Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Agreed.

And MTG can't get it through his head that no matter what Thomas said in any of his writings or lectures, the radio transmission Thomas claims is "I'll check it" crosstalk on channel 1 is both bogus and nothing but a lie by Thomas.

The fact that heterodyne tones accompany (Surround, if you will) the speech by someone opening their microphone on channel 1 and speaking into the microphone is proof solid that it's not crosstalk. The heterodyne tones prove this. It is in no way, shape or form "crosstalk". End of story.

You have no clue what you are talking about. I wonder if you even read my reply. I'm certain you haven't read the 2015-2018 research done by BBN acoustical scientists. I doubt you've even read a small portion of Dr. Thomas's hundreds of pages of research on the acoustical evidence.

Did you miss the fact that even Bowles admitted that the Fisher "I'll check" transmission is crosstalk? Again, did you even read my reply or did you just glance at it before you rubber-stamped Corbett's inane reply?

Did you miss the fact that Dr. Mullen's PCC test proved that the Fisher "I'll check" transmission is actual crosstalk and that the Decker "hold everything" transmission is nothing but an overdub that was not even recorded at the same speed as the acknowledged crosstalk transmissions?

As for your spurious argument that the Fisher transmission can't be crosstalk because it is accompanied by heterodyne tones, I take it you're unaware that heterodyne tones also occur near and during the Decker transmission. So, according to you, the Decker transmission can't be crosstalk. You would have known better than to repeat the heterodyne argument if you had read Dr. Thomas's research or Dr. Thompson's research.

BTW, Linsker and his colleagues tried to conceal the fact that even their own incompetently done PCC test disqualified the Decker transmission as crosstalk if they accepted the heterodyne argument (Thompson, Last Second in Dallas, p. 512).

This whole erroneous heterodyne argument started with the NRC/NAS panel because they didn't understand the relationship of the transmitters and didn't understand how broadcasts can be superimposed from one channel onto another. They wrongly assumed that the Channel 2 broadcast had been picked up over the motorcycle's transmitter, i.e., its open microphone, but the broadcast was actually picked up by another transmitter, most likely a police unit parked at the Trade Mart where police officers had gathered for JFK's expected arrival.

The NRC/NAS panel also wrongly assumed that the differences in the energy in the Channel 1 heterodyne and the Channel 2 heterodynes proved that the Decker transmission must have been recorded in real time, because they didn't understand that a broadcast from one channel could have been superimposed on another channel in real time. If the panel members had bothered to consult with the BBN and Queen's College acoustical scientists, the scientists could have educated them on this issue.

I doubt you have any interest in doing so, but if you want to read a scientific analysis that includes a discussion of the heterodyne tones heard on the dictabelt, see Appendix B in Thompson's book. The appendix was written by BBN acoustical scientist Dr. Richard Mullen and is titled "Signal Processing Results for Both DPD Audio Files."

You should also read BBN acoustical scientist Dr. James Barger's detailed discussion on the criteria to establish crosstalk in the dictabelt. It's titled "Quantitative Analysis of Crosstalk Found in Audio Recorded During the JFK Assassination" and is Appendix A in Thompson's book.

2
Firstly, this version of Bell is FAR superior to the one I was using and will be far more helpful, so thanks for that.
I'd like to go slowly to piece together my thinking here. The first thing I'd like to clear up is your comment in an earlier post that in the Bell film Weigman can be seen walking towards Zapruder. As far as I can tell this is not correct but I might be misunderstanding something so I'd like to clear it up. It's not a 'gotcha' or anything, just a genuine attempt to work this timeline out.

In the Bell film we see the limo enter the underpass followed by 3 cars. The camera then quickly pans to the right and shows us the GK area, where we see Zapruder and Sitzman making their way from the plinth and, as it pans across, Weigman in a prone position from where he was filming the Hesters:



This is the moment just before there is a cut/jump in the film.
We can see Weigman lying on the steps. He has just finished filming the Hesters (Mr Hester can be just about made out in the shadows of the pergola, Mrs Hester is getting up from her prone position). Weigman turns around and starts to get up. In the bottom left corner we can see Hargis stood by the lamp post.

The film then cuts/jumps to the scene below. There is no way to tell how much time has passed but a few things have changed - Altgens has appeared out of nowhere, Weigman is now filming the Newmans and Hargis is now running across the road:



Do you agree that the Bell film does NOT show Wegman walking towards Zapruder?
Do you agree there is no way to tell, just by watching the Bell film, how much time has passed between these two images because of the cut/jump?
Do you agree that Weigman has moved from his position filming the Hesters to his position filming the Newmans?

Again, no 'gotchas', just honest questions.
[/quote


                                                                           ALTGENS 8  VS  THE WIEGMAN FILM

       On "Altgens 8",  we are told that we are seeing the backs of Zapruder and Sitzman having just gotten down from the pedestal. They are standing on the cement just to the (E) of this same pedestal. In the background, we see BOTH of the Hesters flat on the ground, close to the Pergola. Per Trask's "Pictures Of The Pain", "Altgens 8" was taken from the (S) side of Elm St. It was taken Immediately after Altgens took the photo of the rear of the JFK Limo as it raced toward the Triple Underpass. (Time Stamp)
       On a good copy of  the "Wiegman Film", there are 2-3 clear frames showing this very Same Pedestal and the cement just to the (E) of this Pedestal. There is also a frame clearly showing the inside of the Shelter behind this same pedestal. These frames were taken BEFORE Wiegman filmed Both Hesters laying on the ground, and Mr Hester then getting up and moving to the Pergola behind them. These 2-3 Wiegman Film frames showing the pedestal and the cement to the (E) of the pedestal, do Not show Zapruder. They also do Not show Sitzman. And the Wiegman Film frame clearly showing the inside of the Pergola Shelter behind the pedestal, shows the Shelter to be empty.
        How is it that these 2-3 Wiegman Film still frames of the pedestal area do Not show any trace of Zapruder and Sitzman? Along with the shelter behind the pedestal being filmed empty? Zapruder and Sitzman are Not inside the shelter. This completely changes the currently accepted time lines of these images and the people captured within them. Wiegman got out of Camera Car #1 LATER than we were led to believe, and he then filmed the JFK Limo going under the Triple Underpass LATER than we were led to believe. The same goes for the Darnell Film footage of Officer Baker running toward the TSBD. That currently accepted :20 second time line is Wrong. ALL of these images were incorrectly time lined in order to corroborate each other. The now much clearer JFK Assassination Images, also being readily examined/viewed online, is exposing this chicanery.         
3


DiEugenio did pretty good work in showing JFK intended to withdraw from Viet Nam...He met Ambassador Gullion in Viet Nam in the 1950's and knew it was unwinnable...Douglass showed that JFK intended a neutralization policy in Laos...I mean Johnson would not have needed to reverse NSAM 263...
4


This subject is always accompanied by persons who think they can come in and divert around the fact the 6th Floor Museum copy possesses enough data to prove Prayer Man is Stanton...
5
We can already work with the copies we have.
6
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Acoustic Evidence
« Last post by Steve Barber on Today at 05:53:54 PM »
MTG's long winded posts seem to follow the adage, "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with  B:"

He seems to try to bore people into not responding to him. Often, that works.

 Agreed.

 And MTG can't get it through his head that no matter what Thomas said in any of his writings or lectures, the radio transmission Thomas claims is "I'll check it" crosstalk on channel 1 is both bogus and nothing but a lie by Thomas.

 The fact that heterodyne tones accompany (Surround, if you will)  the speech by someone opening their microphone on channel 1 and speaking into the microphone is proof solid that it's not crosstalk.  The heterodyne tones prove this.  It is in no way, shape or form "crosstalk". End of story.
7
Quote from: John Corbett on Yesterday at 05:09:08 PM
I continue to insist that no shooting can be perfectly replicated and it is an unreasonable demand that such a thing is necessary. I know of no other case in which that was done. Individual elements of a shooting can be tested to show what is possible, but to expect every aspect of any shooting to be perfectly replicated is ridiculous.


Good Luck in your being seated on any jury involving a Shooting of any kind.

I know. His argument is so ridiculous.

When Corbett first began to engage me in this forum, he cited the WC's headshot wound-ballistics test as evidence that Oswald's alleged ammo was the ammo that hit JFK's head. But, when I proved that the WC's test shows the exact opposite, that's when he started peddling this line that wound-ballistics tests are essentially worthless because they can't "perfectly replicate" every aspect of a shooting.

Now, probably because of Stewart Fillmore's comments, Corbett has modestly modified this argument to say that "individual elements of a shooting can be tested" but that no test can "perfectly replicate" all aspects of a shooting.

Okay, then it should be noted that every single test that has tested "individual elements" of the SBT has produced results that directly contradict those elements. In the 1967 CBS SBT test, not one of the bullets managed to penetrate the simulated thigh after passing through a ballistics gelatin block and then hitting a cadaver wrist, even though they didn't have to hit a rib bone before hitting the wrist. In fact, many of the bullets didn't even leave the wrist.

In the 1992 AAT SBT test, a 6.5 mm FMJ bullet was fired into two gelatin blocks. The second gelatin block contained animal bones to simulate the shattering of a rib bone and the smashing of a wrist bone. The bullet transited the first gelatin block and struck the animal bones in the second block. It emerged markedly more deformed than CE 399.

What's more, four of the bullets in Lattimer's SBT test actually hit the simulated rib and wrist bones after passing through a simulated neck, and the only one of those bullets that Lattimer published a photo of was badly mangled (he admitted he threw away the three other bullets -- I wonder why).

The most fraudulent SBT test to date was arguably Dr. Martin Fackler's 1992 test. Fackler made no effort to simulate a human neck, a human chest, a rib bone, and a human thigh. He lowered the velocity of his bullets to 1100-1335 fps and fired them directly into cadaver wrists. Fackler said that the two bullets that went through the wrists emerged with no deformity ("absolutely undeformed").

In other words, he simply assumed that if the bullets had torn through a human neck and through a human chest, shattering 4 inches of rib bone in the process, the bullets would not have been deformed and would have had enough velocity to then penetrate a human thigh after smashing the wrist.

When I first read about Fackler's SBT test, I thought the article I was reading had to be mistaken, that no one would have conducted such an obviously bogus test, but then I found Fackler's own article on his test and saw that he admitted that the only part of CE 399's alleged journey that he simulated was the hit on the wrist and that he fired his reduced-velocity bullets directly into the wrists. Yet, some WC apologists in this forum continue to cite Fackler's bogus SBT test.



 
8
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Acoustic Evidence
« Last post by John Corbett on Today at 04:55:43 PM »
MTG's long winded posts seem to follow the adage, "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with  B:"

He seems to try to bore people into not responding to him. Often, that works.
9
Are you trying to get people to take you seriously? It's not working.

Just another empty statement.
People can see the evidence that I have posted and how it supports the arguments I am making.
You are just posting petulant, childish statements that are completely meaningless.
I stand by what I have posted and am willing to debate at anytime.

You are just making snide, cowardly comments that lack any content.

I know which I would take more seriously.
10
   Funny that you would mention the "1st down line on the screen". That "line" is also Not, "Dead on balls accurate". Just like the game clock.
   And do Not get me started on the actual "spotting" of the football. That is "putzed" up very often. Sometimes on purpose. This was made obvious with this repeatedly being done in favor of the KC Chiefs during the NFL Playoffs.

I know that the first down line is not official. The officials on the field are not even aware of it. They spot the ball based on it's furthest forward progress point at the time the ball became dead. The problem is that putting that line down causes a brief discrepancy between the main camera and the other cameras and throws it out of sync with the scoreboard clock. I wasn't aware of that until this incident. Even though it is likely the main camera is the one that is off when there is a discrepancy between what the various cameras show, that is the one replay protocols should be accepted when there is a discrepancy of a fraction of a second. Replay was intended to correct obvious officiating errors. It was not intended to micro-manage the game down to the last fraction of a second. If two cameras show a different result, the call on the field is supposed to stand.

Officiating football is not an exact science. Often when the ball is spotted, the officials are taking an educated guess as to where the ball was when the runner was determined to be down. The same is true of timing issues. For sixty minutes, minor discrepancies in timing are not second guessed. Why should that be done at the end of the game? That is why replay protocols are created so that only obvious errors are corrected. Those protocols were not followed in the WM/UM game and WM was robbed of a victory their players had earned.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10