1
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Acoustic Evidence
« Last post by Michael T. Griffith on Today at 07:46:02 PM »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.
Recent Posts
