Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
MG: I should add that by "very short distance," I mean very short, like 5 meters (15 feet).

In a ballistics test done in 2023 and published in the July 2023 issue of the International Journal of Legal Medicine, three bullets were fired into blocks of 10% ballistics gelatin from a distance of just 5 meters (15 feet). The bullets were fired from a Tikka M65 Sporter rifle, a high-velocity weapon (2700-2900 fps). The bullet were a full metal-jacketed Norma Jaktmatch bullet, a full-copper Norma Ecostrike bullet, and a soft-point Norma Oryx bullet.

Predictably, the soft-point (i.e., frangible) bullet left behind over three times more fragments than the FMJ bullet did, and the frangible bullet fragments were more than three times smaller than the FMJ bullet fragments.  Also, the frangible bullet's "fragment cloud" was more than two times larger than the FMJ bullet's fragment cloud. In addition, the FMJ bullet did not begin to fragment until it traveled 21.3 cm (8.3 inches) into the gelatin block, whereas the frangible bullet began to fragment virtually upon impact, fragmenting just 0.3 cm (0.1 inch or 1/10th of an inch) after it entered the gelatin block.


The distance is irrelevant. What matters is the velocity a bullet strikes the object at.

Another amateurish blunder. Umm, the distance is definitely relevant because it affects the velocity at which the bullet strikes the object. The longer the bullet has to travel through air, the more its velocity will be reduced.

Plus, as the scientists who conducted the test explained, the very short distance meant the bullet did not have time to stabilize its flight: "We hypothesized that this was the result of a short shooting distance that did not allow the bullet to stabilize properly."

When are you going to back up your spurious claim that WCC 6.5 mm FMJ bullets behave differently than all other FMJ bullets? Where do you get that piece of fiction? Can you cite a single forensic source that even implies this?

Why do you suppose Dr. DiMaio did not specify that his statements about the behavior of FMJ bullets did not apply to WCC 6.5 mm FMJ bullets? Obviously, because those FMJ bullets behave like all other FMJ bullets.

You constantly just make up nonsense that you want to believe and then pretend that it explains facts that refute your theory.
2
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Acoustic Evidence
« Last post by John Corbett on Today at 12:03:15 PM »
The recording contained no sounds of gunfire, only static impulses which some interpreted to be gunshots. Junk science is still junk science. The supposed gunshots on the recording can't be synced to the Zapruder film in any plausible way which should tell any sensible person the recording is not of the shooting in Dealey Plaza.

It should be noted that when MTG gets confronted with arguments he would rather not deal with, he resorts to diversion by shifting the conversation away from the inconvenient questions as he has done here by shifting the conversation to an ABC7 documentary. It should be noted that this was a locally produced documentary, not a presentation by the network's ABC News division. On the 40th anniversary of the assassination, ABC News presented an excellent documentary in which it debunked many of the popular objections to the WC findings. This preceded by several years, Vincent Bugliosi's even more thorough demolition of CT mythology regarding the JFKA.
3
In December 2021, ABC7 News in San Francisco aired an outstanding documentary on the JFK assassination titled JFK Unsolved: The Real Conspiracies that includes valuable segments on the acoustical evidence. The documentary was written and produced by Emmy Award-winning investigative journalist Dan Noyes, who works for ABC7 News. Noyes has also won the Journalistic Integrity Award from California Attorneys for Criminal Justice. The documentary focuses on the research presented in Dr. Josiah Thompson's 2021 book Last Second in Dallas, but it also includes important segments on other research, such as Dr. Doug DeSalles' wound-ballistics tests.

The documentary contains excellent segments on the acoustical evidence, especially the final segment, which discusses the new research done by BBN scientists Dr. James Barger and Dr. Richard Mullen. The segment does the best job I have ever seen of explaining one of the key findings of the new acoustical research, namely, that the Decker "hold everything" transmission is an overdub, not crosstalk.

Here is the transcript of that segment from the documentary's transcript:

NOYES: Thompson next revisited the sound of gunfire captured by that open microphone on a Dallas police motorcycle tuned to Channel 1.

In 1982 the National Academy of Sciences disputed that recording. They compared it to Channel 2 of the police radio that day and ruled what sounded like gunfire actually happened 60 seconds after the assassination.

THOMPSON: That particular report has been believed for about 30 years. It was wrong it was wildly wrong.

NOYES: For his new book Thompson contacted the scientist who initially confirmed the recording as authentic, that the motorcycle's open microphone caught the sounds of the assassination. James Barger led the acoustics recreation in Dealey Plaza in 1978 for the House Select Committee on Assassinations.

BARGER: I hate to see what I know darn well was well-documented, good science cast aside by, well, bad science.

NOYES: Barger happily came out of retirement after Thompson's call and worked for the past several years with an old colleague, engineer Richard Mullen, analyzing the radio recordings.

BARGER: And he found out, yes, the Channel 2 tape had been over dubbed -- it had been cut -- by measuring the
hum frequencies very carefully.

THOMPSON: If you have several hum frequencies this meant that it went through several different electronic devices in in becoming what it was.

NOYES: The Channel 2 recording was not an original as the government contended, and someone spliced or edited the tape. The National Academy of Sciences made a mistake using the Channel 2 recording to refute the sounds of gunfire heard on Channel 1. (JFK Unsolved: The Real Conspiracies, 1:05:27 to 1:07:21)


Dr. Barger explained the overdub evidence and its implications in plain language to Dr. Thompson:

The odds that Channel 2 would have two hum frequencies are very small. It’s a strong indication that the Channel 2 tapes came from a second-generation Audograph disk. Therefore, two independent actions were responsible for those two hum frequencies. It is wholly unlikely that two additional and independent actions on Channel 1 could reproduce the exact same hum frequencies produced by two independent actions on Channel 2. The fact that both of these hum frequencies were recorded on Channel 1 is proof that the HOLD family of crosstalk was overdubbed onto Channel 1. (Last Second in Dallas, 2021, p. 547)

Here is part of Dr. Barger's explanation of some of the findings of the new BBN research in his appendix titled "A Quantitative Analysis of Crosstalk Found in Audio Recorded During the JFK Assassination" in Thompson's book:

Five instances of crosstalk and one simulcast are heard within a period of about five minutes at the time of the JFK assassination when listening to audio records of the two Dallas Police Department (DPD) radio communication channels. However, when the two surviving audio channels are aligned in time at the simulcast, none of the five crosstalk events align in time—none are synchronous. A committee appointed by the National Research Council (NRC)  posited that one crosstalk event (“Hold everything” [HOLD]) did nevertheless align on the basis of hypothetical Channel 2 data logger pauses. Moreover, the survivors of this committee concluded in 2005 that another crosstalk event (“I’ll check it”) was not even crosstalk. 

This paper discovers crosstalk synchrony-—i.e., recorded simultaneously in real time—-by using the idea of correcting the playback times of dispatcher-voiced annotation times so that they synchronize with the corresponding original spoken clock times. Hum signal frequencies found in both radio channels, including two frequencies that are common to both, inform the deduction of recording histories of all crosstalk events. It is found that two events, “I’ll check it” and “I’ve got” were likely recorded onto Channel 1 from Channel 2 audio in real time as crosstalk during the assassination. The other three events, HOLD and two others, were overdubbed onto Channel 1 from Channel 2 during a later session. Consequently, the HOLD family of crosstalks cannot be used to infer the causality of anything recorded in real time. . . .

The actual overdubbing was probably inadvertent. The HOLD family [i.e., the Decker "hold everything" transmission soundwaves] share a robust signal-to-noise ratio on Channel 2. Their corresponding signals on Channel 1 are very weak—-HOLD itself is near hearing threshold. Therefore, the Channel 2 noise level that would have been overdubbed would be well below the Channel 1 noise level and cannot be identified. The effect of this overdub probably causes the presence of the HOLD family on Channel 1 to be an artifact—-the result of the multiple tape copies and dubs made to and from multiple machines in the first days by technicians at the DPD and FBI and attested by the intricate and odd assemblage of hum frequencies found by Richard Mullen. (Appendix A: A Quantitative Analysis of Crosstalk Found in Audio Recorded During the JFK Assassination, ​Last Second in Dallas, 2021, pp. 571-572, 589-590)


Finally, a word about my qualifications when it comes to acoustics, such as they are:

Quote
You claim to have had acoustics training although I don't know how your particular training applies to the evidence in question.

I "claim" this because I did in fact receive some training in basic acoustics as part of my training as a military intelligence signals technician in the Army. My training included instruction in radio wave propagation, RF theory, the electromagnetic spectrum, emitter characteristics, geolocation/direction-finding methods, soundwave modulation (AM vs. FM vs. PM), the effect of weather conditions on radio waves, the use of triangulation in geolocating the origin of a radio signal, and multichannel technology.

For those who may be interested in seeing verification of this training, below is a link to my NSA National Cryptologic School transcript (for obvious reasons, I've blacked out my SSN). "SIGINT" stands for signals intelligence. The transcript documents that I completed the following courses (among others): Low VHF SIGINT Operation, Basic Satellites, Introduction to SIGINT Reporting, Basic Multichannel Technology, and Principles of Collection.

NCS Transcript

I should add that as a SIGINT technician, I actually used signals-interception and direction-finding equipment and actually performed signals interception and signals geolocation.

And, as I've also mentioned, for about three years I worked as a technical editor for a Navy command that dealt with air and missile defense, and in that capacity I edited manuals that included sections on signals detection and direction-finding equipment.

However, I once again repeat that I do not claim to be an acoustical scientist. My acoustics training and experience were far below the training and experience of an acoustical scientist. But, I do know a lot more about acoustical science than your average Joe.

5
Dear Herr Smith,

TDS = Trump Disinformation Sanitizer.

-- Tom

Trump won three times.
6
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Acoustic Evidence
« Last post by John Corbett on Today at 03:25:23 AM »
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  BS: 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.
Quote

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.
Quote

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.
Quote


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

That statement deserves five  BS: BS: BS: BS: BS:

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.
Quote

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?
Quote

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.
Quote


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.
Quote
Quote

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.
Quote

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.
Quote

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?
Quote

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.
Quote

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  BS: 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.
Quote

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.
Quote


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.
Quote

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.
Quote

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?
7
The impact of a decade's long propaganda campaign on the feeble-minded TDS types is scary.

Dear Herr Smith,

TDS = Trump Disinformation Sanitizer.

-- Tom
8
Watched The assassination and Mrs. Paine and now think she knew a lot more than she left on, but any secrets she took to the grave.

You think Russophile Ruthie had some secrets???

Join the club!
9
Watched The assassination and Mrs. Paine and now think she knew a lot more than she left on, but any secrets she took to the grave.
10
The impact of a decade's long propaganda campaign on the feeble-minded TDS types is scary. 
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10