Poppycock!

  The Bronson film is too poor quality to make any possible distinction of ANYTHING McIntire or Hickey are doing when the film is blown up or otherwise enhanced, plus the film ends too abruptly after the fatal shotyto capture any such things.

Don't waste your time on this guy, Steve. He has been peddling the laughable "Hickey did it" crap on multiple forums and newsgroups for the past many years.

I've already proved to you in numerous exchanges in this forum that every one of these arguments is either false or misleading or irrelevant.

You've declared that many times. We have yet to see the proof.

And I notice you again made no effort to explain the facts that validate the HSCA's acoustical findings.

Unlike you, I don't pretend to be an expert in all these highly technical fields pertaining to the JFKA. i've seen how foolish you make yourself look when you try,

Let's try this: How about if you just answer one straightforward question? Here it is:

If the dictabelt did not record gunfire in Dealey Plaza during the assassination, how did N-waves get on the dictabelt -- not crude, superficial N-waves from random noise but gunfire N-waves with muzzle blasts and muzzle-blast echoes, in the correct order and interval, and only when the microphone was in position to record them?

There are no muzzle blasts on the Dictabelt recording. That much I do know. I know what a muzzle blast from a rifle sounds like and it sounds nothing like the impulses on the recording.

I'll even give you a big hint: The NRC/NAS panel did not even mention the N-wave evidence, much less try to explain it, even though they knew it was a major item of evidence that the HSCA's acoustical scientists justifiably cited as powerful support for their findings.

Apparently, they too recognized those weren't muzzle blasts.

Ah, heck, I'll give you another big hint: The Linsker group (Linsker, Garwin, Chernoff, Horowitz, and Ramsey) that responded to Dr. Thomas's 2001 article on the acoustical evidence did not lay a finger on the N-wave evidence either, even though four of them had served on the NRC/NAS panel and thus were well aware that this was a major item of evidence that the panel had ignored.

They also didn't hear muzzle blasts.

I'll even give you some study notes to help you answer the question.

Dr. David Scheim, who holds a doctorate in mathematics from MIT:

Moreover, an "N-wave," characteristic of supersonic gunfire, appeared in each dictabelt impulse for which the police microphone was in an appropriate position to detect it, including the recorded sound of the third shot [i.e., 144.9 impulse pattern/the grassy knoll shot]. (The Mafia Killed President Kennedy, 1988, pp. 27-28)

Dr. G. Paul Chambers, a physicist who has worked with NASA, with the Naval Surface Warfare Center, and with the Naval Research Laboratory:

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. In 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: The Science Behind the JFK Assassination, 2010 pp. 101-102)

Being a mathematician or a physicist does not qualify one as an expert in acoustics. What we have are conflicting opinions of people who are experts as to whether the Dictabelt recording is of gunshots fired during the assassination. Jurors in both civil and criminal cases are often presented with conflicting expert testimony. They are tasked with determining which side has presented the more credible expert testimony. One of the ways they have of doing that is determining which viewpoint fits the body of evidence as a whole. There is absolutely no other credible evidence of a gunshot on the GK. No bullets were recovered except for the two fired by Oswald's rifle. No discarded shells were found except for the three in the sniper's nest which was on the same floor as Oswald's rifle which was positively matched to the only recovered bullets and shells. Neither JFK nor JBC were hit by shots fired fro anywhere in front of them. A witness with a perfect view of the area behind the stockade fence didn't see a shooter at any time before, during, or after he heard the shots. Neither did any of the people who raced to that area following the shots. In short, their is no credible evidence to corroborate the opinion that the Dictabelt recorded gunshots during the shooting. That makes it easy for me to decide whether to believe the experts who said the recording was of gunshots or the experts who said it was not. 

Umm, no, that's not a double negative.

Sheesh. . . . 

English 101.

AI says otherwise

Is “Not Inaccurate” a Double Negative?
Yes — “not inaccurate” is a double negative in English grammar. It contains two negative elements: the negative adverb not and the negative adjective inaccurate

Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

Why does anybody believe anything that Tosh Plumlee says?

That said, the call to Hurt is mysterious. What would be the purpose of some conspirator giving Oswald Hurt's number? What was supposed to happen if he actually was able to reach him? Hurt was on permanent disability from work, was a raging alcoholic and would have been of less than zero use to a person who was facing death row for two murders...

As we know, Boswell's autopsy face sheet placed the base of the neck wound way too low and he corrected it for the HSCA and later explained this discrepancy in his ARRB Deposition, so based on the original JFK face sheet along with the hole in the unbunched jacket, is where the erroneously positioned chalk mark ended up.
 

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md159/html/md159_0001a.htm

Q. Dr. Boswell, I'd like to show you Exhibit No. 22, page 2800, and draw your attention to one portion of that article that relates to what we're talking about now. If you look over in the third column on the right, the first full paragraph, if you could read that to yourself, please.

As I examine the photographs, the President's clothing, and other records, it appears to me as a lay person that the marking that you have made on the diagram on the right seems roughly to correspond to the other records; but it also seems as if you're suggesting that the diagram is incorrect.

A. Right.

Q. Is that right?

A. Yes. When we saw the clothing, we realized that where I had drawn this was--if you looked at the back of the coat, it was in the exact same place. But the coat had been--was up like this. He was waving, and this was all scrunched up like this. And the bullet went through the coat way below where this would be on his body, because it was really at the base of his neck. And the way I know this best is my memory of the fact that-- see, we probed this hole which was in his neck with all sorts of probes and everything, and it was such a small hole, basically, and the muscles were so big and strong and had closed the hole and you couldn't get a finger or a probe through it.

But when we opened the chest and we got at--the lung extends up under the clavicle and high just beneath the neck here, and the bullet had not pierced through into the lung cavity but had caused hemorrhage just outside the pleura. And so if I can move this up to here--it's shown better on the front, actually. The wound came through and downward just above the thoracic cavity and out at about the thyroid cartilage. So if you put a probe in this and got it back through like this, that would come out right at the base of the neck.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/boswella.htm

JohnM

LOL! Holy smokes! So now you're quoting Boswell's appeal to the ridiculous, debunked bunched-clothing theory in his ARRB interview to explain his placement of the back wound on the autopsy face sheet, followed by his repetition of the pure fiction that the alleged wound path through the neck went downward from the back wound to the "base of the neck"?! Now I've seen it all!

So we're right back to Humes's CE 385 myth that the back wound was above the throat wound! You guys just can't help yourselves, can you? Even after the HSCA FPP soundly debunked Humes's fiction, here you are still repeating it. 

I guess it's just a remarkable coincidence that the back wound's location on Boswell's autopsy face sheet (marked "verified") matches the location given in the official death certificate (also marked "verified"), matches the location given in Clint Hill's 11/30/63 report after viewing the body at the morgue, matches the location given by J. Lee Rankin in the transcript of the 1/27/64 WC executive session (note that Rankin specified that the location was below "where the bullet came out"), matches the location shown in Roy Kellerman's HSCA wound diagram, matches the location shown in Francis O'Neill's HSCA wound diagram, matches the location shown in James Sibert's HSCA wound diagram, matches the location that Dr. Ebersole gave in his recorded interview with Harrison Livingstone, and, needless to say, matches the location definitively established by the hard physical evidence of the rear JFK clothing holes.

And just never mind that the HSCA FPP, including Baden and Spitz and Wecht, determined that the back wound was below the throat wound, and that the bullet would have had an upward trajectory through the neck? Just ignore all that, huh? I'm shocked that John Corbett isn't berating your for ignoring "the unanimous finding" of the nine "eminent forensic pathologists" of the HSCA FPP.

You see, this is why it is hard to take you guys seriously. You guys still can't ween yourselves from Humes's CE 385 fiction of a back wound above the throat wound and of a bullet traveling downward through the neck, even though the HSCA FPP definitively refuted that nonsense in 1979, and even though the overwhelming weight of the evidence puts the back wound below the throat wound.