Understanding the acoustic evidence requires a working knowledge of several electronic concepts. These concepts are amplitude, frequency, signal, modulation, carrier, automatic gain/volume control, saturation, limiter, noise immunity, beating, heterodyne and peak detector.
> Understanding the acoustic evidence requires a working knowledge of
> several electronic concepts. These concepts are amplitude, frequency,
> signal, modulation, carrier, automatic gain/volume control, saturation,
> limiter, noise immunity, beating, heterodyne and peak detector.
> On 10/5/2012 9:07 PM, Herbert Blenner wrote:
>> Understanding the acoustic evidence requires a working knowledge of
>> several electronic concepts. These concepts are amplitude, frequency,
>> signal, modulation, carrier, automatic gain/volume control, saturation,
>> limiter, noise immunity, beating, heterodyne and peak detector.
On Oct 5, 10:42 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 10/5/2012 9:07 PM, Herbert Blenner wrote:
> > Understanding the acoustic evidence requires a working knowledge of
> > several electronic concepts. These concepts are amplitude, frequency,
> > signal, modulation, carrier, automatic gain/volume control, saturation,
> > limiter, noise immunity, beating, heterodyne and peak detector.
> Ridiculous. Let's match your c.v. against Barger's.
Modulation Matters critiques the crosstalk analysis published by the
Watson Research Center of IBM in December of 1982.
Your desire to compare my credentials with those of Dr. Barger shows
complete failure to distinguish the report presented to the HSCA by
Barger in January 1979 from the later paper published by IBM.
In article <506f8...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Ridiculous. Let's match your c.v. against Barger's.
Why should anyone take anything you say seriously when you ruined your credibility here by falsely claiming that I said JFK already had his fists up by Z225, and when you ruined it still further by refusing to admit your obvious mistake even after it was pointed out to you? You've probably also made many other mistakes about the JFK assassination and refused to admit those as well, no matter how obvious they are.
On Oct 6, 4:48 pm, "John Fiorentino" <jefiorent...@optimum.net> wrote:
> Who cares about a c. v. Tony.
> Personally, I'm interested in the truth.
> That's the same crapola some threw around re: Steve Barber.
> If you want to discuss c. v.'s then NONE of the people involved in the
> acoustics fiasco, i.e., Barger, W&A had any excuses, did they?
I agree. BB&N and W&A had no excuse for their sophomoric use of the
same correction factor for frequency and time. These mistakes made by
BB&N and repeated by W&A would have embarrassed undergraduate
students.
> I mean we can hide behind our *ignorance,*......... isn't that right?
Likewise the errors by the Ramsey Panel and IBM were inexcusable. They
applied the principles of AM radio to the FM receiver used by Channel-
I and then went one step beyond the principle of causality. The panel
reported slow recovery from nonexistent fast attenuation and IBM
confirmed this effect without a cause.
> You've been snookered my friend.
Both sides of the acoustic debate were deceived by those who presented junk disguised as science. This deception exploited the human inclination of the assassination community to rely upon credentials instead of acquiring the necessary background to comprehend the subject.
> On Oct 5, 10:42 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 10/5/2012 9:07 PM, Herbert Blenner wrote:
>>> Understanding the acoustic evidence requires a working knowledge of
>>> several electronic concepts. These concepts are amplitude, frequency,
>>> signal, modulation, carrier, automatic gain/volume control, saturation,
>>> limiter, noise immunity, beating, heterodyne and peak detector.
>> Ridiculous. Let's match your c.v. against Barger's.
> Modulation Matters critiques the crosstalk analysis published by the
> Watson Research Center of IBM in December of 1982.
> Your desire to compare my credentials with those of Dr. Barger shows
> complete failure to distinguish the report presented to the HSCA by
> Barger in January 1979 from the later paper published by IBM.
> Herbert
You have no credentials. BBN was recommended by the Acoustical Society of America. Which Society has recommended you?
I will openly admit I do not fully understand your reference to "fast attenuation" and it's relationship to AM and FM.
But, I've looked at this to the best of my abilities, I've spoken to Dr. Barger and years ago to Dick Garwin. Of course Steve Barber is a good friend of mine.
Do *you* believe there were any "shots" on that tape?
BTW, this paragraph...........
Both sides of the acoustic debate were deceived by those who presented
junk disguised as science. This deception exploited the human inclination
of the assassination community to rely upon credentials instead of
acquiring the necessary background to comprehend the subject.
............is very nicely done!
John F.
"Herbert Blenner" <a1ea...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> That's the same crapola some threw around re: Steve Barber.
> If you want to discuss c. v.'s then NONE of the people involved in the
> acoustics fiasco, i.e., Barger, W&A had any excuses, did they?
I agree. BB&N and W&A had no excuse for their sophomoric use of the
same correction factor for frequency and time. These mistakes made by
BB&N and repeated by W&A would have embarrassed undergraduate
students.
> I mean we can hide behind our *ignorance,*......... isn't that right?
Likewise the errors by the Ramsey Panel and IBM were inexcusable. They
applied the principles of AM radio to the FM receiver used by Channel-
I and then went one step beyond the principle of causality. The panel
reported slow recovery from nonexistent fast attenuation and IBM
confirmed this effect without a cause.
> You've been snookered my friend.
Both sides of the acoustic debate were deceived by those who presented
junk disguised as science. This deception exploited the human inclination
of the assassination community to rely upon credentials instead of
acquiring the necessary background to comprehend the subject.
> On 10/6/2012 4:50 PM, Herbert Blenner wrote:
>> On Oct 5, 10:42 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On 10/5/2012 9:07 PM, Herbert Blenner wrote:
>>>> Understanding the acoustic evidence requires a working knowledge of
>>>> several electronic concepts. These concepts are amplitude, frequency,
>>>> signal, modulation, carrier, automatic gain/volume control, saturation,
>>>> limiter, noise immunity, beating, heterodyne and peak detector.
>>> Ridiculous. Let's match your c.v. against Barger's.
>> Modulation Matters critiques the crosstalk analysis published by the
>> Watson Research Center of IBM in December of 1982.
>> Your desire to compare my credentials with those of Dr. Barger shows
>> complete failure to distinguish the report presented to the HSCA by
>> Barger in January 1979 from the later paper published by IBM.
>> Herbert
> You have no credentials. BBN was recommended by the Acoustical Society of > America. Which Society has recommended you?
> I will openly admit I do not fully understand your reference to "fast
> attenuation" and it's relationship to AM and FM.
> But, I've looked at this to the best of my abilities, I've spoken to
> Dr. Barger and years ago to Dick Garwin. Of course Steve Barber is a
> good friend of mine.
> Do *you* believe there were any "shots" on that tape?
> BTW, this paragraph...........
> Both sides of the acoustic debate were deceived by those who presented
> junk disguised as science. This deception exploited the human inclination
> of the assassination community to rely upon credentials instead of
> acquiring the necessary background to comprehend the subject.
>> That's the same crapola some threw around re: Steve Barber.
>> If you want to discuss c. v.'s then NONE of the people involved in the
>> acoustics fiasco, i.e., Barger, W&A had any excuses, did they?
> I agree. BB&N and W&A had no excuse for their sophomoric use of the
> same correction factor for frequency and time. These mistakes made by
> BB&N and repeated by W&A would have embarrassed undergraduate
> students.
Is this confirmation that you have not attempted to duplicate the acoustical analysis?
>> I mean we can hide behind our *ignorance,*......... isn't that right?
> Likewise the errors by the Ramsey Panel and IBM were inexcusable. They
> applied the principles of AM radio to the FM receiver used by Channel-
> I and then went one step beyond the principle of causality. The panel
> reported slow recovery from nonexistent fast attenuation and IBM
> confirmed this effect without a cause.
What do you know about attenuation? What do you know about AGC?
When you listen to a reporter at fire can you hear the reporter at the same time that you hear the sirens?
Why is there a need for AGC on a police channel?
>> You've been snookered my friend.
> Both sides of the acoustic debate were deceived by those who presented
> junk disguised as science. This deception exploited the human inclination
> of the assassination community to rely upon credentials instead of
> acquiring the necessary background to comprehend the subject.
> On Oct 6, 4:48 pm, "John Fiorentino" <jefiorent...@optimum.net> wrote:
>> Who cares about a c. v. Tony.
>> Personally, I'm interested in the truth.
>> That's the same crapola some threw around re: Steve Barber.
>> If you want to discuss c. v.'s then NONE of the people involved in the
>> acoustics fiasco, i.e., Barger, W&A had any excuses, did they?
> I agree. BB&N and W&A had no excuse for their sophomoric use of the
> same correction factor for frequency and time. These mistakes made by
> BB&N and repeated by W&A would have embarrassed undergraduate
> students.
I can see that you are not a musician and have never had any practical experience with sound on tape. I am and I have. When you take any recorded sound on tape and play it at a slowed speed the frequency is LOWER and it takes LONGER to play it.
>> I mean we can hide behind our *ignorance,*......... isn't that right?
> Likewise the errors by the Ramsey Panel and IBM were inexcusable. They
> applied the principles of AM radio to the FM receiver used by Channel-
> I and then went one step beyond the principle of causality. The panel
> reported slow recovery from nonexistent fast attenuation and IBM
> confirmed this effect without a cause.
Latency in the 1963-era circuits?
>> You've been snookered my friend.
> Both sides of the acoustic debate were deceived by those who presented
> junk disguised as science. This deception exploited the human inclination
> of the assassination community to rely upon credentials instead of
> acquiring the necessary background to comprehend the subject.
The science was accepted in court in the Kent State Massacre case and is used every day in war zones and urban areas to pinpoint the location of gunshots.
> > On Oct 6, 4:48 pm, "John Fiorentino" <jefiorent...@optimum.net> wrote:
> >> Who cares about a c. v. Tony.
> >> Personally, I'm interested in the truth.
> >> That's the same crapola some threw around re: Steve Barber.
> >> If you want to discuss c. v.'s then NONE of the people involved in the
> >> acoustics fiasco, i.e., Barger, W&A had any excuses, did they?
> > I agree. BB&N and W&A had no excuse for their sophomoric use of the
> > same correction factor for frequency and time. These mistakes made by
> > BB&N and repeated by W&A would have embarrassed undergraduate
> > students.
> I can see that you are not a musician and have never had any practical
> experience with sound on tape. I am and I have. When you take any
> recorded sound on tape and play it at a slowed speed the frequency is
> LOWER and it takes LONGER to play it.
They correct the lower frequency by multiplying it by a number larger
than one. This is what BB&N did.
“The tape-recording system was found to be about 5% slow, when the
time annotations were measured with a stopwatch (see Fig. 9).
Therefore, the apparent pitch of the tone would have a frequency of
(1.05) (420) = 441 Hz.”
Likewise they should correct the longer playing time by multiplying it
by a number less than one. This is opposite of what BB&N did.
“The time span between the onset of the first impulse pattern and the
onset of the fourth impulse pattern on the Channel 1 tape is 7.9 sec.
When corrected for the fact that the tape recorder was running about
5% too slowly, the real time span is 8.3 sec.”
Thanks for corroborating my point that BB&N made the sophomoric error
by using the same correction factor for both frequency and time.
> On 10/7/2012 11:15 AM, John Fiorentino wrote:
>> Herbert:
>> I will openly admit I do not fully understand your reference to "fast
>> attenuation" and it's relationship to AM and FM.
>> But, I've looked at this to the best of my abilities, I've spoken to
>> Dr. Barger and years ago to Dick Garwin. Of course Steve Barber is a
>> good friend of mine.
>> Do *you* believe there were any "shots" on that tape?
>> BTW, this paragraph...........
>> Both sides of the acoustic debate were deceived by those who presented
>> junk disguised as science. This deception exploited the human inclination
>> of the assassination community to rely upon credentials instead of
>> acquiring the necessary background to comprehend the subject.
>>> That's the same crapola some threw around re: Steve Barber.
>>> If you want to discuss c. v.'s then NONE of the people involved in the
>>> acoustics fiasco, i.e., Barger, W&A had any excuses, did they?
>> I agree. BB&N and W&A had no excuse for their sophomoric use of the
>> same correction factor for frequency and time. These mistakes made by
>> BB&N and repeated by W&A would have embarrassed undergraduate
>> students.
> Is this confirmation that you have not attempted to duplicate the > acoustical analysis?
>>> I mean we can hide behind our *ignorance,*......... isn't that right?
>> Likewise the errors by the Ramsey Panel and IBM were inexcusable. They
>> applied the principles of AM radio to the FM receiver used by Channel-
>> I and then went one step beyond the principle of causality. The panel
>> reported slow recovery from nonexistent fast attenuation and IBM
>> confirmed this effect without a cause.
> What do you know about attenuation? What do you know about AGC?
> When you listen to a reporter at fire can you hear the reporter at the > same time that you hear the sirens?
> Why is there a need for AGC on a police channel?
>>> You've been snookered my friend.
>> Both sides of the acoustic debate were deceived by those who presented
>> junk disguised as science. This deception exploited the human inclination
>> of the assassination community to rely upon credentials instead of
>> acquiring the necessary background to comprehend the subject.
> On 10/6/2012 9:05 PM, Herbert Blenner wrote:
> > On Oct 6, 4:48 pm, "John Fiorentino" <jefiorent...@optimum.net> wrote:
> >> Who cares about a c. v. Tony.
> >> Personally, I'm interested in the truth.
> >> That's the same crapola some threw around re: Steve Barber.
> >> If you want to discuss c. v.'s then NONE of the people involved in the
> >> acoustics fiasco, i.e., Barger, W&A had any excuses, did they?
> > I agree. BB&N and W&A had no excuse for their sophomoric use of the
> > same correction factor for frequency and time. These mistakes made by
> > BB&N and repeated by W&A would have embarrassed undergraduate
> > students.
> I can see that you are not a musician and have never had any practical > experience with sound on tape. I am and I have.
Oh, you're a musician, are you? So am I. I have both a bachelors and masters in music. So do you now admit that one does not have to be a virtuoso on the violin to still know quite a few salient facts about that instrument? That instead one merely has to know *enough* about the violin to be absolutely correct regarding certain individual claims about that instrument? Likewise do you now admit that one doesn't quite always have to be an "expert" in a particular field to still talk knowledgeably about certain individual aspects of that field?
And by the way, when are you ever going to admit that you were mistaken when you claimed that I said that JFK's fists were already up by Z225, when in fact you have never once seen me say that?
> On Oct 8, 12:11 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 10/6/2012 9:05 PM, Herbert Blenner wrote:
>>> On Oct 6, 4:48 pm, "John Fiorentino" <jefiorent...@optimum.net> wrote:
>>>> Who cares about a c. v. Tony.
>>>> Personally, I'm interested in the truth.
>>>> That's the same crapola some threw around re: Steve Barber.
>>>> If you want to discuss c. v.'s then NONE of the people involved in the
>>>> acoustics fiasco, i.e., Barger, W&A had any excuses, did they?
>>> I agree. BB&N and W&A had no excuse for their sophomoric use of the
>>> same correction factor for frequency and time. These mistakes made by
>>> BB&N and repeated by W&A would have embarrassed undergraduate
>>> students.
>> I can see that you are not a musician and have never had any practical
>> experience with sound on tape. I am and I have. When you take any
>> recorded sound on tape and play it at a slowed speed the frequency is
>> LOWER and it takes LONGER to play it.
> They correct the lower frequency by multiplying it by a number larger
> than one. This is what BB&N did.
> ?The tape-recording system was found to be about 5% slow, when the
> time annotations were measured with a stopwatch (see Fig. 9).
> Therefore, the apparent pitch of the tone would have a frequency of
> (1.05) (420) = 441 Hz.?
Still confused, eh? They found that the PLAYBACK SPEED was slower than the recording speed, so consequently the pitch on the playback would be lower that real life when it was recorded. In order to derive the original higher pitch they had to multiply the lower recorded pitch by a correction factor. They chose 1.05. I prefer the W&A correction of 1.043. Don Thomas sticks with the BBN figure of 1.05.
> ?The time span between the onset of the first impulse pattern and the
> onset of the fourth impulse pattern on the Channel 1 tape is 7.9 sec.
> When corrected for the fact that the tape recorder was running about
> 5% too slowly, the real time span is 8.3 sec.?
> Thanks for corroborating my point that BB&N made the sophomoric error
> by using the same correction factor for both frequency and time.
> Why don't you let Herbert answer? Jeez, you post a reply to every thread
> here.
> As far as "sound" goes, actually, I am a musician and record producer,
> (retired)
Well then did you understand what I said? If you are in the record business are you old enough to remember when turnables had different speeds? You could set it for 33-1/3 RPM, 45 or 78. What happens when you take a 33-1/3 record and set the player at 45 RPM?
> "Anthony Marsh" <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:5071bfbd$1@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>> On 10/7/2012 11:15 AM, John Fiorentino wrote:
>>> Herbert:
>>> I will openly admit I do not fully understand your reference to "fast
>>> attenuation" and it's relationship to AM and FM.
>>> But, I've looked at this to the best of my abilities, I've spoken to
>>> Dr. Barger and years ago to Dick Garwin. Of course Steve Barber is a
>>> good friend of mine.
>>> Do *you* believe there were any "shots" on that tape?
>>> BTW, this paragraph...........
>>> Both sides of the acoustic debate were deceived by those who presented
>>> junk disguised as science. This deception exploited the human
>>> inclination
>>> of the assassination community to rely upon credentials instead of
>>> acquiring the necessary background to comprehend the subject.
>>> On Oct 6, 4:48 pm, "John Fiorentino" <jefiorent...@optimum.net> wrote:
>>>> Who cares about a c. v. Tony.
>>>> Personally, I'm interested in the truth.
>>>> That's the same crapola some threw around re: Steve Barber.
>>>> If you want to discuss c. v.'s then NONE of the people involved in the
>>>> acoustics fiasco, i.e., Barger, W&A had any excuses, did they?
>>> I agree. BB&N and W&A had no excuse for their sophomoric use of the
>>> same correction factor for frequency and time. These mistakes made by
>>> BB&N and repeated by W&A would have embarrassed undergraduate
>>> students.
>> Is this confirmation that you have not attempted to duplicate the
>> acoustical analysis?
>>>> I mean we can hide behind our *ignorance,*......... isn't that right?
>>> Likewise the errors by the Ramsey Panel and IBM were inexcusable. They
>>> applied the principles of AM radio to the FM receiver used by Channel-
>>> I and then went one step beyond the principle of causality. The panel
>>> reported slow recovery from nonexistent fast attenuation and IBM
>>> confirmed this effect without a cause.
>> What do you know about attenuation? What do you know about AGC?
>> When you listen to a reporter at fire can you hear the reporter at the
>> same time that you hear the sirens?
>> Why is there a need for AGC on a police channel?
>>>> You've been snookered my friend.
>>> Both sides of the acoustic debate were deceived by those who presented
>>> junk disguised as science. This deception exploited the human
>>> inclination
>>> of the assassination community to rely upon credentials instead of
>>> acquiring the necessary background to comprehend the subject.
> In article <5071e32...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 10/6/2012 9:05 PM, Herbert Blenner wrote:
>>> On Oct 6, 4:48 pm, "John Fiorentino" <jefiorent...@optimum.net> wrote:
>>>> Who cares about a c. v. Tony.
>>>> Personally, I'm interested in the truth.
>>>> That's the same crapola some threw around re: Steve Barber.
>>>> If you want to discuss c. v.'s then NONE of the people involved in the
>>>> acoustics fiasco, i.e., Barger, W&A had any excuses, did they?
>>> I agree. BB&N and W&A had no excuse for their sophomoric use of the
>>> same correction factor for frequency and time. These mistakes made by
>>> BB&N and repeated by W&A would have embarrassed undergraduate
>>> students.
>> I can see that you are not a musician and have never had any practical
>> experience with sound on tape. I am and I have.
> Oh, you're a musician, are you? So am I. I have both a bachelors and
> masters in music. So do you now admit that one does not have to be a
> virtuoso on the violin to still know quite a few salient facts about that
> instrument? That instead one merely has to know *enough* about the violin
> to be absolutely correct regarding certain individual claims about that
> instrument? Likewise do you now admit that one doesn't quite always have
> to be an "expert" in a particular field to still talk knowledgeably about
> certain individual aspects of that field?
> And by the way, when are you ever going to admit that you were mistaken
> when you claimed that I said that JFK's fists were already up by Z225,
> when in fact you have never once seen me say that?
> > On Oct 8, 12:11 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 10/6/2012 9:05 PM, Herbert Blenner wrote:
> >>> On Oct 6, 4:48 pm, "John Fiorentino" <jefiorent...@optimum.net> wrote:
> >>>> Who cares about a c. v. Tony.
> >>>> Personally, I'm interested in the truth.
> >>>> That's the same crapola some threw around re: Steve Barber.
> >>>> If you want to discuss c. v.'s then NONE of the people involved in the
> >>>> acoustics fiasco, i.e., Barger, W&A had any excuses, did they?
> >>> I agree. BB&N and W&A had no excuse for their sophomoric use of the
> >>> same correction factor for frequency and time. These mistakes made by
> >>> BB&N and repeated by W&A would have embarrassed undergraduate
> >>> students.
> >> I can see that you are not a musician and have never had any practical
> >> experience with sound on tape. I am and I have. When you take any
> >> recorded sound on tape and play it at a slowed speed the frequency is
> >> LOWER and it takes LONGER to play it.
You are wrong. W&A used a factor of 1.043 to correct the playing time,
not the playing pitch. Likewise Don Thomas used the 1.05-factor from
BB&N to correct the playing time.
I see that you are running from your own statement. You wrote, "When
you take any recorded sound on tape and play it at a slowed speed the
frequency is LOWER and it takes LONGER to play it. "
When the playback speed is slower than the recording speed then the
playback time is longer than the real life or the recording time. In
order to derive the recording time they need to multiply the longer
playing time by 1/1.05.
BB&N blundered by using the same 1.05-factor to correct both the
playback time and the playback frequency/pitch.
> > ?The tape-recording system was found to be about 5% slow, when the
> > time annotations were measured with a stopwatch (see Fig. 9).
> > Therefore, the apparent pitch of the tone would have a frequency of
> > (1.05) (420) = 441 Hz.?
> Still confused, eh? They found that the PLAYBACK SPEED was slower than the
> recording speed, so consequently the pitch on the playback would be lower
> that real life when it was recorded. In order to derive the original
> higher pitch they had to multiply the lower recorded pitch by a correction
> factor. They chose 1.05. I prefer the W&A correction of 1.043. Don Thomas
> sticks with the BBN figure of 1.05.
> > Likewise they should correct the longer playing time by multiplying it
> > by a number less than one. This is opposite of what BB&N did.
> > ?The time span between the onset of the first impulse pattern and the
> > onset of the fourth impulse pattern on the Channel 1 tape is 7.9 sec.
> > When corrected for the fact that the tape recorder was running about
> > 5% too slowly, the real time span is 8.3 sec.?
> > Thanks for corroborating my point that BB&N made the sophomoric error
> > by using the same correction factor for both frequency and time.
> On 10/8/2012 7:53 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
>> Anthony:
>> Why don't you let Herbert answer? Jeez, you post a reply to every thread
>> here.
>> As far as "sound" goes, actually, I am a musician and record producer,
>> (retired)
> Well then did you understand what I said? If you are in the record > business are you old enough to remember when turnables had different > speeds? You could set it for 33-1/3 RPM, 45 or 78. What happens when you > take a 33-1/3 record and set the player at 45 RPM?
>> John F.
>> "Anthony Marsh" <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:5071bfbd$1@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>>> On 10/7/2012 11:15 AM, John Fiorentino wrote:
>>>> Herbert:
>>>> I will openly admit I do not fully understand your reference to "fast
>>>> attenuation" and it's relationship to AM and FM.
>>>> But, I've looked at this to the best of my abilities, I've spoken to
>>>> Dr. Barger and years ago to Dick Garwin. Of course Steve Barber is a
>>>> good friend of mine.
>>>> Do *you* believe there were any "shots" on that tape?
>>>> BTW, this paragraph...........
>>>> Both sides of the acoustic debate were deceived by those who presented
>>>> junk disguised as science. This deception exploited the human
>>>> inclination
>>>> of the assassination community to rely upon credentials instead of
>>>> acquiring the necessary background to comprehend the subject.
>>>> On Oct 6, 4:48 pm, "John Fiorentino" <jefiorent...@optimum.net> wrote:
>>>>> Who cares about a c. v. Tony.
>>>>> Personally, I'm interested in the truth.
>>>>> That's the same crapola some threw around re: Steve Barber.
>>>>> If you want to discuss c. v.'s then NONE of the people involved in the
>>>>> acoustics fiasco, i.e., Barger, W&A had any excuses, did they?
>>>> I agree. BB&N and W&A had no excuse for their sophomoric use of the
>>>> same correction factor for frequency and time. These mistakes made by
>>>> BB&N and repeated by W&A would have embarrassed undergraduate
>>>> students.
>>> Is this confirmation that you have not attempted to duplicate the
>>> acoustical analysis?
>>>>> I mean we can hide behind our *ignorance,*......... isn't that right?
>>>> Likewise the errors by the Ramsey Panel and IBM were inexcusable. They
>>>> applied the principles of AM radio to the FM receiver used by Channel-
>>>> I and then went one step beyond the principle of causality. The panel
>>>> reported slow recovery from nonexistent fast attenuation and IBM
>>>> confirmed this effect without a cause.
>>> What do you know about attenuation? What do you know about AGC?
>>> When you listen to a reporter at fire can you hear the reporter at the
>>> same time that you hear the sirens?
>>> Why is there a need for AGC on a police channel?
>>>>> You've been snookered my friend.
>>>> Both sides of the acoustic debate were deceived by those who presented
>>>> junk disguised as science. This deception exploited the human
>>>> inclination
>>>> of the assassination community to rely upon credentials instead of
>>>> acquiring the necessary background to comprehend the subject.
> On Oct 8, 9:04 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 10/8/2012 5:21 PM, Herbert Blenner wrote:
>>> On Oct 8, 12:11 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> On 10/6/2012 9:05 PM, Herbert Blenner wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 6, 4:48 pm, "John Fiorentino" <jefiorent...@optimum.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Who cares about a c. v. Tony.
>>>>>> Personally, I'm interested in the truth.
>>>>>> That's the same crapola some threw around re: Steve Barber.
>>>>>> If you want to discuss c. v.'s then NONE of the people involved in the
>>>>>> acoustics fiasco, i.e., Barger, W&A had any excuses, did they?
>>>>> I agree. BB&N and W&A had no excuse for their sophomoric use of the
>>>>> same correction factor for frequency and time. These mistakes made by
>>>>> BB&N and repeated by W&A would have embarrassed undergraduate
>>>>> students.
>>>> I can see that you are not a musician and have never had any practical
>>>> experience with sound on tape. I am and I have. When you take any
>>>> recorded sound on tape and play it at a slowed speed the frequency is
>>>> LOWER and it takes LONGER to play it.
> You are wrong. W&A used a factor of 1.043 to correct the playing time,
Stop making up words for me. I said nothing about pitch.
> not the playing pitch. Likewise Don Thomas used the 1.05-factor from
> BB&N to correct the playing time.
> I see that you are running from your own statement. You wrote, "When
> you take any recorded sound on tape and play it at a slowed speed the
> frequency is LOWER and it takes LONGER to play it. "
I see that you are making up phony positions and then ascribing them to me.
> When the playback speed is slower than the recording speed then the
> playback time is longer than the real life or the recording time. In
> order to derive the recording time they need to multiply the longer
> playing time by 1/1.05.
> BB&N blundered by using the same 1.05-factor to correct both the
> playback time and the playback frequency/pitch.
> Herbert
>>> They correct the lower frequency by multiplying it by a number larger
>>> than one. This is what BB&N did.
>>> ?The tape-recording system was found to be about 5% slow, when the
>>> time annotations were measured with a stopwatch (see Fig. 9).
>>> Therefore, the apparent pitch of the tone would have a frequency of
>>> (1.05) (420) = 441 Hz.?
>> Still confused, eh? They found that the PLAYBACK SPEED was slower than the
>> recording speed, so consequently the pitch on the playback would be lower
>> that real life when it was recorded. In order to derive the original
>> higher pitch they had to multiply the lower recorded pitch by a correction
>> factor. They chose 1.05. I prefer the W&A correction of 1.043. Don Thomas
>> sticks with the BBN figure of 1.05.
>>> Likewise they should correct the longer playing time by multiplying it
>>> by a number less than one. This is opposite of what BB&N did.
>>> ?The time span between the onset of the first impulse pattern and the
>>> onset of the fourth impulse pattern on the Channel 1 tape is 7.9 sec.
>>> When corrected for the fact that the tape recorder was running about
>>> 5% too slowly, the real time span is 8.3 sec.?
>>> Thanks for corroborating my point that BB&N made the sophomoric error
>>> by using the same correction factor for both frequency and time.
> On 10/8/2012 9:01 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
> > In article <5071e32...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> > Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 10/6/2012 9:05 PM, Herbert Blenner wrote:
> >>> On Oct 6, 4:48 pm, "John Fiorentino" <jefiorent...@optimum.net> wrote:
> >>>> Who cares about a c. v. Tony.
> >>>> Personally, I'm interested in the truth.
> >>>> That's the same crapola some threw around re: Steve Barber.
> >>>> If you want to discuss c. v.'s then NONE of the people involved in the
> >>>> acoustics fiasco, i.e., Barger, W&A had any excuses, did they?
> >>> I agree. BB&N and W&A had no excuse for their sophomoric use of the
> >>> same correction factor for frequency and time. These mistakes made by
> >>> BB&N and repeated by W&A would have embarrassed undergraduate
> >>> students.
> >> I can see that you are not a musician and have never had any practical
> >> experience with sound on tape. I am and I have.
> > Oh, you're a musician, are you? So am I. I have both a bachelors and
> > masters in music. So do you now admit that one does not have to be a
> > virtuoso on the violin to still know quite a few salient facts about that
> > instrument? That instead one merely has to know *enough* about the violin
> > to be absolutely correct regarding certain individual claims about that
> > instrument? Likewise do you now admit that one doesn't quite always have
> > to be an "expert" in a particular field to still talk knowledgeably about
> > certain individual aspects of that field?
> No.
Oh, so because I'm not a violin virtuoso, I'm wrong when I say that the four strings of the violin are normally tuned to G, D, A, and E? I'm wrong when I say that the correct orchestral term for playing with the bow is "arco"? I'm wrong when I say that plucking the string is called "pizzicato"? I'm wrong when I say that the term for bouncing the bow on the string is "spiccato"? I'm wrong when I say that one can touch the strings at various points to produce harmonics? I'm wrong when I say that turning the bow over and striking the string with the wooden part of the bow is called "col legno"? I'm wrong when I say that drawing the bow across the string very near to the bridge is called "sul ponticello"?
I'm wrong when I say that Brahms composed a violin concerto in D major?
I'm wrong when I say that Adrian Boult and Pierre Monteux typically seated the violins differently than most other conductors did at the time, putting the first violins on the conductor's left and the second violins on the right, instead of both sections on the left? Are you old enough to have seen at least one of the many occasions when Monteux conducted the Boston Symphony and had the violins seated the very way I described, rather than how the music director of the Boston Symphony Charles Munch seated them when he conducted during the same years? Am I wrong, just because I'm not a violin virtuoso, when I say that in authentic performance practice violinists typically play without vibrato, whereas in standard orchestral performances they usually play with vibrato?
So, according to you only, and no one else, since I'm not a virtuoso on the violin, all of the statements I made above are false, even though every single one of them can be independently verified beyond my word from many different sources.
Get real.
And this from the man who a week ago stooped to the level of trying to win an argument with me by claiming I said something I never said, then still refuses to even admit today that he was mistaken.
In article <5072cf2...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
"John Fiorentino" <jefiorent...@optimum.net> wrote:
> Anthony:
> Why don't you let Herbert answer? Jeez, you post a reply to every thread > here.
> As far as "sound" goes, actually, I am a musician and record producer, > (retired)
!!!
You also are a musician. You may not have yet seen me say that I have two degrees in music, although I was never a record producer. I realize you dislike me tremendously, but I honestly would enjoy learning more about what you did as a record producer.
> > On Oct 8, 9:04 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 10/8/2012 5:21 PM, Herbert Blenner wrote:
> >>> On Oct 8, 12:11 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>> On 10/6/2012 9:05 PM, Herbert Blenner wrote:
> >>>>> On Oct 6, 4:48 pm, "John Fiorentino" <jefiorent...@optimum.net> wrote:
> >>>>>> Who cares about a c. v. Tony.
> >>>>>> Personally, I'm interested in the truth.
> >>>>>> That's the same crapola some threw around re: Steve Barber.
> >>>>>> If you want to discuss c. v.'s then NONE of the people involved in the
> >>>>>> acoustics fiasco, i.e., Barger, W&A had any excuses, did they?
> >>>>> I agree. BB&N and W&A had no excuse for their sophomoric use of the
> >>>>> same correction factor for frequency and time. These mistakes made by
> >>>>> BB&N and repeated by W&A would have embarrassed undergraduate
> >>>>> students.
> >>>> I can see that you are not a musician and have never had any practical
> >>>> experience with sound on tape. I am and I have. When you take any
> >>>> recorded sound on tape and play it at a slowed speed the frequency is
> >>>> LOWER and it takes LONGER to play it.
> > You are wrong. W&A used a factor of 1.043 to correct the playing time,
> Stop making up words for me. I said nothing about pitch.
I quote Anthony Marsh on October 8, 9:04 PM.
"In order to derive the original higher pitch they had to multiply the
lower recorded pitch by a correction factor."
> > not the playing pitch. Likewise Don Thomas used the 1.05-factor from
> > BB&N to correct the playing time.
> > I see that you are running from your own statement. You wrote, "When
> > you take any recorded sound on tape and play it at a slowed speed the
> > frequency is LOWER and it takes LONGER to play it. "
> I see that you are making up phony positions and then ascribing them to
> me.
I copied and pasted your words posted on October 8 at 12:11 AM. So it
is Anthony Marsh who made up phony charges to denigrate me.
As a demonstration of my resolve, I link a screen grab of the post
that proves you are the author of the words that you maliciously claim
I made up.
Besides showing us that you are a small person who resorts to
attacking the character of your opponent upon losing an argument, you
offer me an exceptional opportunity to bring the issue of BB&N
deception before the courts. I will consider this opportunity and may
decide to exploit your tactless behavior as a means to open a bigger
door.
> On Oct 9, 8:36 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 10/9/2012 9:52 AM, Herbert Blenner wrote:
>>> On Oct 8, 9:04 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> On 10/8/2012 5:21 PM, Herbert Blenner wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 8, 12:11 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/6/2012 9:05 PM, Herbert Blenner wrote:
>>>>>>> On Oct 6, 4:48 pm, "John Fiorentino" <jefiorent...@optimum.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Who cares about a c. v. Tony.
>>>>>>>> Personally, I'm interested in the truth.
>>>>>>>> That's the same crapola some threw around re: Steve Barber.
>>>>>>>> If you want to discuss c. v.'s then NONE of the people involved in the
>>>>>>>> acoustics fiasco, i.e., Barger, W&A had any excuses, did they?
>>>>>>> I agree. BB&N and W&A had no excuse for their sophomoric use of the
>>>>>>> same correction factor for frequency and time. These mistakes made by
>>>>>>> BB&N and repeated by W&A would have embarrassed undergraduate
>>>>>>> students.
>>>>>> I can see that you are not a musician and have never had any practical
>>>>>> experience with sound on tape. I am and I have. When you take any
>>>>>> recorded sound on tape and play it at a slowed speed the frequency is
>>>>>> LOWER and it takes LONGER to play it.
>>> You are wrong. W&A used a factor of 1.043 to correct the playing time,
>> Stop making up words for me. I said nothing about pitch.
> I quote Anthony Marsh on October 8, 9:04 PM.
> "In order to derive the original higher pitch they had to multiply the
> lower recorded pitch by a correction factor."
>>> not the playing pitch. Likewise Don Thomas used the 1.05-factor from
>>> BB&N to correct the playing time.
>>> I see that you are running from your own statement. You wrote, "When
>>> you take any recorded sound on tape and play it at a slowed speed the
>>> frequency is LOWER and it takes LONGER to play it. "
>> I see that you are making up phony positions and then ascribing them to
>> me.
> I copied and pasted your words posted on October 8 at 12:11 AM. So it
> is Anthony Marsh who made up phony charges to denigrate me.
> As a demonstration of my resolve, I link a screen grab of the post
> that proves you are the author of the words that you maliciously claim
> I made up.
> Besides showing us that you are a small person who resorts to
> attacking the character of your opponent upon losing an argument, you
> offer me an exceptional opportunity to bring the issue of BB&N
> deception before the courts. I will consider this opportunity and may
> decide to exploit your tactless behavior as a means to open a bigger
> door.
> > I will openly admit I do not fully understand your reference to "fast
> > attenuation" and it's relationship to AM and FM.
> > But, I've looked at this to the best of my abilities, I've spoken to
> > Dr. Barger and years ago to Dick Garwin. Of course Steve Barber is a
> > good friend of mine.
> > Do *you* believe there were any "shots" on that tape?
> > BTW, this paragraph...........
> > Both sides of the acoustic debate were deceived by those who presented
> > junk disguised as science. This deception exploited the human inclination
> > of the assassination community to rely upon credentials instead of
> > acquiring the necessary background to comprehend the subject.
> >> That's the same crapola some threw around re: Steve Barber.
> >> If you want to discuss c. v.'s then NONE of the people involved in the
> >> acoustics fiasco, i.e., Barger, W&A had any excuses, did they?
> > I agree. BB&N and W&A had no excuse for their sophomoric use of the
> > same correction factor for frequency and time. These mistakes made by
> > BB&N and repeated by W&A would have embarrassed undergraduate
> > students.
> Is this confirmation that you have not attempted to duplicate the
> acoustical analysis?
> >> I mean we can hide behind our *ignorance,*......... isn't that right?
> > Likewise the errors by the Ramsey Panel and IBM were inexcusable. They
> > applied the principles of AM radio to the FM receiver used by Channel-
> > I and then went one step beyond the principle of causality. The panel
> > reported slow recovery from nonexistent fast attenuation and IBM
> > confirmed this effect without a cause.
> What do you know about attenuation? What do you know about AGC?
My knowledge of attenuation and AGC show readers what you as a self-
proclaimed critic of the Ramsey Panel or the Watson Research Center of
IBM have missed for thirty years.
I characterize you as self-proclaimed since your criticisms would
render Friends of the Ramsey Panel as an organization with no useful
purpose. Candidly, this situation does not surprise me since your
defense of BB&N and W&A caused them to hang out their “Critics not
needed here” sign.
> When you listen to a reporter at fire can you hear the reporter at the
> same time that you hear the sirens?
> Why is there a need for AGC on a police channel?
> >> You've been snookered my friend.
> > Both sides of the acoustic debate were deceived by those who presented
> > junk disguised as science. This deception exploited the human inclination
> > of the assassination community to rely upon credentials instead of
> > acquiring the necessary background to comprehend the subject.
