I've read them. I just didn't believe them. I know this is not true. Many common handgun loads such as 9mm, .38 Special, 40 S&W produce muzzle velocities greater than the speed of sound. It depends primarily on the loads and the barrel length. A longer barrel produces higher muzzle velocities.

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. 

As I said, I heard no muzzle blasts one the recording.

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. 

I don't doubt there are some egghead scientists who have interpreted the impulses on the recording to have been caused by muzzle blasts. I also know there are other egghead scientists who dispute those interpretations.

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. 

When I read the techno-babble, all I do is roll my eyes and so "no (bleep)?"

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.

What I can do is compare the conflicting findings of these experts with the body of evidence as a whole to determine which is the most compelling opinion.

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)

If there was a shooter on the GK, why did nobody see him (her?) before, during, or after the shooting. Why is there no physical evidence of a shot having been fired from the GK. Neither of the victims were hit by a frontal shot. No bullets or shells were recovered except for those positively matched to Oswald's rifle. Simply put, there is no other compelling evidence of a shot from the GK. In addition, by piecing together the photographic evidence, Myers proved that the motorcycle believed to have recorded the shooting through a stuck open microphone was not in the location the acoustics teams said he needed to be for their findings to be valid. All of this is why I believe the acoustics team simply misinterpreted the data.

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 did a search for conflicting opinions regarding what the acoustic evidence shows:

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.

I did a search for conflicting opinions regarding what the acoustic evidence shows:

"Scientists Who Disputed the BBN Findings on the Grassy Knoll Shot
The Bolt, Beranek and Newman (BBN) team, led by James E. Barger, analyzed the Dallas Police Department’s Dictabelt recording of Channel 1 during the Kennedy assassination. They found four impulse patterns that resembled gunshots, with a 50% probability that one came from the grassy knoll
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
+1
. This uncertainty led the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) to hire Mark R. Weiss and Ernest Aschkenasy to refine the analysis. Weiss and Aschkenasy concluded there was a 95% probability that the shot originated from the grassy knoll
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
+1.

However, the U.S. Justice Department, instead of further investigation, commissioned the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences to review the evidence. The NRC panel (often referred to as the NAS Committee on Ballistic Acoustics) disputed the HSCA’s conclusions, claiming there was no scientific proof of a grassy knoll shot and that the acoustical evidence did not establish a high probability of a second gunman
jfk.hood.edu
jfk.hood.edu
+1.

The NRC’s findings were criticized by independent researchers such as W. Anthony Marsh, who argued the panel was biased, misapplied methods, and failed to conduct the necessary tests to refute the HSCA’s work
Archive
Archive. Marsh’s 1983 Rebuttal to Ramsey detailed errors in the NAS report and reaffirmed the accuracy of the HSCA’s acoustic analysis.

In summary:

BBN (Bolt, Beranek and Newman) – found 50% probability of grassy knoll shot.

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.

Weiss & Aschkenasy – found 95% probability of grassy knoll shot.

NRC/NAS Committee on Ballistic Acoustics – disputed the findings, claimed no proof of grassy knoll shot.

W. Anthony Marsh – independent critic of the NRC/NAS panel, argued their conclusions were invalid due to bias and methodological flaws "

I had to laugh when I saw one of the counter-dissenters was none other than Tony Marsh. That is almost as bad as having Michael T. Griffith providing evidence to support the cause of conspiracy.

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.

MG: Again, even for you, this is a new height of silliness and self-discreditation. Linsker et al. didn't lay a finger on the N-wave evidence because they had no answer for it.

In your humble opinion.

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.

MG: Umm, you realize that six of the 12 NRC/NAS panel members were physicists, right? You realize that four of them were engineers, not even electrical engineers but just regular engineers, right? You realize that one of them was a statistician, and that another one of them was a computer scientist, right? Right? In short, six physicists, four regular engineers, one statistician, and one computer scientist, and not one of them had ever worked or published in the field of acoustical science.

What they disputed was the scientific method used by BBN, something scientists in all fields should know something about.

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

Not really
No (bleep)! You should check a thesaurus. They are free online. You'd find out that disputed doesn't mean the same as refuted.  Mostly what you did is dispute and assume that you have refuted.

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.

MG: I think it is worth repeating that the NRC/NAS panel admitted (1) that they admitted they found a 93% probability that the timing-movement correlations identified by the BBN scientists occurred because the dictabelt recorded gunfire in Dealey Plaza during the assassination, and (2) that they admitted they found a 77.7% probability that the 144.9 impulse pattern was in fact gunfire from the grassy knoll. In your first reply in this thread, you cited an article by (of all people) Dale Myers that relies heavily on the NRC/NAS panel's report, yet neither you nor Myers nor any of the other amateur Internet hacks who attack the acoustical evidence has yet to address these two key admissions by the NRC/NAS panel.

So says our "amateur Internet hack".

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?

I posted this article before but will do so again.

https://factually.co/fact-checks/justice/forensic-acoustic-studies-since-hsca-single-shooter-51b4c1

The final sentence pretty much sums up the veracity of the acoustics evidence:
"a minority of researchers continue to claim acoustic support for a grassy‑knoll shot but their conclusions remain disputed in peer and government reviews."

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.

Ok , Dougherty places himself on the 5th floor and briefly on the 6th floor at the time that Oswald was on the 5th floor and shouted for the elevator at 11:45.  Dougherty never left the 5th floor except to  briefly go up to the 6th floor then returning 5th floor again.  He is on 5th floor from 11:45 till 12:30 basically. He supposedly then took the east freight elevator down to the 1st floor to meet Eddie Piper at 12:31 approx.

So during this 11:45-12:30 period of time that Dougherty was on 5th floor the sequence of other persons moving about occurred:

11:45 All other employees on 6th and 5th floor , except Oswald and Dougherty , leave and take the 2 freight elevators down to the 1st floor.
 
11:45 Oswald on the 5th floor or 6th floor , shouts to send an elevator back up to 5th floor (or 6th floor?)

11:45-11:54 Oswald is not seen by anyone including Jack Dougherty who is still on the 5th floor.

11:55 Givens ( presumably ) takes an elevator to the 6 th floor and sees Oswald on 6th floor. There is no conversation between them, even though Oswald probably saw Givens get off the elevator to go find his cigarettes. Oswald did not request that Givens send an elevator back up, nor did Oswald ride back down with Givens even though Oswald had shouted to send an elevator back up at 11:45.
 
12:00 Oswald is seen on the 1st floor by Eddie Piper. Jack Dougherty is still on the 5th floor presumably but has no verification of being seen by anyone there from 12:00 until 12:37 approx when Baker/Truly come down from the roof using an elevator to go down to the 4th floor where they met Sawyers team.


12:05-12:23 Bonnie Ray Williams was on the 6th floor. He used one of the elevators get there. Dougherty was still on the 5th floor at this time according to Dougherty. BRW did not see Dougherty or Oswald during this period of time nor did Dougherty see or hear BRW elevator passing by the 5th floor.

12:01-12:14 Oswald is not seen by anyone ( or they did not remember seeing him)

12:00-12:10 Mrs Reid , Carolyn Arnold, Virgie Racheley and other female employees are eating lunch in the 2nd floor lunchroom. None recall seeing Oswald then.

12:10-12:15 Mrs Reid and the female employees exit the lunchroom , trek 100 ft of hallway to the front staircase, go down to front lobby and go stand outside of the front entrance on the steps or further out on the sidewalk nearer to elm st. None see Oswald.


12:15  Digital clock time of TSBD roof clock: Arnold Rowland sees a light completed man that he described as “Latin” at the 6th floor SW window holding a rifle which Rowland could see had a scope on it. He saw that detail from 255 ft away approx. At the same time , Rowland noticed a black man “ hanging out” the other SE corner 6th floor window, and estimated the lower half of window was all the way up. ( ie: higher than the 15.5 inch height  it was at time captured in Hughes film.  Presuming the “ Latin” man was Oswald , then Oswald was on the 6th floor at SW window at 12:15.

If Oswald is the 6th fllor shooter  then the following sequence begins:


12:01-12:14 Oswald was not seen  This would be the period of time perhaps he could have assembled  the rifle and then be seen by Rowland Arnold at 12:15. Where Oswald would least likely be seen assembling the rifle is in a storage office on the 7th floor.

12:15:30 sec, Oswald retreated from SW window , placed his rifle back in the paper bag( otherwise why would the bag ever wind up being at the SE window?) , hid the bag probably between boxes  along the east aisle of the 6th floor as he made his way to the rear staircase.

12:15:30-12:16:45 Oswald descends staircase at normal pace reaching 2nd floor lunchroom and sitting down.

12:17 Carolyn Arnold has returned to the 2nd floor lunchroom to get some water ,
having left her friend Virgie Racheley at 12:16 ( possibly when they both were going down the front staircase to the 1st floor lobby ) Arnold sees Oswald sitting in a booth (or chair?)

12:18 Carolyn Arnold has left the lunchroom and probably made it down to the front lobby and then went outside to stand out if from of the TSBD.

This is a complicated sequence to work out with BRW on the 6th floor from
12:05 to 12:23, Jarman amd Norman taking elevator from 1st floor to 5th floor at 12:23 and Jack Dougherty on 5th floor and briefly 6th floor between 12:45 and 12:30.


Somehow nobody saw or heard Oswald going up or down  on the stairs , or going up to 6th floor after he was  seen by Piper. No one saw or heard Oswald moving 3 boxes just about 1 minute after BRW left the 6th floor at 12:23 , taking an elevator from 6th to 5th floor and joining Norman and Jarman who had arrived to their windows by 12:23.

And the anomaly is even more difficult to resolve with Jack Dougherty on the 5th and 6th floor who saw nor heard anyone between 11:45 and 12:31 and no one saw Dougherty from 12:00-12:37.


I can see why the WC did not wish to get into this thicket of uncertainty , but I’m going to keep  trying to figure it out  cause it’s an interesting problem.

This whole timeline collapses due to its reliance on Carolyn Arnold to establish Oswald's presence in the lunchroom. Her earliest statement to the FBI stated she left here office between 12:00 and 12:15. She said she MIGHT have seen Oswald at that time between the front door and the double doors but wasn't sure it was Oswald. Maybe she saw Lovelady. She said nothing about seeing Oswald in the lunchroom. That embellishment was given many years later.

http://jfkpage.com/Oswald/FBI-Carolyn%20Arnold.png

Wow, what an original subject for a thread.

indeed !

hey I always thought you had to be, like, assassinated and stuff to have a theatre named after you.  how come they never called it Lincoln’s Theater when that happened?  maybe the creature could sit in booth’s booth and hope for the best, ayuh

hey, president ford visited ford’s theatre on April 17, 1975.  where was squeaky?

BD-

The "Sirhan was hypnotized tale"..why, in all the decades since, have we not have another Manchurian Candidate?

The Manchurian Candidate, after all, based on a work of fiction, has gone the way of Bigfoot....where?

Although former CIA director James Woolsey suggested LHO was brainwashed in Russia.;..