You seem to forget that we're talking about handguns in 1963. Anyway, regardless of the weapon, supersonic is supersonic. The HSCA's acoustical experts proved scientifically that the dictabelt contains N-waves caused by supersonic gunfire.

The NRC/NAS panel members knew this, and they knew they couldn't explain it away, so they just ignored it. Ditto for Linsker. If those guys had had even a remotely plausible alternative explanation for the precise N-wave characteristics in two of the dictabelt's impulse patterns, they would have said so. 

Of course you didn't, because the DPD radio system had an AGC circuit! This is just comically dumb. The HSCA's acoustical experts explained this to everyone's satisfaction way back in 1978. Even the two clueless dissenting HSCA congressmen who were determined to reject the acoustical evidence did not make this silly argument. And, needless to say, neither the NRC/NAS panel nor Linsker was foolish enough to make this idiotic argument either.

But, not surprisingly, here you are repeating it, even after I explained why the muzzle blasts and their echoes are not audible to the naked ear. 

No, no, no. You know this is false. Neither the NRC/NAS panel members nor Linsker disputed the presence of gunfire N-waves on the dictabelt. They didn't even so much as say "we don't believe there are gunfire N-waves on the dictabelt." They ducked the N-wave evidence entirely because they knew that if they disputed it, they would have to explain why. They simply ignored it, even though they knew the HSCA's acoustical scientists had justifiably cited it as powerful scientific evidence that dictabelt recorded gunfire.

You are not willing to be candid and credible on the N-wave evidence because you are pathologically determined to deny any evidence that refutes your theory of the shooting, even if the evidence is hard scientific evidence based on known principles and methods of acoustical science. 

I don't doubt that for a minute. I'm sure that Weiss and Aschkenasy's explanations flew right over your head, even though they were given in fairly plain language for the benefit of the committee members and the general public. After all, just a few days ago you showed you didn't even know what constitutes a double negative in English.

Again, no, no, no. You are acting like a teenager who just can't bring himself to admit he's wrong. There are no "conflicting findings" of experts when it comes to the N-wave evidence. For the umpteenth time, the NRC/NAS panel members and Linsker said nothing about the HSCA's acoustical experts' N-wave finding, much less dared to tackle the hard scientific evidence that those experts presented for the finding.

BTW, the NRC/NAS panel members and Linsker also ducked the powerful windshield-distortion correlations that the HSCA's acoustical experts documented, undoubtedly because those correlations, like the gunfire N-wave identification, were confirmed by a test firing. I quote from the HSCA's report:

Weiss and Aschkenasy also considered the distortion that a windshield might cause to the sound impulses received by a motorcycle microphone. They reasoned that the noise from the initial muzzle blast of a shot would be somewhat muted on the tape if it traveled through the windshield to the microphone. Test firings conducted under the auspices of the New York City Police Department confirmed this hypothesis. Further, an examination of the dispatch tape reflected similar distortions on shots one, two, and three, when the indicated positions of the motorcycle would have placed the windshield between the shooter and the microphone. On shot four, Weiss and Aschkenasy found no such distortion. (HSCA Report, pp. 74-75)

As HSCA deputy chief counsel Gary Cornwell noted,

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. (Real Answers, 1998, pp. 113-114)

Translation: You're again relying on your falsehoods and distortions about the evidence of a grassy knoll shooter to justify your refusal to accept the scientific acoustical evidence of a grassy knoll shooter.

Objective people who have read our exchanges in this forum are going to see that I have documented that the autopsy skull x-rays contain evidence of a right-frontal entry wound and the explosion of a frangible bullet just behind the frontal entry wound site, that several people (including one of the morticians) saw a small hole in the area of the right temple, that JFK's throat wound was an entry wound, that several witnesses smelled the acrid odor of gunpowder on/near the knoll right after the shooting, that several witnesses saw apparent gun smoke coming from the area of the fence on the knoll, that the Wiegman film shows a puff of smoke hanging in the air on the knoll, that 58 witnesses in the plaza said they heard gunfire from the knoll, that five police officers were told by witnesses right after the shooting that someone had been firing from the knoll, that seconds after the shots were fired both Chief Curry and Sheriff Decker ordered their men to see what had happened in the area behind the knoll, that at least two witnesses saw a man running from the knoll into the railyard right after the shooting, etc., etc., etc.

I'm sure you did. I guess it didn't occur to you to read the HSCA's acoustical reports and hearings themselves and to read the scholarly attacks and defenses of them, instead of relying on one of the dozens of Internet "fact check" sites.

Umm, nooo. As I've explained before, the BBN 50% probability finding was a preliminary finding that was made before the test firing was conducted in Dealey Plaza and before Weiss and Aschkenasy did their sonar analysis. Once BBN's scientists examined the sonar analysis of the 144.9 impulse pattern, they agreed the probability was 95% or higher.

You see, this is what happens when you go running to Internet "fact check" sites whose authors are not specialists in the field and who merely do their own Internet searches and then post links and summaries.

Actually, Tony Marsh had no training in acoustics, whereas I received training in basic acoustics while in the Army and spent three years editing military manuals that dealt with acoustical direction-finding and signals-detection technology. That being said, Tony's critique of the NRC/NAS panel was solid.

Oh?! Well, then perhaps you would care to share why you think they said nothing about a major item of evidence that they knew the HSCA's acoustical scientists had cited as powerful scientific confirmation that the dictabelt contains gunfire?!

Again, dealing with you is like dealing with a spoiled teenager who can't admit he's wrong. We both know that if Linsker et al. had had even a remotely plausible explanation for the N-wave evidence, they would have gleefully presented it and would have gladly cited it as another reason to reject HSCA's acoustical findings.

This is just more of your juvenile back-pedaling. According to what you said, they were not qualified to dispute "the scientific method used by BBN" because they were not acoustical scientists and because the method was an acoustical science method. And, again, the BBN scientists used the same methods (not just one method) that they used to analyze the recording of the Kent State shooting to determine the location of the rifles that fired the shots.

For newcomers to this thread, I've already discussed the many errors, blunders, and omissions of the NRC/NAS panel:

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,5215.msg186017.html#msg186017

Umm, I didn't say "disputed." As for checking a thesaurus, humm, you're the same guy who just a few days ago proved he didn't know what a double negative is.

Anyway, I'll let readers decide whether or not I've refuted your arguments or merely "disputed" them, since you never admit when you're wrong, even when your blunder is self-evident.

Uh-huh. You can read the NRC/NAS report and see these facts for yourself.

The NRC/NAS report claims the BBN scientists erred in their calculation of the probability relating to the timing-movement correlations, that the BBN value of P<0.01 (i.e., less than 1%) was actually P=0.07 (i.e., 7%), and that therefore the “significance of the layout” indicated by Figure 22 in the BBN report was “considerably reduced” (Report of the Committee on Ballistic Acoustics, i.e., the NRC/NAS report, p. 37).

I trust that even you can comprehend that the panel's P=0.07 means the panel put the probability that chance caused the timing-movement correlations at 7% instead of BBN's calculation of less than 1% (P=0.07 vs. P<0.01). If you doubt that P=0.07 equals 7% and P<0.01 equals less than 1%, you can Google them.

Okay, so obviously, if the probability that chance caused the timing-movement correlations was 7%, then the probability that chance did not cause the correlations was 93%. You can do this much math, right?

Yes, a 7% probability of chance is more than a "less than 1%" probability of chance, but it is still an extremely low probability of chance.

As for the NRC/NAS panel's calculation of the probability that the 144.9 impulse pattern was caused by a grassy knot shot, after noting that Weiss and Aschkenasy calculated there was no more than a 5.3% probability (P=0.053) that the impulse pattern was not caused by gunfire, the panel argued that the probability was actually 22.3% (P=0.223) (Report of the Committee on Ballistic Acoustics, i.e., the NRC/NAS report, p. 40).

Alrighty, so if the probability that the 144.9 impulse pattern was not caused by grassy knoll gunfire was 22.3%, then the probability that the impulse pattern was caused by grassy knoll gunfire was 77.7%, right? You can do this much math, right?

Got it now?

So, as noted, you're going to rely on some "fact check" site whose authors are not JFKA researchers and who merely did their own Internet search and copied and pasted links and wrote brief summaries.

"Peer and government reviews"? Not one of the critics who did those reviews was an acoustical scientist. I can excuse the "fact check" site authors for not knowing this, and for not knowing that it wasn't just Barger, Weiss, and Aschkenasy but also eight other acoustical scientists who worked on the HSCA's acoustical evidence, but you have no excuse and should have known better than to cite this superficial "fact check" article.

Humes never made any drawings. He was going by memory when giving instructions to Rydberg.

The wound placement is too high in the drawing but the wound was in the low neck.

Excuse me, but you act like a troll. You do nothing but make these silly, snide remarks. You never offer any research or links to back up anything you say, at least as far as I have seen in your replies to me.

Now, in point of fact, the former chief analyst of military records at the ARRB, Doug Horne, has documented every statement that I made and that you dismissed. I would refer you to his 5-volume work Inside the ARRB. If you prefer video to print, here's a five-part video presentation by Horne in which he discusses a large chunk of this evidence:

Part 1: https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/altered-history-exposing-deciet-and-deception-in-the-jfk-assassination-medical-evidence-part-1/
Part 2: https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/altered-history-exposing-deceit-and-deception-in-the-jfk-assassination-medical-evidence-part-2/
Part 3: https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/altered-history-exposing-deceit-and-deception-in-the-jfk-assassination-medical-evidence-part-3/
Part 4: https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/altered-history-exposing-deceit-and-deception-in-the-jfk-assassination-medical-evidence-part-4-video/
Part 5: https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/altered-history-exposing-deceit-and-deception-in-the-jfk-assassination-medical-evidence-part-5-video/

Before working for the ARRB, Horne earned a degree in history from Ohio State University, served for 10 years as an officer in the U.S. Navy, and worked for the Navy as a civilian in the Navy's anti-submarine warfare program. When the ARRB ended, Horne worked for the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum and then the U.S. State Department before retiring a few years ago. The ARRB thought enough of him to promote him from being a senior analyst of military records to being the chief analyst of military records. So he's not some yahoo amateur with no education or background.

If you want laughable sci-fi, go read the Warren Commission's report or review the single-bullet theory or the lone-gunman head-shot theory (either version).

Douglass wrote a left-wing hagiography of JFK, and then leapt from that premise to a fantasy of permanent global peace, if only JFK had lived (a nearly Messianic figure, in Douglass' recreation).

DiEugenio picks up the ball, and has JFK not only in peacefully concluding tensions with communist dictatorships, but siding with Islamists against Israel, also with incredibly positive results.

For those authors, the JFKA is not about an assassination, but a platform for their ideologies.