No, he said he didn't see the two men behind the fence during the shooting. You guys brush them aside, but two of Bowers' friends said he didn't publicly reveal everything he saw. And, naturally, you dismiss journalist Penn Jones' report that Bowers' wife told him on the record that her husband was told not to talk.
LOL! Bowers certainly didn't think they were "looking for a place to park." They certainly didn't act like they were just "looking for place to park."
Have you actually read Bowers' account? Have you ever been in that parking lot? I have. There would have been no need to spend several minutes "probing," as Bowers put it, if they were merely looking for a parking spot. That lot is quite small. They could have spotted a parking place in a matter of seconds.
And never mind that the area had been sealed off since 11:00 and that there had been virtually no movement in the area since then, which is why the three cars' strange behavior caught Bowers' attention, right?
Oh, yeah, sure it is. You don't even know what you're talking about, and I can tell you've read next to nothing on the subject. The BBN acoustical scientists used the same methods and scientific principles in analyzing the DPD dictabelt that they used when they analyzed the audio recording of the 1970 Kent State shooting.
Nonsense. The military uses the same scientific principles and methodology to acoustically locate gunfire today that the HSCA's acoustical scientists used. In fact, Dr. Barger, as I've pointed out, developed patented new technology for the military and police forces to acoustically locate gunfire.
BTW, the new research done by BBN scientists, including Dr. Barger, from 2015-2018 proves that the dictabelt's impulse patterns were recorded in Dealey Plaza during the assassination and debunks the NRC/NAS's claim that the Decker "hold everything" transmission is crosstalk.
I notice you haven't laid a finger on any of the evidence that the HSCA's acoustical scientists documented in support of their findings (the timing-movement correlations, the sonar analysis that verified the grassy knoll shot, the windshield-distortion correlations, and the presence of N-waves, muzzle blasts, and muzzle-blast echoes in the correct order and interval and only when the microphone was in position to record them).
You know that's not what I'm talking about. I'll let readers decide if this is a case of "every movement" being "a reaction to a gunshot" when they read my article "Reactions to Six Shots in the Zapruder Film."
I think one of the first things people will notice is that you ignore the fact that five of the reactions are supported by the recognized science of blur analysis (I only mention four blur events in the article because I don't mention that a marked blur episode occurs around the time of the Z313 headshot, since no one questions that Z313-317 shows a reaction to a shot).
Wow, you just can't admit anything, can you? What area do you suppose Curry wanted to "see what happened there" by ordering to "get a man on top of that triple underpass"? What area do you think Curry wanted the officer to look at from the triple underpass to "see what happened there"? Huh? The freeway?! The TSBD?! Huh? The obvious answer to anyone with a functioning brain and some integrity is that Curry believed shots came from the area behind the grassy knoll and that he ordered that an officer get on top of the underpass to "see what happened there."
And that's the same area, the rail yard behind the knoll, that Sheriff Decker ordered to be sealed off "to determine just what and where it happened down there."
LOL! They were just "guessing"?! They ordered men deployed to check out the same area because they were just "guessing"?! Of course this is just pure silliness. A police chief and a sheriff are not going to deploy their men after shots have been fired at a presidential motorcade in which they themselves were riding based on just a guess. You'll never admit it, but it's obvious that Curry and Decker deployed their men to check out the same general area because they clearly believed that gunfire had come from that area.
MG: No, he said he didn't see the two men behind the fence during the shooting. You guys brush them aside, but two of Bowers' friends said he didn't publicly reveal everything he saw. And, naturally, you dismiss journalist Penn Jones' report that Bowers' wife told him on the record that her husband was told not to talk.Which side of the fence is "behind," from Bowers' perspective? Bowers told both Thompson and Lane that one of the men kept disappearing from his view behind the fence. The only way that would work was that the man was on the
south side of the fence. In his interview for Lane's film, in a bit left of the cutting room floor for some reason, Bowers is clear that he saw no one north of the fence at the time of the shooting. And (again!) if you've read Thompson's books, you know he gives short shrift to Bowers' "friends."
MG: LOL! Bowers certainly didn't think they were "looking for a place to park." They certainly didn't act like they were just "looking for place to park."
Have you actually read Bowers' account? Have you ever been in that parking lot? I have. There would have been no need to spend several minutes "probing," as Bowers put it, if they were merely looking for a parking spot. That lot is quite small. They could have spotted a parking place in a matter of seconds. Bowers said that the first was driving around "as if he was searching for a way out, or was checking the area." Checking the area is indeed what someone would do if they were looking for a parking spot. Or, since this was one of the cars with out-of-state plates, it might have just been someone unfamiliar with Dallas streets taking a wrong turn and was looking for the way back to pavement. But, when you read Bowers' testimony, there's nothing more than three cars driving around in a parking lot. Nothing special at all in itself. To make anything more out of it, you have to project sinister motive. But that is just your own projection.
MG: And never mind that the area had been sealed off since 11:00 and that there had been virtually no movement in the area since then, which is why the three cars' strange behavior caught Bowers' attention, right? The area was never "sealed off" until after the assassination. That is just Bowers' inference or yours. The officers stationed in and around Dealey Plaza said that they didn't stop traffic until a few minutes before the motorcade arrived. No one was going to split the downtown of a major American city in two for an hour and a half (beginning a half-hour before the President even landed!) for a motorcade.
MG: Oh, yeah, sure it is. You don't even know what you're talking about, and I can tell you've read next to nothing on the subject. TI've read and written quite a bit on the acoustic analysis. Enough that I was name-checked in Michael O'Dell's response to Thomas.
You're the guy who has no idea what he's talking about.
MG: The BBN acoustical scientists used the same methods and scientific principles in analyzing the DPD dictabelt that they used when they analyzed the audio recording of the 1970 Kent State shooting. As far as I've ever been able to find, the BBN methodology used for the Dictabelt has never been thoroughly tested in a controlled environment, so we have no idea if it really works as well as Barger, et al, would have us believe. Just from the match data that Barger presented in HSCA exhibit F-367 implies that the BBN method isn't very sensitive to source location, which is of course critical to the analysis.
The military uses the same scientific principles and methodology to acoustically locate gunfire today that the HSCA's acoustical scientists used. In fact, Dr. Barger, as I've pointed out, developed patented new technology for the military and police forces to acoustically locate gunfire.No, they don't! The HSCA analysis used a correlative methodology comparing a test recording against a library of recordings of test shots. Modern shot location detection systems use either epicentric methods, stereophonic methods, or a combination of stereophonic+shockwave detection and only operate on live acoustic input. Like I said, you're the guy who doesn't know what he's talking about.
BTW, the new research done by BBN scientists, including Dr. Barger, from 2015-2018 proves that the dictabelt's impulse patterns were recorded in Dealey Plaza during the assassination and debunks the NRC/NAS's claim that the Decker "hold everything" transmission is crosstalk.At best, the latest bit of face-saving from BBN shows that PCC is so dependent on the assumptions input into it that it can't prove or disprove anything. The heterodyning that accompanies and corresponds exactly with the channel 1 "I'll check it" proves that it's a native channel 1 transmission and not crosstalk.
MG: I notice you haven't laid a finger on any of the evidence that the HSCA's acoustical scientists documented in support of their findings (the timing-movement correlations, the sonar analysis that verified the grassy knoll shot, the windshield-distortion correlations, and the presence of N-waves, muzzle blasts, and muzzle-blast echoes in the correct order and interval and only when the microphone was in position to record them).I only have so much time to devote to these exchanges, and your dedicated posts on the matter are so full of misunderstandings, misapprehensions, and misrepresentations that I'd be pulling 24/7 shifts to devote justice to each and every one of your "points." By the way, an "N"-wave is a waveform so-named mererly because it is shaped like a capital letter "N," and are not unique to shock waves.
MG: I think one of the first things people will notice is that you ignore the fact that five of the reactions are supported by the recognized science of blur analysis (I only mention four blur events in the article because I don't mention that a marked blur episode occurs around the time of the Z313 headshot, since no one questions that Z313-317 shows a reaction to a shot). Is blur analysis actually a "recognized science" and who recognizes it as such?