I'm not going to spend an hour going over the same arguments point-by-point, but I couldn't let this one slide. I did not say you said disputed. I pointed out that you claimed to have refuted when all you did was dispute the findings of those who found fault with the BBN. I was responding to this statement by you:
"Repeating these lame arguments won't improve them. People who have read our previous exchanges in this forum will see that I have refuted every single one of these arguments".
You claimed to have refuted when all you had done was dispute their findings. That was the point I was making.
Sheesh, even on a minor, peripheral issue you can't admit when you're wrong. You are the most blindly biased, poorly read, and dishonest member of this forum.
Anyone who reads that exchange will see that you are falsely portraying it. You pretended that I had said "disputed" when I had said no such thing. If you can't even admit this black-and-white fact that anyone can see in the two previous replies in question, it is no wonder you repeat your dissembling, evasion, and blundering on so many other issues.
And, again, I'll let readers decide whether I have merely disputed your arguments under discussion or have refuted them.
I'm not going to go into the specifics of the acoustical evidence for the same reason I didn't try to do that with the medical evidence.
More of your juvenile dissembling. You have repeatedly gone "into the specifics" about the acoustical evidence, but each time you have blundered, and when your blunder has been documented, you've falsely retreated behind your "I'm just a layman" argument. One minute you're making categorical claims about the acoustical evidence, and the next minute you're back-pedaling with your "I'm just a layman" excuse when those claims are exposed as invalid.
Both these fields require years of study and experience to become experts in these fields. A layman such as myself is simply not qualified to render opinions on these subjects.
Do you think people can't read? Is that it? You have repeatedly "rendered opinions" about the acoustical evidence, but you've blundered every time you've done so.
You emphatically made the utterly ignorant argument that the dictablet doesn't contain muzzle blasts and muzzle-blast echoes because, by golly, you can't hear them on the recording!
You claimed the NRC/NAS panel members and Linsker "didn't hear muzzle blasts" on the dictabelt, when they said nothing of the kind, when in fact they noticeably avoided saying a single word on the issue. And when I pointed this out, you ignored it and then falsely claimed there was disagreement among experts about the presence of muzzle blasts and muzzle-blast echoes on the dictabelt, when in fact no expert has ever expressed disagreement with the HSCA's gunfire N-wave finding.
You see, the NRC/NAS guys and Linsker knew that the identification of the gunfire N-waves on the dictabelt was based on hard, recognized science, and that it had been confirmed by comparing the waveforms of the dictabelt's N-waves with the waveforms of the N-waves on the recording of the Dealey Plaza test firing. They knew this was exactly how BBN scientists had identified and located rifle fire from the recording of the Kent State shooting: they did a test firing on the Kent State campus and then compared the soundwaves of the test-fire shots with the soundwaves of the recording of the Kent State shooting.
The NRC/NAS guys and Linsker also knew that the windshield-distortion correlations had been confirmed by a test firing. The windshield-distortion evidence is arguably even more remarkable and powerful than the N-wave evidence, because it shows that some of the dictabelt's gunfire soundwaves passed through a windshield and only when the moving object was in position to allow this to happen.
I should add that I'm by no means the first researcher who has pointed out the naked inconsistency in the NRC/NAS/Linsker position. They argued that the dictabelt contains no gunfire but studiously avoided even mentioning, much less trying to explain, the scientific evidence of gunfire N-waves and windshield-distorted gunfire soundwaves on the dictabelt.
That's why I choose to defer to people who are qualified.
But you don't do that. You do the exact opposite. You defer to scientists who had no background in acoustics and you reject the scientists who were recognized as leading acoustical experts by the Acoustical Society of America, several of whom had already worked on a case (Kent State) that involved identifying and locating gunfire based on an acoustical analysis of the recording made at the scene during the shooting.
In the case of the acoustic evidence, there is a divided opinion among the scientific community as to whether or not the recording shows gunshots during the assassination or not. Those of us without acoustics training when faced with conflicting expert opinions have to decide which experts are the more credible, just like a jury must do when facing conflicting expert opinion at a trial.
Here you go again. There is no "divided opinion among the scientific community" regarding the scientific proof of gunfire N-waves and windshield-distorted soundwaves on the dictabelt. As you know but refuse to process, the NRC/NAS panel members and Linsker declined to say a single word about the HSCA's N-wave and windshield-distortion findings, even though those findings were highlighted in the HSCA's final report and were extensively discussed during the HSCA's hearings on the acoustical evidence.
Somewhere deep down in a remote corner of your mind, even you must know that if the NRC/NAS panel members and/or Linsker had had even a halfway plausible explanation for the gunfire N-wave evidence and the windshield-distortion evidence, they certainly would have said so.
The reason I don't believe those who concluded the impulses on the recording were caused by gunshots is because that finding is inconsistent with the body of evidence as a whole. There is simply no other credible evidence that supports a shooter on the GK. No eyewitnesses even though one man had a perfect view of the area where the shot was alleged to have come from and other people rushed to that area immediately after the shooting without seeing a gunman. No shells or bullets were recovered other than those fired from Oswald's rifle. There is no medical evidence of either victim having been hit by a shot from in front of or to the side of them.
Are you actually repeating these arguments yet again? Seriously? Okay, then, mainly for the benefit of newcomers to this thread, I'll repeat some of the points I've personally documented in exchanges with you in this forum:
-- Several medical experts have identified an entry wound in the JFK autopsy skull x-rays. Dr. Boswell himself noted a curious "notch" in this same area, but declined to explain it.
-- Several witnesses said they saw a small hole in the area of JFK's right temple. One of those witnesses was mortician Tom Robinson, who filled the hole with wax to prevent it from leaking embalming fluid.
-- Several medical experts have identified clear evidence of a front-to-back fragment trail on the autopsy skull x-rays, based on the known laws of ballistic physics, and have noted that the right-frontal "lead snowstorm" is typical of what would be seen with the impact of a high-velocity frangible bullet striking the right temple.
Dr. Douglas Ubelaker, a forensic anthropologist at the Smithsonian Institution and one of the ARRB's three forensic consultants, noted that the damage pattern in the scalp and bone seen in the autopsy photos suggests a front-to-rear shot, with a shot coming from the front or right front. Perhaps his exact words should be quoted:
The damage pattern (displacement of scalp and bone) evident when viewing the photos showing the right side of the head and right shoulder (#s 5 6 26 27 and 28) and the photos showing the superior view of the head (#s 7 8 9 10 32 33 34 35 36 and 37) is suggestive of a head wound resulting from a bullet traversing from front-to-rear from the front or right front. (Meeting Report, ARRB, 1/26/96, p. 2)-- The ammo that hit JFK's head behaved nothing, absolutely nothing, like the kind of ammo that Oswald allegedly used. No FMJ bullet would have deposited small fragments in the rear outer table of the skull, much less exploded into dozens of tiny fragments (especially while also depositing two fragments over an inch away just behind the right orbit).
-- Every single expert who has commented on what the skull x-rays indicate about the velocity of the bullet has said the damage clearly shows the bullet must have been moving at a high velocity. The Parkland doctors who commented on the subject said this. The autopsy doctors said this. The Clark Panel said this. The Rockefeller Commission medical panel said this. The one HSCA expert medical consultant who commented on the matter said this (7 HSCA 218, 221). The HSCA FPP's report repeatedly assumes the impact of a high-velocity bullet (although in a few places the FPP hedges with the qualification of "or intermediate-velocity" (7 HSCA 95, 167, 168, 170, 171, 172, 175).
Ah, but the FBI's chief firearms expert, Robert Frazier, informed the WC that the alleged murder weapon was a low-velocity rifle:
Mr. EISENBERG. How does the recoil of this weapon compare with the recoil of the average military rifle?
Mr. FRAZIER. Considerably less. The recoil is nominal with this weapon, because it has a very low velocity and pressure, and just an average-size bullet weight. . . .
Mr. EISENBERG. Is the killing power of the bullets essentially similar to the killing power at these ranges—the killing power of the rifles you have named?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. How much difference is there?
Mr. FRAZIER. The higher velocity bullets of approximately the same weight would have more killing power. This has a low velocity, . . . (3 H 414, emphasis added)So not only did your alleged lone gunman use the wrong kind of ammo, he also used the wrong kind of rifle.-- Guinn's claim that NAA testing proved the allegedly recovered bullet fragments came from Oswald's ammo was destroyed some 20 years ago.
-- The single-bullet theory, without which the lone-gunman theory cannot exist, has been proven false by numerous wound-ballistics tests, by the hard physical evidence of JFK's clothing, by the most sophisticated and data-intensive SBT trajectory analysis ever done, by the numerous accounts that disclose that the back wound had no exit point, and by the HSCA FPP's admission that the back-wound bullet hit the back at an upward angle and that the only way to make that trajectory align with the sixth-floor window is to make the demonstrably false assumption that JFK was leaning markedly forward when the bullet hit.
-- JFK's throat wound had every characteristic of an entry wound and none of the characteristics of an exit wound, and the only explanation your side has offered for this fact is the impossible shored-wound theory. Furthermore, we now know that the back wound had no exit point -- we know this from autopsy witness accounts, from the transcript of the 1/27/64 WC executive session, and from the fact that JFK's tie had no hole in it and no nick on either edge of the tie knot.
-- Several witnesses saw apparent gun smoke coming from the area of the fence on the knoll.
-- Several witnesses smelled the pungent odor of gunpowder on/near the knoll.
-- The Wiegman film shows a puff of smoke hanging in the air right over the knoll, and the only explanations your side has offered are both invalid (motorcycle exhaust and steam from the pipe in the railyard).
-- 58 witnesses located in different parts of the plaza said they heard gunfire from the knoll.
-- Five police officers were told by witnesses right after the shooting that someone had been firing from the knoll.
-- 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.
-- At least two witnesses saw a man running from the knoll into the railyard right after the shooting.
No shells or bullets were recovered other than those fired from Oswald's rifle.
You know that's false, but you keep repeating it anyway. A bullet was recovered from the bullet hole in the grass near the manhole cover on Main Street. We've known for years that a 7.65 mm bullet was found in Dealey Plaza after the shooting -- the FBI evidence envelope for the bullet turned up among the ARRB-released materials (the bullet was gone, but the envelope documented that it had contained a 7.65 mm bullet found in the plaza). A misshapen bullet was found in JFK's limo during the autopsy and was brought in an envelope to Dr. James Young at the autopsy, and Dr. Young documented the finding of the bullet in notes that he wrote less than 24 hours after the autopsy; one of the Navy chiefs who found the bullet confirmed its finding to Navy historian Jan Herman; and a senior Navy officer, Captain Stover, recalled that a bullet was brought to the autopsy in an envelope, just as Dr. Young said.
The fact that no shells were found in the spot behind the grassy knoll fence where so many witnesses saw smoke and/or heard gunfire just means the gunman wasn't stupid enough to leave his shells behind to be conveniently found by police. Has it ever crossed your mind that even the dumbest sixth-floor gunman would not have left behind his shells in plain sight, right by the window no less, when he could have easily and quickly hidden them in one of the many boxes on the sixth floor, making it unlikely they would be found anytime soon, if ever?
The BBN finding depended on the recording having been of a stuck open microphone on a particular officer's motorcycle at a particular place. Dale Myers pieced together photographic evidence that the officer's motorcycle could not have been at the required location during the shooting. All of the above are valid reasons not to believe the BBN findings.
You're citing Dale Myers again?! Remind me: Is this the same Dale Myers who couldn't even get minor facts straight about the year the Linsker article was published and about how many of Linsker's colleagues were former NRC/NAS panel members, and whose SBT trajectory analysis is so obviously fraudulent that it has been shredded even by the uber-cautious Pat Speer?
Let me guess: You don't know that Dr. Don Thomas has refuted Myers' supposed "epipolar geometric analysis":
The Bike With the Mike: A Critique of Myers’ “Epipolar Geometric Analysis of Amateur Films Related to the Acoustical Evidence”EXCERPT:
In brief, Myers uses the Zapruder film as a chronometer for the assassination, but mis-synchronizes the acoustical evidence by placing the shooting one second earlier than it was. Also, Myers’ reconstruction of the motorcade procession is based on the positions of the vehicles that are seen first in the Hughes film and then later in the Zapruder film. But Myers misplaces the vehicles as seen in the Hughes film because he misplaced the position of Mr. Hughes. Myers then compounded the error in placement by over-estimating the speed of the vehicles. Thus, in his reconstruction the vehicles are further north and traveling faster than they really were. This combination of errors results in a time line which is about 3-1/2 seconds shorter than it would be without the errors. Removing those errors leaves McLain with approximately 4 seconds to cover the 174 ft (requiring a speed of about 25 mph) to reach the specified location. However, Myers’ reconstruction also includes an untestable assumption concerning the movement of the procession. Myers assumes a steady even pace, contrary to the memories of the police officers in the escort who recall a stop-and-go movement. If the latter rather than the former is true, then McLain had even more time to reach the acoustically required location for the first shot.Dr. Thomas expanded on his research on the motorcycle with the open microphone in his 2010 book
Hear No Evil.
If the dictabelt was not recorded in Dealey Plaza, as Myers claims, then how does he explain (1) the fact that the dictabelt contains gunfire N-waves whose locations match two locations of gunfire from the HSCA test firing in Dealey Plaza, (2) the fact that the dictablet contains soundwaves that were slightly distorted by passing through a windshield and only at the precise times when the microphone was in position to record them in Dealey Plaza as established by the test firing, and (3) the fact that the HSCA's acoustical experts identified stunning timing-movement correlations between the dictabelt's impulse patterns and the impulse patterns from the test-firing recording, correlations that were so strong that even the NRC/NAS panel admitted there was a 93% probability that they occurred because the dictablet recorded gunfire in Dealey Plaza? He doesn't explain any of these facts.
You claim to have had acoustics training although I don't know how your particular training applies to the evidence in question. However, you also have a distinct bias which makes your judgement of the acoustic evidence suspect.
That is humorous coming from you, the most blindly biased and poorly read member of this forum.
You don't seem to have the education to understand that a person can have a bias and still be objective, a fact recognized in scholarly critical-thinking literature.
Just in terms of everyday life, most people, for example, know some parents who are so blindly biased in favor of their children that they will never admit their children have done anything wrong, whether it's at school or at other situations outside the home, but they also know parents who are willing to admit when their children have done something wrong outside the home.
Incidentally, the NRC/NAS panel included Dr. Luis Alvarez, who was already known to be an ardent WC defender. Does this mean his judgment of the acoustical evidence was automatically suspect? Dr. Barger reported that when he spoke to the NRC/NAS panel, Alvarez told him “he didn’t care what I said, he would vote against me anyway.” Of course, it has been known for years that Alvarez falsified much of the data regarding his JFK assassination-related experiments.
Tony Marsh had the same degree of bias as you do. When I was on Fred Litwin's podcast, I made the point that Tony had as good or better grasp of the facts of the JFKA as anyone I had come across in 35 years of arguing this case in various online forums. Tony's problem, which you share, is that he looked at all the evidence through the lens of conspiracy. He tried to make every piece of evidence conform to his belief that Oswald was not the lone assassin, just as you have been doing for 35 years. You will believe just about any conspiracy theory that comes along as long as it opposes the finding that Oswald acted alone. You don't even seem to care if these various theories are mutually exclusive or not. You try to interpret every piece of evidence to your faith-based belief there was a conspiracy.
You have just described yourself and how your blind bias leads you to reject any and all evidence that contradicts what you want to believe. You assume that those who disagree with you "look at all the evidence through the lens of conspiracy," when in fact you are the one who looks at all the evidence through the lens of your slavish devotion to the lone-gunman theory, even when the evidence is hard physical evidence and/or hard scientific evidence.
You are so blindly biased and poorly read that you constantly make arguments that contradict what your own side's leading advocates claim and that contradict even what the WC claimed. You repeatedly take extreme positions that even your fellow lone-gunman theorists decline to support. Indeed, on a number of occasions just in the last few months, your fellow WC believers have felt the need to correct you on some of your erroneous claims.
And, just FYI, you show your ignorance of my research, if not your dishonesty and immaturity, when you claim that I believe "just about any conspiracy theory that comes along" as long as it contradicts the lone-gunman theory. In point of fact, I've rejected so much alleged pro-conspiracy evidence that many conspiracy theorists have accused me of being a closet WC believer and even of being a disinformation agent planted by an intelligence agency.
Recent Posts
