from a recording of the dictabelt and these words were proven to have come way after Dealey Plaza! Go Steve, Go!
(https://www.jfk-assassination.net/barber.jpg)
The following passages come from Reclaiming History and McClain the actual man behind the supposed Dealey Plaza recording, strongly refutes this deceptive "audio evidence".
McLain gave his reasons for believing it wasn’t his mike. Among them was the
fact, he said, that the sound of the motorcycle clearly indicated the cycle was trav¬
eling way too fast to have been in the motorcade; though he had turned his siren
on, there were no siren sounds from the motorcycle with the stuck microphone;
and when the sound of sirens did appear, they seemed to be passing a stationary
unit.
RHVB
The importance of McLain being ordered to be on channel 2 and remember¬
ing many of the channel 2 transmissions during the motorcade cannot be
overemphasized. It literally, by itself, destroys the HSCA’s acoustic conclusion of
a fourth shot—at least if the committee is basing it on McLain being the cyclist
with the open microphone.
The second point McLain wanted to make, after repeating that he was “sure”
the stuck mike was not his, was that the sound on the channel 1 cycle was “not the
sound” of his cycle, a two-wheeler that day, explaining that he had ridden “both
two- and three-wheelers” on the force, and “this was a three-wheeler. It’s all
together a different sound.
RHVB
What brought them crashing down to earth was when the smoke-and-mirrors conclusion of the
HSCA was exposed as such in 1982 by a panel of twelve physicists and scientists under the aegis of
the National Research Council. Hailing from places like MIT, the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory at
the University of California, and the Bell Telephone Laboratory in New Jersey, and headed by
Harvard professor Norman Ramsey, the panel of experts analyzed the subject Dictabelt and heard the
same impulse sounds that the two Queens professors did. The only problem was that the "sounds" the
Queens professors heard occurred "one minute after the assassination," when the presidential
limousine was long gone down the Stemmons Freeway on its way to Parkland Hospital.
RHVB
JohnM
-
I have a video upcoming, where I prove that James E Barger has mixed the test results of sand bags he fired in late 70s when he tried to proove...something crap to HCSA. This would mean that if some of these assumptions surrounding the Kennedy assassination have not my stamp and approval, it means that they are FALSE and LIES to cover up the truth behind JFK and everything you just said above, has not my approval, which means that you cannot use them in any way in this cold case called THE ASSASSINATION OF JFK.
And becuase of I am the FINNISHCRIMEREPORTER, you cannot have unbiased statement than this for this matter and this case and why these statements of researchers on government payroll dont affect me, which are FAKE NEWS and DISINFORMATION.
Why I do this, is because United States has gone these same assassination methods to use of Finnish police and who has started to kill Finnish citizens on the night streets of Hyrylä and solving one of these, you can solve everyone.
-
One thing what I have not figured out from the Kennedy assassination is that what was Kennedy so bad that Texas people hated him so much that they decided to kill him ???
If we look at how much people were involved in the Kennedy assassination, tells you that Kennedy was so hated in Teksas and Dallas that they decided to killed him.
And why Nellie is just sucking up to Kennedy´s
-
One thing what I have not figured out from the Kennedy assassination is that what was Kennedy so bad that Texas people hated him so much that they decided to kill him ???
If we look at how much people were involved in the Kennedy assassination, tells you that Kennedy was so hated in Teksas and Dallas that they decided to killed him.
Huh? Kennedy was a Politician and there will always be a percentage of people that hate you, it just goes with the territory but on that day as Nellie observed, there were thousands of cheering people and one demented fanatic(Oswald) on the 6th floor of the TSBD with Oswald's rifle.
JohnM
-
No!
1. McLain's bike was too far back.
2. According to the bike expert and actual rider, McClain, he said motor sound on the dictabelt is from a three wheeled bike.
3. Sheriff Bill Decker saying "hold everything secure" in the exact place where the shots supposedly occurred. Yet Decker was known to have said "hold everything secure" about a minute after the real shots in Dealey Plaza.
And this is only a small part of the refuted dictabelt evidence.
Steve Barber as seen below is the actual expert on the dictabelt evidence and Steve's initial interest came from when he heard the "hold everything secure" from a recording of the dictabelt and these words were proven to have come way after Dealey Plaza! Go Steve, Go!
The following passages come from Reclaiming History and McClain the actual man behind the supposed Dealey Plaza recording, strongly refutes this deceptive "audio evidence".
McLain gave his reasons for believing it wasn’t his mike. Among them was the
fact, he said, that the sound of the motorcycle clearly indicated the cycle was trav¬
eling way too fast to have been in the motorcade; though he had turned his siren
on, there were no siren sounds from the motorcycle with the stuck microphone;
and when the sound of sirens did appear, they seemed to be passing a stationary
unit.
RHVB
The importance of McLain being ordered to be on channel 2 and remember¬
ing many of the channel 2 transmissions during the motorcade cannot be
overemphasized. It literally, by itself, destroys the HSCA’s acoustic conclusion of
a fourth shot—at least if the committee is basing it on McLain being the cyclist
with the open microphone.
The second point McLain wanted to make, after repeating that he was “sure”
the stuck mike was not his, was that the sound on the channel 1 cycle was “not the
sound” of his cycle, a two-wheeler that day, explaining that he had ridden “both
two- and three-wheelers” on the force, and “this was a three-wheeler. It’s all
together a different sound.
RHVB
What brought them crashing down to earth was when the smoke-and-mirrors conclusion of the
HSCA was exposed as such in 1982 by a panel of twelve physicists and scientists under the aegis of
the National Research Council. Hailing from places like MIT, the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory at
the University of California, and the Bell Telephone Laboratory in New Jersey, and headed by
Harvard professor Norman Ramsey, the panel of experts analyzed the subject Dictabelt and heard the
same impulse sounds that the two Queens professors did. The only problem was that the "sounds" the
Queens professors heard occurred "one minute after the assassination," when the presidential
limousine was long gone down the Stemmons Freeway on its way to Parkland Hospital.
RHVB
JohnM
Wrong. Your arguments are invalid and have been refuted many times in the last 10 years alone. New research done at BBN in 2020 further confirms that the acoustical evidence is genuine and that the dictabelt was recorded in Dealey Plaza during the assassination. I seriously doubt that you have read the National Research Council's report on the acoustical evidence, much less any of the scientific replies to it.
The HSCA’s Acoustical Evidence: Proof of a Second Gunman in the JFK Assassination
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KvdvH8gTqFgMn-2vTI5ppg_egWxRKg9U/view
-
And everybody is writing about how in Russia, people just fall from the windows of building and that is because of Putin and which is FAKE NEWS and propaganda, because Putin really dont have kill anyone, becuase there are no people´s election in Russia, but these assassinations are only in these democratic states and why these politicians must be killed, if the people elect good politician that dont please with rest of the top elite.
United States democracy which is like a NAZI dictatorship where the leading elite kills all honest politicians
-
Of course "all the evidence is faked" maven Michael T. Griffith believes the long-debunked Dictabelt evidence!
-
Of course "all the evidence is faked" maven Michael T. Griffith believes the long-debunked Dictabelt evidence!
Another one of your unserious, invalid, superficial replies. I have never said "all the evidence is faked." Where do you get that?
"Long-debunked dictabelt evidence"? Really? Who debunked it? The NRC panel? You know that not one of the NRC panel members was an acoustical scientist, right? Do you know anything about the new research that was done by several BBN acoustical scientists in 2020 that confirms the dictabelt was recorded in Dealey Plaza during the shooting? I bet you didn't even bother to read my article on the HSCA's acoustical evidence, which mentions this development. You seem to have no interest in objectively, seriously examining evidence that doesn't fit your minority view of the JFK case.
Let's review some of the evidence that supports the HSCA's finding that the dictabelt contains four gunshots that were recorded in Dealey Plaza during the assassination:
* At least four sets of gunshot impulse patterns with echo patterns unique to Dealey Plaza occur on the dictabelt recording. In other words, their acoustical fingerprints match those of some of the test shots fired in Dealey Plaza.
* Those echo patterns occur in the correct topographic order, which is an amazing correlation all by itself.
* Remarkable locational-movement correlations were found between the dictabelt gunshots and the test-firing gunshots. The BBN scientists determined that the probability that chance caused these correlations was “less than 1%.” Even the NRC/NAS/Ramsey panel admitted that their own calculations showed there was a 93% probability that the correlations were not the result of chance--a fact that is always ignored by critics who cite the panel's findings.
* The dictabelt contains N-waves from supersonic rifle fire, and those N-waves occur only among the identified gunshot impulse patterns, and only in the two impulse patterns that were recorded when the motorcycle’s microphone was in position to record them--yet another impressive correlation. The NRC panel didn't even mention this impressive item of evidence.
* Remarkably, the dictabelt not only contains N-waves but it also contains muzzle blasts and muzzle-blast echoes, and those N-waves, muzzle blasts, and muzzle-blast echoes occur in the correct order and interval, proving beyond any rational doubt that the dictabelt contains gunshot impulses. The NRC panel didn't address this remarkable evidence either.
* Windshield distortions occur in the dictabelt's gunshot impulse patterns when they should occur and do not occur when they should not, another stunning correlation. The HSCA arranged for a separate test to confirm the science and effects of windshield distortion. This is another impressive item of evidence that the NRC panel ignored.
* Mark Weiss and Ernest Aschkenasy, acoustical scientists from Queens College who specialized in processing acoustical signals for military applications, determined that gunshot impulse 144.9 (initially timed at 145.1) came from the grassy knoll. Weiss and Aschkenasy calculated there was no more than a 5.3% probability (P=0.053) that the 144.9 impulse pattern was not caused by gunfire, and they argued that the probability was likely lower than that. This is why they reported there was a 95% probability or higher that this shot came from the grassy knoll.
In another oblique admission, the NRC/NAS/Ramsey panel reported that their analysis found that the probability that the 144.9 impulse pattern was not gunfire from the knoll was 22.3% (P=0.223), which means their analysis found that the probability that the impulse pattern was caused by gunfire from the knoll was 77.7%, another fact that is always ignored by critics who cite the panel's findings.
Moreover, former USDA research scientist Dr. Donald Thomas has proved that the NRC/NAS/Ramsey panel committed crucial errors in reaching their P=0.223 calculation, and that the probability that the 144.9 impulse pattern was caused by grassy knoll gunfire is virtually 100% (https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Acoustics_Overview_and_History_-_part_2.html).
Dr. G. Paul Chambers, a physicist who has worked with NASA, with the Naval Surface Warfare Center, and with the Naval Research Laboratory, is unconvinced by the NRC/NAS/Ramsey panel's attacks on the acoustical evidence:
The National Research Council admitted that its calculations of the relevant
probabilities may have been “unduly conservative.” In fact, the report uses the
word “conservative” with regard to the statistical analysis a number of times. It
then goes on to state: “Except for the rather conservative analysis above, the
data do tend to cast doubt on the hypothesis of random impulse locations.” In
other words, the sounds on the tape do not appear to be caused by standard
random noises, like cars backfiring in Dealey Plaza. This seems to me a lot like
an admission that the Bolt, Beranek, & Newman impulse sequences were indeed
nonrandom data, and therefore attributable to something significant. As gunshots
were the only reasonable source that matched the acoustic signatures, it would
appear that the NRC doubted its own conclusions.
With regard to the crosstalk synchronization, the NRC report states, in an
appendix discussing this analysis, that:
“The analyses in Appendices B-1 and B-2 [of the crosstalk] may be subject to
some criticism. A certain amount of subjectivity derives from the fact that the first
observer was looking at the sound spectrograms from both channels while he
marked points on Channel 1. . . . However, this experiment was supplemented by
several variations that derived similar results. Some of these were more careful
to avoid the subjectivity and to reduce considerably the dependence aspects of
the experiment presented here. These are not reported in detail, because they
were carried out using xerographic copies of photographs using several scales,
and relatively crude measuring instruments (graph paper in place of rulers).”
This is an admission that the first technique used to confirm the crosstalk
between the channels and to determine that the impulses of interest were not
concurrent with the assassination was highly subjective and therefore subject to
doubt. Moreover, the method they used to confirm the first technique was so low-
tech that they didn’t even want to describe it.
I could speculate that they employed the zoom function on the photocopier;
however, precisely how they did this analysis was deliberately left vague and so
there is no hope of reproducing their work. In science, if other scientists are
to take conclusions seriously, it is essential to describe the methodology of what
was done to reach them in detail. Otherwise, the work doesn’t have validity,
because no one will be able to reproduce the results.
Dr. Barger himself responded to the issue of the crosstalk synchronization in a
letter to G. Robert Blakey in 1983, after the release of the NRC report, concluding
that the NRC synchronization was doubtful and that the original BBN conclusions
remained valid. (Chambers, Head Shot, pp. 106-107)
Dr. Chambers discusses some the impressive aspects of the acoustical evidence:
Weiss and Aschkenasy reviewed Barger’s analysis and conclusions. They found
that Barger’s analysis was valid and his conclusions supported by the evidence
on the tape. They concurred with his recommendation to conduct live-fire tests in
Dealey Plaza to determine the origin and direction of the gunshots, and they
approved his plan for acoustical reconstruction. . . .
In Dealey Plaza, the sounds of gunshots would produce similar echoes. When
recorded and captured on a specialized electronic device like an oscilloscope
that converts sound patterns into pictures, these echoes appear as “acoustical
waveforms” and appear as unique signatures of sound-producing events.
In the case of a rifle shot in Dealey Plaza, the acoustical signatures would differ
based on the origin, direction, and velocity of the shot, as well as the location
of the recording microphone. The echo patterns would depend on the timing of
sound reflections off building or other structures and obstructions in the plaza. . . .
A recording was made of the sounds received at each microphone during each
test shot, making a total of 432 recordings of impulse sequences. . . . Each
recorded impulse sequence was then compared with each of the six impulse
patterns on the channel 1 Dictabelt recording to see the degree to which
significant points in each impulse pattern matched. . . .
The time of the arrival of the impulses, or echoes, in each sequence of impulses
was the characteristic being compared, not the shape, amplitude, or any other
characteristic of the impulses or sequences. . . .
When the BBN team performed their analysis of the acoustical waveforms, they
found something extraordinary. When they compared the impulse sequences
from the acoustical reconstruction to the sequences on the original Dictabelt
recording, they found a number of significant matches. When the locations of the
microphones that recorded matches in the reconstruction were plotted on a
graph of time versus distance, it was found that the location of the microphones
that recorded matches were clustered around a line on the graph that was
consistent with the known speed of the motorcade. . . .
Of the thirty-six microphones placed along the motorcade route, the one that
recorded the sequence of impulses that matched the third impulse on the 1963
dispatch tape [the dictabelt tape] was farther along the route than the one that
recorded the impulses that matched the second impulse on the dispatch tape.
The locations of the microphones were consistent with the distance a motorcycle
traveling at about 11 mph would cover in the elapsed time between impulses on
the dispatch tape. . . . Applying a statistical formula, Barger estimated that since
the microphones clustered around a line representing the speed of the
motorcade, there was a 99 percent probability that the Dallas police dispatch
tape did, in fact, contain impulses transmitted by a microphone in the motorcade
in Dealey Plaza during the assassination. . . .
Weiss and Aschkenasy, specialists in sonar applications . . . examined Dealey
Plaza carefully to determine which structures were most likely to have caused the
echoes recorded by the microphone in the acoustical reconstruction that had
exhibited a match to the shot from the grassy knoll. They verified and refined
their identifications of echo-producing structures by examining the results of the
1978 reconstruction [the test firing in Dealey Plaza]. This approach allowed them
to look for matches in the data with a 1 ms [millisecond] correlation. . . . Matches
at this level of temporal precision substantially reduced the possibility that a
match could occur as a result of random noise.
In Dealey Plaza, echoes from gunshot test patterns arrive in two discrete
[different] clusters, differing in time by about 190 ms. Echoes originating from
structures along Elm Street arrive within 85 ms, while echoes from structures
farther back on Houston Street arrive in the last 95 ms of a typical 370-ms-
duration test pattern. I
n addition, a “muzzle blast” is usually prominent at the beginning of a gunshot
acoustical pattern, while an N-wave (a shock wave traveling faster than the
speed of sound due to the rifle bullet exceeding the sound barrier) arrives prior
to the muzzle blast. The waveform identified as the grassy knoll shot is shown
in figure 13. The presence of an N-wave in this waveform was consistent with
the acoustical signature of a supersonic rifle bullet. (Head Shot, pp. 96-102)
-
Of course "all the evidence is faked" maven Michael T. Griffith believes the long-debunked Dictabelt evidence!
Those around him and the World Wide Fake Newser's were just EXPOSED for FAKING that President Biden was "non compos mentis" for much of his 4 yr term. "Not of sound mind" to the point that the auto pen was being used extensively. Biden was filmed shaking hands with ghosts, wandering around the stage, and falling off of bicycles. They did Everything they could to cover this up. Yet, you scoff at possible "faked evidence" in the assassination of JFK? Seriously? Look around you.
-
And everybody is writing about how in Russia, people just fall from the windows of building and that is because of Putin and which is FAKE NEWS and propaganda, because Putin really dont have kill anyone, becuase there are no people´s election in Russia, but these assassinations are only in these democratic states and why these politicians must be killed, if the people elect good politician that dont please with rest of the top elite.
United States democracy which is like a NAZI dictatorship where the leading elite kills all honest politicians
You believe that dictators don't assassinate their opponents because they don't have to worry about elections? They aren't worried about their political opponents because they rule in one party states and any threats to their power can be dismissed? So Stalin or Mao didn't have their opponents killed? All of those accounts - the Great Purge - are false?
And Putin doesn't kill his opponents because he doesn't have to worry about elections? (Russia has elections but they are greatly rigged). So what happened to this guy? He's Alexander Litvinenko? He wasn't assassinated?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/99/AlexanderLitvinenko.jpg/250px-AlexanderLitvinenko.jpg)
-
Yes, folks, "they" successfully covered up their murder of JFK just like the Biden people successfully covered up his senility. Nobody saw through it.
We were all fooled about Mr. Biden's mental acuity. He came across as sharp and on top of matters but in reality he was non compos mentis.
And just like they covered up for Biden, all of these Republicans and Democrats and the news media and three generations of Americans have covered up for the assassination of JFK. It's all very logical.
-
Of course "all the evidence is faked" maven Michael T. Griffith believes the long-debunked Dictabelt evidence!
But he doesn't believe the scenario of the shooting that the Dictabelt analysis theorized. The recordings reportedly show four shots from two locations. Three from the TSBD and a fourth shot from behind the fence.
Two locations. Two shooters.
But he believes there was triangulated gunfire, shooting from three (at least) locations. He believes there was a shooter on top of the linen truck. And "possibly" Babushka Lady firing a camera gun.
If the Dictabelt evidence and analysis of the shooting is true then there were two shooters. No triangulation, no shooter from the linen truck, no Babushka Lady.
But his response, of course, is that the other shooters used silencers or suppressors. Or something. It's always something in conspiracy world, another conspiracy somewhere to explain the first conspiracy. It's conspiracies all of the way down. So he'll both agree with the Dictabelt and reject it.
The perfect example of conspiracy mindset. Evidence says both "A" and "not A", it's both legitimate and illegitimate, real and corrupt. The *same* evidence.
-
Of course "all the evidence is faked" maven Michael T. Griffith believes the long-debunked Dictabelt evidence!
Did you see what the BBC just got caught doing to Trump's J6 Speech? The BBC without a doubt "faked" that speech to no end. And how about Mexican Pres. Claudia Sheinbaum being groped in public? That was the Drug Cartels reminding her exactly how close they can get to her whenever they want. Just look around you. Wake up!
-
Yes, folks, "they" successfully covered up their murder of JFK just like the Biden people successfully covered up his senility. Nobody saw through it.
We were all fooled about Mr. Biden's mental acuity. He came across as sharp and on top of matters but in reality he was non compos mentis.
And just like they covered up for Biden, all of these Republicans and Democrats and the news media and three generations of Americans have covered up for the assassination of JFK. It's all very logical.
Joe Biden, suffering from jetlag and a cold, froze up during that "debate" due the firehose of lies he was subjected to by The Traitorous Orange Bird (rhymes with "Xxxx").
We as a nation have been subjected to a subtler, but equally debilitating, form of gaslighting -- sixty-six years of KGB disinformation, "active measures," and mole-based strategic deception counterintelligence operations waged against us and our NATO allies.
Ergo, The Traitorous Orange Bird (rhymes with "Xxxx") and his firehose of Kremlin-approved lies spewed against Joe Biden during that "debate."
-
Yeah, and Joe Biden was actually "sharp as a tack" too. This sounds like "Morning Joe" BS: Is that you Scarborough?
-
Yeah, and Joe Biden was actually "sharp as a tack" too. This sounds like "Morning Joe" Is that you Scarborough?
Dear Comrade Storing,
I stopped watching him when he and Mika went to Mar-a-Lago to genuflect to The Traitorous Orange Bird (rhymes with "Xxxx") and kiss his stinking you-know-what.
Do you read The New York Post and watch OANN and Newsmax, or do you get everything you need from Fox News ?
-- Tom
-
Hang on. "The Don" phone is ringing.
-
It might be helpful to discuss the credentials of two of the acoustical experts who worked on the HSCA acoustical evidence: Dr. James Barger and Professor Mark Weiss.
Dr. Barger (now retired and still living) received a B.S. in mechanical engineering from the University of Michigan in 1957, an M.S. in mechanical engineering from the University of Connecticut in 1960, and an M.A. in applied physics from Harvard University in 1962. In 1964 he received a Ph. D. in applied physics from Harvard University.
He was a sonar project officer in the U.S. Navy Underwater Sound Laboratory, a research assistant at the Harvard University's Acoustics Research Laboratory, and a senior scientist and director of the Physical Science Division with Bolt, Beranek & Newman, Inc. (BBN).
An expert in sonar, underwater noise detection and reduction, broadband medical ultrasound, geophysical seismic sensing, and noise and vibration cancellation, Dr. Barger designed prototypes of the explosive line arrays used by the Navy's Distant Thunder Sonar System, analyzed and designed sound sources for geophysical seismic exploration, and developed the initial science-based understanding of turbulence-induced noise as relevant to submarine stealth technology.
Dr. Barger is the author of numerous scientific papers. He has lectured in the field of applied acoustics in the United States and Canada and at the time was a lecturer on sound scattering and reverberations with Bolt, Beranek & Newman's antisubmarine warfare course.
He was a National Science Foundation fellow and was a fellow of the Acoustical Society of America. He was also a member of the U.S. Naval Advisory Board for Underwater Sound Reference Services.
As chief scientist with BBN, Dr. Barger personally supervised the analysis of the 18-minute gap on the Nixon-Watergate tapes and the analysis. He also played a leading role in the analysis of the gunfire sounds recorded during the shooting episode at Kent State University.
Professor Weiss (died in 2020) received a B.E.E. degree from the City College of New York in 1952, and an M.S. in electrical engineering from Columbia University in 1957. From 1957 until 1964, he worked as a project engineer for the Federal Scientific Corp., and from 1965 until 1974 he was vice president of that corporation for acoustical research. He was also a professor in the Department of Computer Science of Queens College of the City University of New York, a position he assumed in 1974.
Professor Weiss was the author of over 30 articles and technical reports concerning electronics for acoustical engineering. He worked on projects such as the development of instruments for real-time spectrum analysis of audio signals, development of the first real-time system for extraction of vocal pitch using the cepstrum approach, and was involved in the development of techniques for reducing wide-band noise and other interference on speech recordings to increase the detectability and intelligibility of speech.
From November 1973 until June 1974, Professor Weiss was a member of a panel of technical experts appointed by Chief Judge John J. Sirica to examine the White House tape recordings in connection with the Watergate grand jury investigation.
He was a fellow of the Acoustical Society of America and a member of the Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineering. He was frequently hired as an acoustical expert by the New York Police Department, the U.S. Air Force, the FBI, and the National Security Agency.
-
Dictabelt recording update is coming in someday
(https://scontent.fqlf1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/736343131_27743700258632634_2238760250473514428_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_tt6&cstp=mx1918x952&ctp=s1080x2048&_nc_cat=107&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=aa7b47&_nc_ohc=ulHxHHOjJBsQ7kNvwG5KvOQ&_nc_oc=AdoKwvM-SFQDwMiEswy4yd8uu34jU2JynD6fhzKmgtXP3TgMEU59S72NkT8Lj_sJJLw&_nc_zt=23&_nc_ht=scontent.fqlf1-2.fna&_nc_gid=G0Ghn9FJMntx4pa5bmRJlw&_nc_ss=7b2a8&oh=00_AQBa5R8u0zVDWw7b10zn0slawP2GUaqUPfZZ7eaMqtTjsw&oe=6A4DF7B5)
-
One thing what I have not figured out from the Kennedy assassination is that what was Kennedy so bad that Texas people hated him so much that they decided to kill him ???
If we look at how much people were involved in the Kennedy assassination, tells you that Kennedy was so hated in Teksas and Dallas that they decided to killed him.
Only one man in Texas decided to kill JFK and he never told us why. I guess we're SOL on that issue.
-
1. McLain's bike was too far back.
2. According to the bike expert and actual rider, McClain, he said motor sound on the dictabelt is from a three wheeled bike.
3. Sheriff Bill Decker saying "hold everything secure" in the exact place where the shots supposedly occurred. Yet Decker was known to have said "hold everything secure" about a minute after the real shots in Dealey Plaza.
Once again you are years behind the information curve. Every one of those claims was refuted years ago.
Steve Barber as seen below is the actual expert on the dictabelt evidence and Steve's initial interest came from when he heard the "hold everything secure" from a recording of the dictabelt and these words were proven to have come way after Dealey Plaza! Go Steve, Go!
So Steve Barber, a drummer, is your "actual expert" on the acoustical evidence?!
How about the HSCA's acoustical experts: BBN's Dr. James Barger, Dr. Jared Wolf, Dr. Scott Robinson, and Dr. Edward Schmidt, and Queen's College's Dr. Mark Weiss and Professor Ernest Aschkenasy? How would you compare Barber's credentials in acoustical science with those of the six HSCA acoustical scientists?
Barber's responses to Dr. Don Thomas's articles on the acoustical evidence are downright laughable.
How about BBN acoustical scientist Dr. Richard Mullen? Dr. Mullen did new research on the acoustical evidence at the request of Dr. Josiah Thompson and proved conclusively with pattern-cross-correlation (PCC) analysis that the Decker "hold everything" transmission is not crosstalk but is an overdub created during the copying process, rendering it irrelevant, and that the Fisher "I'll check" transmission is genuine crosstalk, which proves the gunshot impulse patterns were recorded during the assassination.
Dr. Thompson devotes over 100 pages to this historic new research in his 2020 book Last Second in Dallas. Dr. Mullen wrote Appendix B, "Signal Processing Results for Both DPD Audio Files," in the book. Dr. Barger wrote Appendix A, "A Quantitative Analysis of Crosstalk Found in Audio Recorded During the JFK Assassination," in the book.
I have pointed out all these facts to you in other threads, but you just ignore and repeat your outdated claims about the acoustical evidence.
The following passages come from Reclaiming History and McClain the actual man behind the supposed Dealey Plaza recording, strongly refutes this deceptive "audio evidence".[SNIP]
Bugliosi blundered all over the place because he didn't understand what he was reading and was determined to reject the acoustical evidence no matter what.
You realize that not one of the members of the NRC/NAS panel that critiqued the acoustical evidence was an acoustical scientist, right? Right?
You realize that the NRC/NAS panel admitted that there's a 93% probability that the timing-movement correlations identified by the BBN scientists between the dictabelt and the recording of the test firing in Dealey Plaza occurred because the dictabelt recorded gunfire in Dealey Plaza, right?
You realize that the NRC/NAS panel admitted there's a 77.7% probability that the 144.9 impulse pattern, identified by Weiss and Aschkenasy as gunfire from the grassy knoll, was in fact gunfire from the knoll, right?
All of this, and much more, flew right over Bugliosi's head, or he just chose to ignore it, just as you keep doing.
For those who want to read the other side of the story on the acoustical evidence, I highly recommend Dr. Thompson's book, and also the following online articles:
"The HSCA’s Acoustical Evidence: Proof of a Second Gunman in the JFK Assassination," by yours truly.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KvdvH8gTqFgMn-2vTI5ppg_egWxRKg9U/view
“Debugging Bugliosi,” by Dr. Don Thomas, https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-
_Debugging_Bugliosi.html.
“Overview and History of the Acoustical Evidence in the Kennedy Assassination Case,” by Dr. Don Thomas
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Acoustics_Overview_and_History.html
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Acoustics_Overview_and_History_-_part_2.html
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Acoustics_Overview_and_History_-_part_3.html
“Sabato, Sonalysts, and Sophistry,” 2014, by Dr. Don Thomas
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Sabato_Sonalysts_Sophistry.html.
Another excellent analysis of the acoustical evidence is Dr. David Kaiser's lengthy discussion on the subject in his highly acclaimed book The Road to Dallas (pp. 377-387).
-
Bugliosi blundered all over the place because he didn't understand what he was reading and was determined to reject the acoustical evidence no matter what.
You are determined to cling to the acoustics "evidence" no matter what. Not surprising given that you have no real evidence to support your cause.
-
You are determined to cling to the acoustics "evidence" no matter what. Not surprising given that you have no real evidence to support your cause.
Michael Griffith says there was a shooter on top of the linen truck. And that "possibly" the Babushka Lady shot JFK with a gun camera (or camera gun, whatever). And he believes Garrison's claims about triangulated fire, the plan developed by Ferrie, Shaw and Oswald that was then supposedly carried out by the CIA. And the Mob. And others. And he believes JFK was shot from the front in the head. And shot from the front in the neck.
But the HSCA acoustics analysis, which he also says he believes, concluded there were two shooters: one shooting from the TSBD and a second from behind the fence. Two shooters. Four shots.
Nothing in their analysis - which again he says he believes - concluded there was a shooter on the linen truck. Or that Babushka Lady fired a shot. Or that there were shooters from three locations, i.e., triangulation, or a shooter from the front who shot JFK the neck/throat and a shooter or a shot from the front who inflicted the head wound.
His arguments are a mish mash of claims and counter-claims and arguments that contradict other arguments. His conspiracy is a jumble of ideas and thoughts and allegations that make no sense, are at odds with each other. It's like he's playing "JFK Assassination: the Game" where the person who propose the most claims, whether they make sense or not, somehow wins.
Correction: Michael Griffith did not say he believed there was a shooter/sniper who fired from the top of the linen truck. That was another poster whose name I mixed up with his. I apologize for the mistake.
-
Michael Griffith says there was a shooter on top of the linen truck. And that "possibly" the Babushka Lady shot JFK with a gun camera (or camera gun, whatever). And he believes Garrison's claims about triangulated fire, the plan developed by Ferrie, Shaw and Oswald that was then supposedly carried out by the CIA. And the Mob. And others. And he believes JFK was shot from the front in the head. And shot from the front in the neck.
But the HSCA acoustics analysis, which he also says he believes, concluded there were two shooters: one shooting from the TSBD and a second from behind the fence. Two shooters. Four shots.
Nothing in their analysis - which again he says he believes - concluded there was a shooter on the linen truck. Or that Babushka Lady fired a shot. Or that there were shooters from three locations, i.e., triangulation, or a shooter from the front who shot JFK the neck/throat and a shooter or a shot from the front who inflicted the head wound.
His arguments are a mish mash of claims and counter-claims and arguments that contradict other arguments. His conspiracy is a jumble of ideas and thoughts and allegations that make no sense, are at odds with each other. It's like he's playing "JFK Assassination: the Game" where the person who propose the most claims, whether they make sense or not, somehow wins.
As I recall, MTG has hinted at a shot from Dal-Tex as well. It's amazing with all those shooters, JFK was only hit twice. Or by MTG's count, 3 tines. Talk about The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight. I wonder if there has ever been a conspiracy theory proposed that he wouldn't wrap both arms around. As long as it conflicts with the conclusions of the WC, MTG will embrace it. He doesn't even care if these various alternative scenarios are even compatible with one another. If someone proposes something that is at odds with the WCR, MTC will buy into it. He seems to have no filter when it comes to JFKA nonsense.
-
As I recall, MTG has hinted at a shot from Dal-Tex as well. It's amazing with all those shooters, JFK was only hit twice. Or by MTG's count, 3 tines. Talk about The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight. I wonder if there has ever been a conspiracy theory proposed that he wouldn't wrap both arms around. As long as it conflicts with the conclusions of the WC, MTG will embrace it. He doesn't even care if these various alternative scenarios are even compatible with one another. If someone proposes something that is at odds with the WCR, MTC will buy into it. He seems to have no filter when it comes to JFKA nonsense.
Correction: Michael Griffith did not say he believed there was shooter on the linen truck. I misread the comment from someone who said they did and attributed it to him. I apologize.
It's endless. He said there was another shooter (a fourth? fifth? sixth shooter?) on top of the linen truck that was parked at the corner of Elm and Houston (below). So someone climbed up on or got out of the truck and in broad daylight with people around fired a shot. Then he got off the truck and left.
(https://thfvnext.bing.com/th/id/R.15314180ee7a36aabbfeb32f6f95fb3b?rik=ATLwsk4nzA4EMg&riu=http%3a%2f%2fi1263.photobucket.com%2falbums%2fii621%2fjmarshok%2fCleanTowelandLinen_zps8c0dde8b.png&ehk=cK%2bGyceCNxHsJAd801ZehXszv7POPQP%2bWcEJEKFkF%2fU%3d&risl=&pid=ImgRaw&r=0)
-
It's endless. He said there was another shooter (a fourth? fifth? sixth shooter?) on top of the linen truck that was parked at the corner of Elm and Houston (below). So someone climbed up on or got out of the truck and in broad daylight with people around fired a shot. Then he got off the truck and left.
(https://thfvnext.bing.com/th/id/R.15314180ee7a36aabbfeb32f6f95fb3b?rik=ATLwsk4nzA4EMg&riu=http%3a%2f%2fi1263.photobucket.com%2falbums%2fii621%2fjmarshok%2fCleanTowelandLinen_zps8c0dde8b.png&ehk=cK%2bGyceCNxHsJAd801ZehXszv7POPQP%2bWcEJEKFkF%2fU%3d&risl=&pid=ImgRaw&r=0)
Who says a possible shooter, "got OFF the truck"? Have you ever seen Michael J. Fox's "Teen Wolf" (1985)? Stiles stood atop a fast moving van for miles.
-
Who says a possible shooter, "got OFF the truck"? Have you ever seen Michael J. Fox's "Teen Wolf" (1985)? Stiles stood atop a fast moving van for miles.
How did Mr. Completely Insane Huge Gates Getaway Car Bogus Imposter Haygood Guy miss Joseph Milteer standing with Allen Dulles at the far right of the photo??? I would've thought Mr. CIHGGCBIHG (pronounced "CIGBIG") would've found that yellow square pretty suspicious, too. I'm pretty sure you can see Oswald over there on the far left if you squint.
-
Michael Griffith says there was a shooter on top of the linen truck.
So you're another WC apologist who keeps repeating statements that you know are false. As I have told you previously, I have never said there was a shooter on the top of the linen truck. Do a search of all my articles and forum posts: you won't find one single sentence where I advance such an argument.
And that "possibly" the Babushka Lady shot JFK with a gun camera (or camera gun, whatever).
You say that like it's some wild idea, yet your embrace such genuine fantasies as the single-bullet theory and the the FMJ-ammo-headshot theory.
Gun cameras were already a thing in the early 1960s. I am persuaded by Mary Haverstick's and Jeff Sundberg's research that the Babushka Lady may have fired at JFK with a gun camera. Have you read their research? Are you aware that some OAS assassins used gun cameras? You can Google it.
And he believes Garrison's claims about triangulated fire, the plan developed by Ferrie, Shaw and Oswald. . . .
I've already corrected you on this falsehood, but you just keep repeating it. My belief in a triangulated crossfire is not based on Garrison's claims, including his claim that Ferrie, Shaw, and Oswald developed such a plan.
that was then supposedly carried out by the CIA. And the Mob. And others.
By rogue elements of the CIA (without the knowledge of the director and his staff and most of the rest of the CIA) and elements of the Mafia, yes, absolutely. Plenty of other scholars share this view.
And he believes JFK was shot from the front in the head. And shot from the front in the neck.
And? Here, again, you act like you're describing some wild idea when in fact you're describing a perfectly credible scenario that's supported by the autopsy skull x-rays, by the ballistics evidence, by the Parkland 11/22/63 descriptions of the head and throat wounds, by accounts from several witnesses at the autopsy, and more.
You guys are constantly labeling perfectly valid arguments as wild, crazy, nutty, fringe, etc., usually because you have no other answer to them. Yet, as mentioned, you turn around and float truly ridiculous theories such as the single-bullet theory and the FMJ-bullet-headshot theory.
But the HSCA acoustics analysis, which he also says he believes, concluded there were two shooters: one shooting from the TSBD and a second from behind the fence. Two shooters. Four shots.
I've already explained this to you, but you again ignore my explanation. Again, given that the Dallas test firing only fired shots from two locations, the acoustical evidence does not prove that shots were only fired from the sixth-floor window and from the grassy knoll. It does indeed prove that at least four shots were fired, and that one of them came from the grassy knoll, but it does not prove that there were only four shots or that all the shots fired from the rear came from the sixth-floor window.
I again remind you that the committee required that the 140.3 impulse pattern be ruled a false alarm, even though it passed the echo-delay matching test, and even though 8 of its 10 impulses matched the impulses of one of the Dealey Plaza test shots. They required this because a shot at 140.3 on the dictabelt would mean there was another gunman firing from behind, and they found that conclusion unacceptable, in spite of the evidence for it.
Nothing in their analysis - which again he says he believes - concluded there was a shooter on the linen truck. Or that Babushka Lady fired a shot. Or that there were shooters from three locations, i.e., triangulation, or a shooter from the front who shot JFK the neck/throat and a shooter or a shot from the front who inflicted the head wound.
One, this is a silly argument. Two, see above.
His arguments are a mish mash of claims and counter-claims and arguments that contradict other arguments. His conspiracy is a jumble of ideas and thoughts and allegations that make no sense, are at odds with each other. It's like he's playing "JFK Assassination: the Game" where the person who propose the most claims, whether they make sense or not, somehow wins.
I'll say the same thing I said when you made this argument in another thread: the contradictory arguments are in your mind and are based on your distortions and misrepresentations of my research.
The following passages come from Reclaiming History and McClain the actual man behind the supposed Dealey Plaza recording, strongly refutes this deceptive "audio evidence".[SNIP]
Perhaps you could quote Bugliosi's explanation for the timing-movement correlations identified by the BBN scientists between the dictabelt and the recording of the Dallas test firing. Let me save you some time: Bugliosi didn't say a word about them.
Perhaps you could quote Bugliosi's explanation for the fact that even the NRC/NAS panel stated there was a 93% probability that timing-movement correlations identified by the BBN scientists occurred because the dictabelt was recorded in Dealey Plaza during the assassination. Let me save you some time: Bugliosi didn't say a word about this.
Perhaps you could quote Bugliosi's explanation for the fact that the NRC/NAS panel stated there was a 77.7% probability that the 144.9 impulse pattern was indeed caused by gunfire from the grassy knoll. Let me save you some time: Bugliosi didn't say a word about this.
Perhaps you could quote Bugliosi's explanation for the windshield-distortion correlations on the dictabelt. Let me save you some time: Bugliosi didn't say a word about them.
Perhaps you could quote Bugliosi's explanation for the fact that N-waves from supersonic rifle fire occur on the dictabelt; that those N-waves occur only among the identified gunshot impulse patterns, and only in the two impulse patterns that were recorded when the motorcycle’s microphone was in position to record them; and that the dictabelt not only contains N-waves but also contains muzzle blasts and muzzle-
blast echoes, and those N-waves, muzzle blasts, and muzzle-blast echoes occur in the correct order and interval.
Let me save you some time: Bugliosi's response to this evidence was to claim, citing the FBI TSD's farcical report, that detecting "shock waves accurately" is "very difficult" and that therefore any statements about "shock waves" (i.e., N-waves) on the dictabelt are "extremely questionable." He, following the TSD's lead, simply ignored the fact that the N-waves only occur in the two impulse patterns that were recorded when the motorcycle's mic was in position to record them, and that the N-waves, muzzle blasts, and muzzle-blast echoes occur in the correct and interval, which debunks the speculation that these sounds were merely "some other sounds or electrical impulses produced internally” (Reclaiming History, Endnotes, p. 199).
Gary Cornwell, the deputy chief counsel for the HSCA, noted that the NRC/NAS panel ignored this and other evidence:
And the NRC essentially ignored, and never did explain how, if these impulse patterns were not gunfire, their timing, sequencing, and qualitative characteristics were so extensively corroborated by the other physical and scientific evidence in the case. Was all of the meshing of such evidence simply a coincidence? . . . Several witnesses testified that one shot came from the grassy knoll, just as the acoustics indicated. Just a coincidence? The shock waves and windshield distortions were present on the shots where they should have been, and absent on the others. One more coincidence? Since the NRC described their findings as conclusive and not subject to question, one must wonder why the NRC ignored all of this evidence that corroborated the Barger and Weiss findings, but is totally inconsistent with the NRC findings that these impulses are not the actual sounds of gunfire. One might also wonder why the NRC never addressed, never discussed, and never attempted to explain other "cross talk" on the Channel I tape that is totally inconsistent with the NRC conclusion that impulse patterns evidencing four shots occurred . . . after the actual assassination. (Real Answers: The John F. Kennedy Assassination, Spicewood, Texas: Paleface Press, 1998, pp. 112-114)
-
So you're another WC apologist who keeps repeating statements that you know are false. As I have told you previously, I have never said there was a shooter on the top of the linen truck. Do a search of all my articles and forum posts: you won't find one single sentence where I advance such an argument.
You say that like it's some wild idea,
You say that like you don't realize it is.
yet your embrace such genuine fantasies as the single-bullet theory and the the FMJ-ammo-headshot theory.
Both certainties to people who know the evidence and are capable of applying common sense. I'm not sure you meet either qualification on this one. You seem to think that one bullet hit JFK in the back and another hit him in the throat, both barely penetrated and then fell out. That requires two magic bullets.
Gun cameras were already a thing in the early 1960s. I am persuaded by Mary Haverstick's and Jeff Sundberg's research that the Babushka Lady may have fired at JFK with a gun camera.
Which speaks volumes about your gullibility.
Have you read their research? Are you aware that some OAS assassins used gun cameras? You can Google it.
I did google and the only thing that came up were killings that were CAUGHT on camera. Nothing about killings with gun cameras.
Then we have this AI response to gun cameras:
Yes, gun cameras do exist and are used to capture video or images from the perspective of a firearm, primarily for training, analysis, and documentation purposes.
Overview of Gun Cameras
Gun cameras are devices mounted on firearms that allow users to record their shooting experiences from the gun's perspective. They have been utilized in various contexts, including military applications, hunting, and training exercises. Historically, gun cameras were first used in military aircraft during World War I and became more common in World War II to document aerial combat and training
Modern Applications
Military and Tactical Use: Modern gun cameras are often integrated into military aircraft and attack helicopters, allowing for real-time recording of engagements without the need to fire the weapon. They are typically built into targeting pods rather than being standalone devices
Consumer Use: There are several models of gun-mounted cameras available for civilian use, designed for activities such as hunting and shooting sports. These cameras can be attached to rifles, shotguns, or handguns and are used to capture high-definition video of shooting activities
.Training and Analysis: Gun cameras serve as valuable tools for training, allowing shooters to review their performance and improve their skills. They can help identify shooting habits and provide feedback on technique
BTW, if we were to search the archives, would we find any posts by you in which you cited Beverly Oliver's claim that she was Babushka Lady.
I've already corrected you on this falsehood, but you just keep repeating it. My belief in a triangulated crossfire is not based on Garrison's claims, including his claim that Ferrie, Shaw, and Oswald developed such a plan.
By rogue elements of the CIA (without the knowledge of the director and his staff and most of the rest of the CIA) and elements of the Mafia, yes, absolutely. Plenty of other scholars share this view.
You seem to think a scholar is anybody who disagrees with the WCR.
And? Here, again, you act like you're describing some wild idea when in fact you're describing a perfectly credible scenario that's supported by the autopsy skull x-rays, by the ballistics evidence, by the Parkland 11/22/63 descriptions of the head and throat wounds, by accounts from several witnesses at the autopsy, and more.
Isn't it amazing that none of the forensic pathologists who reviewed the autopsy material could find any medical evidence of shots from any direction other than behind JFK. The only one of them who believed there was also a frontal shot didn't base that opinion on the medical evidence.
You guys are constantly labeling perfectly valid arguments as wild, crazy, nutty, fringe, etc.,
You are always labeling wild, crazy, nutty, fringe, etc arguments as valid. Like the one about the gun camera.
usually because you have no other answer to them. Yet, as mentioned, you turn around and float truly ridiculous theories such as the single-bullet theory and the FMJ-bullet-headshot theory.
The Single Bullet Fact has stood the test of time. It is the only plausible explanation JFK's non-fatal wounds and all of JBC's wounds. The few people who have tried to offer alternatives end up with scenarios that require multiple magic bullets. If you dispute that, give us your scenario of those wounds. I'm not even asking you to prove your theory. Just tell us another way it COULD HAVE happened. Tell us where the bullets were fired from, the wounds they caused, and where the bullet went after causing the wounds. Take your time. Do it right.
I've already explained this to you, but you again ignore my explanation. Again, given that the Dallas test firing only fired shots from two locations, the acoustical evidence does not prove that shots were only fired from the sixth-floor window and from the grassy knoll. It does indeed prove that at least four shots were fired, and that one of them came from the grassy knoll, but it does not prove that there were only four shots or that all the shots fired from the rear came from the sixth-floor window.
Does it make sense to you that conspirators who were trying to frame a lone gunman would shoot at JFK from three or four different places?
I again remind you that the committee required that the 140.3 impulse pattern be ruled a false alarm, even though it passed the echo-delay matching test, and even though 8 of its 10 impulses matched the impulses of one of the Dealey Plaza test shots. They required this because a shot at 140.3 on the dictabelt would mean there was another gunman firing from behind, and they found that conclusion unacceptable, in spite of the evidence for it.
Are you impeaching your own "experts".
One, this is a silly argument. Two, see above.
I'll say the same thing I said when you made this argument in another thread: the contradictory arguments are in your mind and are based on your distortions and misrepresentations of my research.
You don't seem to have a theory of what happened. You seem to have many. Anything different from what the WCR gains favor with you. You're like the guy who went to a roulette wheel and bet every number except the winning one.
Perhaps you could quote Bugliosi's explanation for the timing-movement correlations identified by the BBN scientists between the dictabelt and the recording of the Dallas test firing. Let me save you some time: Bugliosi didn't say a word about them.
Perhaps you could quote Bugliosi's explanation for the fact that even the NRC/NAS panel stated there was a 93% probability that timing-movement correlations identified by the BBN scientists occurred because the dictabelt was recorded in Dealey Plaza during the assassination. Let me save you some time: Bugliosi didn't say a word about this.
Perhaps you could quote Bugliosi's explanation for the fact that the NRC/NAS panel stated there was a 77.7% probability that the 144.9 impulse pattern was indeed caused by gunfire from the grassy knoll. Let me save you some time: Bugliosi didn't say a word about this.
Perhaps you could quote Bugliosi's explanation for the windshield-distortion correlations on the dictabelt. Let me save you some time: Bugliosi didn't say a word about them.
Perhaps you could quote Bugliosi's explanation for the fact that N-waves from supersonic rifle fire occur on the dictabelt; that those N-waves occur only among the identified gunshot impulse patterns, and only in the two impulse patterns that were recorded when the motorcycle’s microphone was in position to record them; and that the dictabelt not only contains N-waves but also contains muzzle blasts and muzzle-
blast echoes, and those N-waves, muzzle blasts, and muzzle-blast echoes occur in the correct order and interval.
Let me save you some time: Bugliosi's response to this evidence was to claim, citing the FBI TSD's farcical report, that detecting "shock waves accurately" is "very difficult" and that therefore any statements about "shock waves" (i.e., N-waves) on the dictabelt are "extremely questionable." He, following the TSD's lead, simply ignored the fact that the N-waves only occur in the two impulse patterns that were recorded when the motorcycle's mic was in position to record them, and that the N-waves, muzzle blasts, and muzzle-blast echoes occur in the correct and interval, which debunks the speculation that these sounds were merely "some other sounds or electrical impulses produced internally” (Reclaiming History, Endnotes, p. 199).
Bugliosi's book was only about 1600 pages. He couldn't possibly deal with every nutty argument the CT crowd had made over 4+ decades. Maybe if he had lived, he would have gotten around to writing Reclaiming History II. Then he might have had room to address your silliness.
Gary Cornwell, the deputy chief counsel for the HSCA, noted that the NRC/NAS panel ignored this and other evidence:
And the NRC essentially ignored, and never did explain how, if these impulse patterns were not gunfire, their timing, sequencing, and qualitative characteristics were so extensively corroborated by the other physical and scientific evidence in the case. Was all of the meshing of such evidence simply a coincidence? . . . Several witnesses testified that one shot came from the grassy knoll, just as the acoustics indicated. Just a coincidence? The shock waves and windshield distortions were present on the shots where they should have been, and absent on the others. One more coincidence? Since the NRC described their findings as conclusive and not subject to question, one must wonder why the NRC ignored all of this evidence that corroborated the Barger and Weiss findings, but is totally inconsistent with the NRC findings that these impulses are not the actual sounds of gunfire. One might also wonder why the NRC never addressed, never discussed, and never attempted to explain other "cross talk" on the Channel I tape that is totally inconsistent with the NRC conclusion that impulse patterns evidencing four shots occurred . . . after the actual assassination. (Real Answers: The John F. Kennedy Assassination, Spicewood, Texas: Paleface Press, 1998, pp. 112-114)
This is a completely illogical approach. There is no default position that says unexplained impulse patterns must mean they were gun shots. If the cause of the impulse patterns is not provable, it is illogical to assume they must be gunshots.
-
Here would be an interesting challenge for MTG: Instead of these endless posts of "What about this, huh?" and "What about that, huh?" and "Go read my article about this," how about you lay out in plain English your conspiracy scenario? Take us through exactly how you think it was organized, exactly what you think took place in Dealey Plaza, and exactly what you think the cover-up looked like. Give us every last detail! Name names! I would be fascinated. I would bet large sums of money it ends up looking like the JFKA was planned by Rube Goldberg tripping on LSD.
Truly, try it! Put up or shut up. Here, this will get your creative juices flowing:
(https://npr.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/9d6cbb3/2147483647/strip/true/crop/3749x2309+0+251/resize/880x542!/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia.npr.org%2Fassets%2Fimg%2F2014%2F01%2F03%2Fartofrubegoldberg_p0021-17420ec4815edec5a54f54d0d6d5b4f1d2959c29.jpg)
-
Michael: You are correct. I was wrong to say you believed there was shooter on top of the linen truck. That was made by another poster the Edu Forum.
I apologize.
However, I stand by my other comments about how your conspiracy beliefs contradict one another. You cannot believe in the HSCA acoustic evidence analysis which concluded there were two shooters - on from the TSBD and another behind the fence - and also believe, as you do, there were multiple gunman firing from in front of JFK. And that, as you stated, it was "possible" that Babushka Lady shot JFK with a camera gun.
Your conspiracy claims are at odds with each, are inconsistent, and are illogical.
-
Michael: You are correct. I was wrong to say you believed there was shooter on top of the linen truck. That was made by another poster the Edu Forum.
I apologize.
I appreciate the acknowledgement and the apology, which I accept.
However, I stand by my other comments about how your conspiracy beliefs contradict one another. You cannot believe in the HSCA acoustic evidence analysis which concluded there were two shooters - on from the TSBD and another behind the fence - and also believe, as you do, there were multiple gunman firing from in front of JFK. And that, as you stated, it was "possible" that Babushka Lady shot JFK with a camera gun.
This is simply factually and logically wrong. The HSCA's acoustical evidence does not prove, and does not require anyone to believe, that there were only four shots fired and that shots did not come from other locations. The HSCA's acoustical experts themselves made this point.
Again, the HSCA's test firing in Dallas only fired shots from two locations, a spot behind the fence on the knoll and the TSBD's sixth-floor window.
I yet again remind you that the committee members -- or Blakey representing the expressed or perceived desire of the committee members -- required that the 140.3 impulse pattern be ruled a false alarm, even though it passed the echo-delay matching test, and even though 8 of its 10 impulses matched the impulses of one of the Dealey Plaza test shots.
I would add that there was a sixth suspect impulse pattern on the dictabelt, an attenuated pattern at 136.2, that could have represented a shot fired by a rifle that was only a foot or two back from a window, as opposed to five to six feet back from a window. This impulse pattern was ruled a false alarm.
Moreover, as I've explained in other threads, the HSCA's acoustical experts explained that a shot fired from a rifle using a silencer would not be detectable on the dictablet, and that a shot fired by a gunman standing several feet back from a window would also not be detectable on the dictabelt.
Thus, it is simply wrong and illogical to say that accepting the acoustical evidence means rejecting the possibility that there was a third gunman and/or that there were more than four shots.
Your conspiracy claims are at odds with each, are inconsistent, and are illogical.
They are not at odds with each other and are not illogical.
The position that shots came from the front and that one of them hit the right front of JFK's head is supported by the numerous witnesses who heard shots from the grassy knoll, by the apparent gun smoke on the knoll that was seen by at least six witnesses and captured on the Wiegman film, by the pungent scent of gun powder that several witnesses said they smelled near or on the knoll, by the several indications of a frontal shot evident in the JFK autopsy photos and skull x-rays, and by the HSCA's acoustical evidence.
Furthermore, the position that more than four shots were fired is supported by the Zapruder film and by the credible accounts of extra bullets and missed shots.
"Reactions to Six Shots in the Zapruder Film" (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nnp3Vch_KMOB_qufAhlQOCLTTS9jqNV0/view)
"Extra Bullets and Missed Shots in Dealey Plaza" (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WRwhDQ9HMydf5pICsHwgtkoNKw0YSO8T/view)