Harkness and His Flathead 3 Wheel Harly in DP
John Hill
Mr. HARKNESS - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Doing what?
Mr. HARKNESS - Supervising the traffic officers from Main and Field along the parade route to Elm and Houston.
Mr. BELIN - Where were you around 12:30 p.m.?
Mr. HARKNESS - ***AT MAIN AND HOUSTON.***
Mr. BELIN - On the east or west side of Houston?
Mr. HARKNESS - ***WEST SIDE OF HOUSTON.***
Mr. BELIN - Did you watch the motorcade come by?
Mr. HARKNESS - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Where were you when you heard the shots?
Mr. HARKNESS - I had started west on Main Street to the, I don't know what they call this area here.
Mr. BELIN - Plaza.
Mr. HARKNESS - On the plaza area with the crowd to observe the President as he went west on Elm Street.
Mr. BELIN - How many shots did you hear?
Mr. HARKNESS - Three.
Mr. BELIN - What did you do after you heard those noises? Did you know they were shots, by the way?
Mr. HARKNESS - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - What did you do?
Mr. HARKNESS - When I saw the first shot and the President's car slow down to almost a stop----
Mr. BELIN - When you saw the first shot, what do you mean by that?
Mr. HARKNESS - When I heard the first shot and saw the President's car almost come to a stop and some of the agents piling off the car, ***I WENT BACK TO THE INTERSECTION TO GET MY MOTORCYCLE.*** [Harkness was OFF his motorcycle when the shots were fired.]
Mr. BELIN - You were in the process of doing that when you heard the second and third shots?
Mr. HARKNESS - Yes, sir.
Mr. HARKNESS - I found a little colored boy, Amos Euins, who told me he saw the shots come from that building.
Mr. BELIN - Now you just picked out a little small book, one of those little pocket notebooks?
Mr. HARKNESS - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Or a notepad from your pocket here. Is that the original notation that you made?
Mr. HARKNESS - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - When did you make that notation?
Mr. HARKNESS - Immediately after the shooting.
Mr. BELIN - Is that your own record that you have kept in your possession since then?
Mr. HARKNESS - Yes, sir. I turned.
Mr. BELIN - You turned what?
Mr. HARKNESS - After I took his name and address and put this information on the radio, ***I THEN TOOK HIM ON THE BACK OF MY THREE-WHEEL MOTORCYCLE*** and put him in Inspector Sawyer's car.
--
John Hill (joisa)
Michael O'Dell
"John Hill" <jo...@ev1.net> wrote in message news:42ec...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
But it makes even less difference that there may have been a 3 wheeler in DP. If people have said there wasn't one in DP that includes the fact that there wasn't one in the motorcade at the acoustic positions identified by the tests. On the other hand, if one says there was one in DP that does not mean it was in the proper positions, and I take it that you aren't saying that one was.
This is not about hearing some gunshot sounds on a recording and then figuring out where they were recorded at. The reverse is true. The identification of the impulses as gunshots is fundamentally dependent on the stuck mic being at very specific locations. Just being in the vicinity of DP is not enough.
It really doesn't mean anything that there was a 3 wheeler in DP, even if it was ever proven that those are 3 wheeler engine sounds.
Michael
Herbert Blenner
John Hill wrote:
> Hello,
>
> It has long been contended that there was **NO** 3 wheel, flathead
Harley-Davidson Servi-car in DP at the time of the shooting, therefore
making it impossible for the Dictabelt recording with flathead engine
noises on it to have been made in DP at the time of the shooting.
Some people reach conclusions without studying the evidence.
Dr. Barger demonstrated the ability of an adaptive filter, the
autocorrelation and spectral subtraction techniques to detect engine
sounds. These three proven methods failed to detect engine sounds among
the loud interference. So in reality, the scientific evidence disputes
the identification of a flathead engine by ear.
Briefly at 235 seconds from the start of the Bowles tape of the
Dictabelt, the sound of the interference is repetitious. Probably this
sound misleads others to identify a flathead engine as the source.
http:/www.members.aol.com/hdblenner/engine.htg/trackone0158.wav
An oscillogram shows that beating between two higher frequency signals
produced the slower repetitious sound. However, these higher frequencies
are twice those of a speeding motorcycle and more important lack the
periodicity of any type of engine. For details see:
http://www.members.aol.com/hdblenner/engine.htm
During the initial two minutes of the open microphone transmission, the
sound of the loud interference does not resemble any type of engine.
http://www.members.aol.com/hdblenner/cardinal.htg/trackone0067.wav
Herbert
Anthony Marsh
> Hello,
>
> It has long been contended that there was **NO** 3 wheel, flathead
> Harley-Davidson Servi-car in DP at the time of the shooting, therefore
> making it impossible for the Dictabelt recording with flathead engine
> noises on it to have been made in DP at the time of the shooting.
>
That is not exactly the claim. We can see in the Paschall film that a
three-wheeler at the end of the motorcade went down Main Street. And
photos of Dealey Plaza after the shooting show a three-wheeler. What
some people might have been saying is that the open microphone could not
be on a three-wheeler because the escort cycles near the limousine were
not three-wheelers.
Someone has a theory that the open microphone was on a three-wheeler,
but that is just guessing.
> I refer you to the following WC testimony of DPD Officer D.V. Harkness
> (****EMPHASIS ADDED****)* [Notes added]*:
>
> <Quote On>
>
> Mr. BELIN - Were you on duty November 22, 1963?
> Mr. HARKNESS - Yes, sir.
> Mr. BELIN - Doing what?
> Mr. HARKNESS - Supervising the traffic officers from Main and Field
> along the parade route to Elm and Houston.
> Mr. BELIN - Where were you around 12:30 p.m.?
> Mr. HARKNESS - ****AT MAIN AND HOUSTON.****
> Mr. BELIN - On the east or west side of Houston?
> Mr. HARKNESS - ****WEST SIDE OF HOUSTON.****
> Mr. BELIN - Did you watch the motorcade come by?
> Mr. HARKNESS - Yes, sir.
> Mr. BELIN - Where were you when you heard the shots?
> Mr. HARKNESS - I had started west on Main Street to the, I don't know
> what they call this area here.
> Mr. BELIN - Plaza.
> Mr. HARKNESS - On the plaza area with the crowd to observe the President
> as he went west on Elm Street.
> Mr. BELIN - How many shots did you hear?
> Mr. HARKNESS - Three.
> Mr. BELIN - What did you do after you heard those noises? Did you know
> they were shots, by the way?
> Mr. HARKNESS - Yes, sir.
> Mr. BELIN - What did you do?
> Mr. HARKNESS - When I saw the first shot and the President's car slow
> down to almost a stop----
> Mr. BELIN - When you saw the first shot, what do you mean by that?
> Mr. HARKNESS - When I heard the first shot and saw the President's car
> almost come to a stop and some of the agents piling off the car, ****I
> WENT BACK TO THE INTERSECTION TO GET MY MOTORCYCLE.*** [Harkness was OFF
> his motorcycle when the shots were fired.]
> *Mr. BELIN - You were in the process of doing that when you heard the
> second and third shots?
> Mr. HARKNESS - Yes, sir.
> ..........
> [Speaking of what he did after the shots were fired and after he was
> back on his motorcycle]
> Mr. BELIN - What did you find there?
> Mr. HARKNESS - I found a little colored boy, Amos Euins, who told me he
> saw the shots come from that building.
> Mr. BELIN - Now you just picked out a little small book, one of those
> little pocket notebooks?
> Mr. HARKNESS - Yes, sir.
> Mr. BELIN - Or a notepad from your pocket here. Is that the original
> notation that you made?
> Mr. HARKNESS - Yes, sir.
> Mr. BELIN - When did you make that notation?
> Mr. HARKNESS - Immediately after the shooting.
> Mr. BELIN - Is that your own record that you have kept in your
> possession since then?
> Mr. HARKNESS - Yes, sir. I turned.
> Mr. BELIN - You turned what?
> Mr. HARKNESS - After I took his name and address and put this
> information on the radio, ****I THEN TOOK HIM ON THE BACK OF MY
> THREE-WHEEL MOTORCYCLE**** and put him in Inspector Sawyer's car.
>
> <Quote Off>
>
> Harkness had left his ***3 WHEEL*** motorcycle at the intersection of
> Main and Houston, on the west side of Houston Street. This is ***IN***
> DP. There WAS a 3 wheeler in DP at the time the shots were fired.
> Now, whether or not Harkness had left it running and his mike was stuck
> open while he was off it are two altogether different matters, to say
> the least.
> However, the fallacy that there was NO 3 wheeler in DP at the time of
> the shooting has been permanently debunked. All LNTs please take notice.
>
Sure, but Harkness could not have been the one with the open microphone.
It is not possible that the open microphone was on a three-wheeler to
record the shots in Dealey Plaza.
> If anyone knows any more about this incident or how to contact Harkness,
> please let myself or Martha or Gary Mack know.
>
> Thanks,
> --
> John Hill (joisa)
>
>
>
--
Anthony Marsh
The Puzzle Palace http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh
Anthony Marsh
> Hello,
>
> It has long been contended that there was **NO** 3 wheel, flathead
> Harley-Davidson Servi-car in DP at the time of the shooting, therefore
> making it impossible for the Dictabelt recording with flathead engine
> noises on it to have been made in DP at the time of the shooting.
>
That is not exactly the claim. We can see in the Paschall film that a
three-wheeler at the end of the motorcade went down Main Street. And
photos of Dealey Plaza after the shooting show a three-wheeler. What
some people might have been saying is that the open microphone could not
be on a three-wheeler because the escort cycles near the limousine were
not three-wheelers.
Someone has a theory that the open microphone was on a three-wheeler,
but that is just guessing.
> I refer you to the following WC testimony of DPD Officer D.V. Harkness
> (****EMPHASIS ADDED****)* [Notes added]*:
>
> <Quote On>
>
> Mr. BELIN - Were you on duty November 22, 1963?
> Mr. HARKNESS - Yes, sir.
> Mr. BELIN - Doing what?
> Mr. HARKNESS - Supervising the traffic officers from Main and Field
> along the parade route to Elm and Houston.
> Mr. BELIN - Where were you around 12:30 p.m.?
> Mr. HARKNESS - ****AT MAIN AND HOUSTON.****
> Mr. BELIN - On the east or west side of Houston?
> Mr. HARKNESS - ****WEST SIDE OF HOUSTON.****
> Mr. BELIN - Did you watch the motorcade come by?
> Mr. HARKNESS - Yes, sir.
> Mr. BELIN - Where were you when you heard the shots?
> Mr. HARKNESS - I had started west on Main Street to the, I don't know
> what they call this area here.
> Mr. BELIN - Plaza.
> Mr. HARKNESS - On the plaza area with the crowd to observe the President
> as he went west on Elm Street.
> Mr. BELIN - How many shots did you hear?
> Mr. HARKNESS - Three.
> Mr. BELIN - What did you do after you heard those noises? Did you know
> they were shots, by the way?
> Mr. HARKNESS - Yes, sir.
> Mr. BELIN - What did you do?
> Mr. HARKNESS - When I saw the first shot and the President's car slow
> down to almost a stop----
> Mr. BELIN - When you saw the first shot, what do you mean by that?
> Mr. HARKNESS - When I heard the first shot and saw the President's car
> almost come to a stop and some of the agents piling off the car, ****I
> WENT BACK TO THE INTERSECTION TO GET MY MOTORCYCLE.*** [Harkness was OFF
> his motorcycle when the shots were fired.]
> *Mr. BELIN - You were in the process of doing that when you heard the
> second and third shots?
> Mr. HARKNESS - Yes, sir.
> ..........
> [Speaking of what he did after the shots were fired and after he was
> back on his motorcycle]
> Mr. BELIN - What did you find there?
> Mr. HARKNESS - I found a little colored boy, Amos Euins, who told me he
> saw the shots come from that building.
> Mr. BELIN - Now you just picked out a little small book, one of those
> little pocket notebooks?
> Mr. HARKNESS - Yes, sir.
> Mr. BELIN - Or a notepad from your pocket here. Is that the original
> notation that you made?
> Mr. HARKNESS - Yes, sir.
> Mr. BELIN - When did you make that notation?
> Mr. HARKNESS - Immediately after the shooting.
> Mr. BELIN - Is that your own record that you have kept in your
> possession since then?
> Mr. HARKNESS - Yes, sir. I turned.
> Mr. BELIN - You turned what?
> Mr. HARKNESS - After I took his name and address and put this
> information on the radio, ****I THEN TOOK HIM ON THE BACK OF MY
> THREE-WHEEL MOTORCYCLE**** and put him in Inspector Sawyer's car.
>
> <Quote Off>
>
> Harkness had left his ***3 WHEEL*** motorcycle at the intersection of
> Main and Houston, on the west side of Houston Street. This is ***IN***
> DP. There WAS a 3 wheeler in DP at the time the shots were fired.
> Now, whether or not Harkness had left it running and his mike was stuck
> open while he was off it are two altogether different matters, to say
> the least.
> However, the fallacy that there was NO 3 wheeler in DP at the time of
> the shooting has been permanently debunked. All LNTs please take notice.
>
Sure, but Harkness could not have been the one with the open microphone.
It is not possible that the open microphone was on a three-wheeler to
record the shots in Dealey Plaza.
> If anyone knows any more about this incident or how to contact Harkness,
> please let myself or Martha or Gary Mack know.
>
> Thanks,
> --
> John Hill (joisa)
>
>
>
jwrush
It has long been contended that there was **NO** 3 wheel, flathead
Harley-Davidson Servi-car in DP at the time of the shooting, therefore
making it impossible for the Dictabelt recording with flathead engine noises
on it to have been made in DP at the time of the shooting.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hi John. This has been known the whole time. There is even film of Harkness
on his 3-wheeler in Dealey Plaza.
Since Harkness was supervising the traffic officers from Main and Field
along the parade route to Elm and Houston, he would have used Channel 2, not
Channel 1, since the motorcade was using Channel 2 for motorcade
transmissions.
But Trade Mart 3-wheelers would have used both channels, Channel 1 for
transmitting messages around, near, and from the Trade Mart area, and for
regular non-motorcade traffic that day, and Channel 2 for listening to the
progress of the motorcade. The stuck microphone was stuck when Harkness
transmitted his "fifth floor" message on Channel 2, from the Plaza, and this
is one of the "crosstalk" segments that was picked up by the Channel 1 stuck
microphone, as Harkness transmitted on Channel 2.
There are no motorcade sounds on the stuck microphone sequence, no cheering
crowds, no gunshots, no screams, and no motorcade sounds at all until the
front of the motorcade reaches the Trade Mart, and then the stuck microphone
at the Trade Mart picks up the sounds of the passing sirens, as the
motorcade passes the Trade Mart on the way to Parkland.
You can find Harkness as Unit 260 on the Bowles transcripts of Channel 2
transmissions:
http://www.jfk-online.com/bowles8.html#N_1_
And you can not find Harkness transmitting on Channel 1 on the Bowles
transcripts of Channel 1, except when he tried to find unit 6 by asking the
Ch 1 dispatcher which channel unit 6 was on, at about 2:14 pm, and then
again as Ch 2 crosstalk during his Ch 2 "fifth floor" transmission at about
12:36:
rob.s...@gmail.com
case.
Rob
Anthony Marsh
That is simply not true. Due to the high level of background noise, we
would not expect to hear the crowds, screams, gunshots. But we do hear
the squeals of the tires, changing gears, a car horn honking, and the
sirens very close. This indicates that the cycle with the open
microphone was very close to the front part of the motorcade, which sped
off to Parkland Hospital.
>
>
> You can find Harkness as Unit 260 on the Bowles transcripts of Channel 2
> transmissions:
>
> http://www.jfk-online.com/bowles8.html#N_1_
>
>
>
> And you can not find Harkness transmitting on Channel 1 on the Bowles
> transcripts of Channel 1, except when he tried to find unit 6 by asking the
> Ch 1 dispatcher which channel unit 6 was on, at about 2:14 pm, and then
> again as Ch 2 crosstalk during his Ch 2 "fifth floor" transmission at about
> 12:36:
>
> http://www.jfk-online.com/bowles7.html#ch1
>
>
>
jwrush
"Anthony Marsh" <ama...@quik.com> wrote in message
news:2jsHe.941$eh1.770@trndny07...
Not so. We can hear people talking in some segments at the Trade Mart, and
we should be able to hear cheers and screams, and loud gunshots, if the
stuck microphone was at the Plaza. Also, we wouldn't hear the sirens
reaching the Trade Mart, if the stuck microphone were in the Plaza. Also,
Harkness was on Channel 2, not Channel 1.
But we do hear
> the squeals of the tires, changing gears, a car horn honking, and the
> sirens very close. This indicates that the cycle with the open microphone
> was very close to the front part of the motorcade, which sped off to
> Parkland Hospital.
Oh, come on, man! LOL. The sirens come up as they pass the motorcycle at the
Trade Mart, at the moment in time the front of the motorcade was passing the
Trade Mart. They come in from a distance, they pass the stuck microphone,
and they go off into the distance.
What you are saying is the kind of baloney conspiracy writers made up years
ago, for consumption by the general public, who had no access to the actual
recordings, and who had no way to reveal the hoaxes contained in those old
false claims.
jwrush
Marsh, you've got to do much better than you have been doing if you want to
try to influence intelligent and well educated people who are knowledgeable
about this case. Only a few uneducated people would fall for your silly
stories, such as the one about the curtain rods.
Anthony Marsh
No, we don't.
> we should be able to hear cheers and screams, and loud gunshots, if the
> stuck microphone was at the Plaza. Also, we wouldn't hear the sirens
No, the acoustical scientists showed why we would not expect to hear
crowd noises on channel 1. Why would we hear screams that soon?
> reaching the Trade Mart, if the stuck microphone were in the Plaza. Also,
> Harkness was on Channel 2, not Channel 1.
I already quoted Harkness's message from channel 2. What point were you
trying to make?
>
> But we do hear
>
>>the squeals of the tires, changing gears, a car horn honking, and the
>>sirens very close. This indicates that the cycle with the open microphone
>>was very close to the front part of the motorcade, which sped off to
>>Parkland Hospital.
>
>
> Oh, come on, man! LOL. The sirens come up as they pass the motorcycle at the
> Trade Mart, at the moment in time the front of the motorcade was passing the
The sirens come up as McLain catches up with the limousine.
> Trade Mart. They come in from a distance, they pass the stuck microphone,
> and they go off into the distance.
>
No, the volume goes up and down and back up again, as if the open
microphone is catching up with and then falling back from the other
escort cycles. Exactly which cycles do you think it was picking up?
> What you are saying is the kind of baloney conspiracy writers made up years
> ago, for consumption by the general public, who had no access to the actual
> recordings, and who had no way to reveal the hoaxes contained in those old
> false claims.
>
Baloney. Don Thomas and several others have access to the actual
recordings and believe that the open microphone captured the shots. This
was not for the consumption of the general public, which is largely
unaware of the acoustical studies.
Herbert Blenner
The huge braking distance, approximately three times farther than a
standard automobile, of the overweight limousine directly limited its
deceleration and safety considerations restricted acceleration. As a
result the limousine and its escorts could not reach the Trade Mart at
time that the Dictabelt recorded the sirens.
Further the long term changes in volume of the sirens are inconsistent
with emergency vehicles passing a stationary microphone. For this
scenario to work the lead sirens would have passed at a leisurely speed
of 30 mph and were followed by three groups of sirens spaced more than
one city block apart.
Herbert
Anthony Marsh
No, we don't.
> we should be able to hear cheers and screams, and loud gunshots, if the
> stuck microphone was at the Plaza. Also, we wouldn't hear the sirens
No, the acoustical scientists showed why we would not expect to hear
crowd noises on channel 1. Why would we hear screams that soon?
> reaching the Trade Mart, if the stuck microphone were in the Plaza. Also,
> Harkness was on Channel 2, not Channel 1.
I already quoted Harkness's message from channel 2. What point were you
trying to make?
>
> But we do hear
>
>>the squeals of the tires, changing gears, a car horn honking, and the
>>sirens very close. This indicates that the cycle with the open microphone
>>was very close to the front part of the motorcade, which sped off to
>>Parkland Hospital.
>
>
> Oh, come on, man! LOL. The sirens come up as they pass the motorcycle at the
> Trade Mart, at the moment in time the front of the motorcade was passing the
The sirens come up as McLain catches up with the limousine.
> Trade Mart. They come in from a distance, they pass the stuck microphone,
> and they go off into the distance.
>
No, the volume goes up and down and back up again, as if the open
microphone is catching up with and then falling back from the other
escort cycles. Exactly which cycles do you think it was picking up?
> What you are saying is the kind of baloney conspiracy writers made up years
> ago, for consumption by the general public, who had no access to the actual
> recordings, and who had no way to reveal the hoaxes contained in those old
> false claims.
>
Baloney. Don Thomas and several others have access to the actual
recordings and believe that the open microphone captured the shots. This
was not for the consumption of the general public, which is largely
unaware of the acoustical studies.
>
>
jwrush
Maybe you don't, but those of us with good copies do.
>
>> we should be able to hear cheers and screams, and loud gunshots, if the
>> stuck microphone was at the Plaza. Also, we wouldn't hear the sirens
>
> No, the acoustical scientists showed
The acoustical "scientists", such as Ramsey, the Nobel Prize Winner, showed
that there are no gunshots record on either channel, because the HSCA
"gunshot sequence" took place more than a minute after the assassination,
the time of Sheriff Decker's transmission.
why we would not expect to hear
> crowd noises on channel 1. Why would we hear screams that soon?
>
>> reaching the Trade Mart, if the stuck microphone were in the Plaza. Also,
>> Harkness was on Channel 2, not Channel 1.
>
> I already quoted Harkness's message from channel 2. What point were you
> trying to make?
>
>>
>> But we do hear
>>
>>>the squeals of the tires, changing gears, a car horn honking, and the
>>>sirens very close. This indicates that the cycle with the open microphone
>>>was very close to the front part of the motorcade, which sped off to
>>>Parkland Hospital.
>>
>>
>> Oh, come on, man! LOL. The sirens come up as they pass the motorcycle at
>> the Trade Mart, at the moment in time the front of the motorcade was
>> passing the
>
> The sirens come up as McLain catches up with the limousine.
Nonsense. The sirens are clearly heard passing the stuck microphone. There
is no slow sound of any motorcycle "catching up" with the sirens. The sirens
approach, pass, and leave the area of the stuck microphone.
Why are you now talking about McLain? I thought you were talking about
Harkness? You just pull up any names you find to make your various claims.
Of course, 99% of the general public would have no idea what you are talking
about.
>
>> Trade Mart. They come in from a distance, they pass the stuck microphone,
>> and they go off into the distance.
>>
>
> No, the volume goes up and down and back up again, as if the open
> microphone is catching up with and then falling back from the other escort
> cycles.
No, you are hearing several DIFFERENT sirens passing the stuck microphone.
Geeze, man, ask a sound engineer or a TV reporter or cameraman.
>Exactly which cycles do you think it was picking up?
>
>> What you are saying is the kind of baloney conspiracy writers made up
>> years ago, for consumption by the general public, who had no access to
>> the actual recordings, and who had no way to reveal the hoaxes contained
>> in those old false claims.
>
> Baloney. Don Thomas and several others have access to the actual
> recordings and believe that the open microphone captured the shots.
Conspiracy buff. Sorry, I'm with the scientists on this.
This
> was not for the consumption of the general public, which is largely
> unaware of the acoustical studies.
It was for the consumption of TV and newspaper reporters, specifically for
the generation of new "conspiracy" headlines in newspapers and news shows
around the world. Conspiracy guys pull stunts like this every few years.
jwrush
"Herbert Blenner" <a1e...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1122918842....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Herb, just a few weeks ago you didn't even know the limousine reached the
Trade Mart at all. You tried to claim it went to Parkland by some other
route. You demanded that I prove to you it passed the Trade Mart, then
O'Dell posted the picture from my video, showing it passing the Trade Mart.
You are completely out of the loop on this topic, Herb.
Herbert Blenner
Evasion gets you nowhere.
You claim that the emergency vehicles made it to the south side of the
Trade Mart in two minutes. Now post your evidence or retract your
nonsense.
BTW, the Warren Commission still reports the emergency vehicles passed
the north side of the Trade Mart and the President's physician being
unaware of the shooting went on to the (south side) of the Trade Mart.
Now perhaps you can post the Ashmore photo, which shows the limousine
in a totally unsuitable acoustic environment to explain the sirens
recorded by the Dictabelt.
Herbert
jwrush
Sorry, Herb, but you are out of the loop.
For others reading this, I finally got a copy of my Time-Clock Master tape
dubbed to VHS, which gives me more accurate timing of the events, and I
just listened to it while watching the clock read-out. Looks like right
after Curry starts saying "Go to the Hospital", the sirens come up on
Channel 1 about 3:05 minutes later. That would have been in the general
area of the Trade Mart.
I also have the Russ Burr collection of various drives to Parkland, and it
usually takes the driver about 2:30 to get from the shooting position in
the Plaza to the street corner at the corner of the Trade Mart. But I
think those drives are a little fast since there is not much traffic
during the drives.
These two timings together both place the sirens sounds being picked up by
an open microphone somewhere around the Trade Mart. Not anywhere near
Dealey Plaza.
Herbert Blenner
Thank you, Johann, for making my day.
>
> For others reading this, I finally got a copy of my Time-Clock Master tape
> dubbed to VHS, which gives me more accurate timing of the events, and I
> just listened to it while watching the clock read-out. Looks like right
> after Curry starts saying "Go to the Hospital", the sirens come up on
> Channel 1 about 3:05 minutes later. That would have been in the general
> area of the Trade Mart.
The sirens become audible during a break in simultaneous receptions. I
interpret the preceding message as special five. The sirens begin and
briefly reached the largest volume of the entire sequence. Within a few
tenths of a second, the simultaneous broadcasts of "10-4" and "Anybody
know where 56 is?" suppress the amplitude of the sirens.
http://www.members.aol.com/hdblenner/startofsirens.wav
So much for your excuse of the emergency vehicles passing a stationary
microphone. Simultaneous receptions cause of the split-second ups and
downs we hear in the volume of the sirens.
>
> I also have the Russ Burr collection of various drives to Parkland, and it
> usually takes the driver about 2:30 to get from the shooting position in
> the Plaza to the street corner at the corner of the Trade Mart. But I
> think those drives are a little fast since there is not much traffic
> during the drives.
I wonder if Russ drove a limousine with a nut on the trunk and a
braking distance three times farther than a typical automobile? In any
event the interval between the start of the sirens and the alleged
shots is two minutes.
>
> These two timings together both place the sirens sounds being picked up by
> an open microphone somewhere around the Trade Mart. Not anywhere near
> Dealey Plaza.
How do you explain the sirens reaching their maximum amplitude within a
few tenths of a second after becoming audible?
Herbert
Martin Shackelford
U.S. government who decided to examine the acoustics evidence, and ended
up coming to the conclusion that there were more than three shots.
If you dismiss every scientist who disagrees with your conclusions as a
conspiracy buff, it makes for a very slanted slate of scientists.
Martin
jwrush
If he had access to the actual recordings, which many people do, he would
have realized that the HSCA timing of the "gunshots" on the recording had
two shots occurring before Decker said "hold everything secure" and two
shots occurring after Decker said that, and Decker said that more than a
minute AFTER the assassination. The HSCA just didn't hear Decker's words
until Steve pointed it out to the NRC and the NRC pointed out to the HSCA
acoustics investigators after the HSCA was disbanded. There is no way that
four "gunshots" or any "gunshots" could be on the recording when Decker was
saying "hold everything secure".
Thomas was going for media publicity and headlines, whereas average
reporters and the general public have no understanding of the meaning of the
Decker remarks being positioned right in the middle of the HSCA's "gunshot"
sequence.
Michael O'Dell
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:dcn3th$l...@dispatch.concentric.net...
> Don Thomas wasn't a conspiracy buff. He was a scientist working for the
> U.S. government who decided to examine the acoustics evidence, and ended
> up coming to the conclusion that there were more than three shots.
> If you dismiss every scientist who disagrees with your conclusions as a
> conspiracy buff, it makes for a very slanted slate of scientists.
>
> Martin
>
Don Thomas is a friend and this is not intended as criticism, just
clarification.
Saying he is a government scientist who examined the acoustic evidence is
misleading. It gives the impression that this was his expertise and part of
his job. It wasn't. He studies beetles. The acoustics work was on his own
time and unrelated to his formal expertise. The same is true of myself.
And he is a JFK conspiracy buff.
Michael
jwrush
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:dcn3th$l...@dispatch.concentric.net...
> U.S. government who decided to examine the acoustics evidence, and ended
> up coming to the conclusion that there were more than three shots.
> If you dismiss every scientist who disagrees with your conclusions as a
> conspiracy buff, it makes for a very slanted slate of scientists.
>
> Martin
Lol, a "beetles" scientist issuing his own "acoustics" report! Lol! Well
that's just great!
Anthony Marsh
Junk. Quote the messages and prove that the people were at the Trade
Mart. Show me photographs pointing out where each particular person was
at the time.
>
>>>we should be able to hear cheers and screams, and loud gunshots, if the
>>>stuck microphone was at the Plaza. Also, we wouldn't hear the sirens
>>
>>No, the acoustical scientists showed
>
>
> The acoustical "scientists", such as Ramsey, the Nobel Prize Winner, showed
> that there are no gunshots record on either channel, because the HSCA
> "gunshot sequence" took place more than a minute after the assassination,
> the time of Sheriff Decker's transmission.
>
Ramsey was not an acoustical scientist. He was (is?) a nuclear physicist.
> why we would not expect to hear
>
>>crowd noises on channel 1. Why would we hear screams that soon?
>>
>>
>>>reaching the Trade Mart, if the stuck microphone were in the Plaza. Also,
>>>Harkness was on Channel 2, not Channel 1.
>>
>>I already quoted Harkness's message from channel 2. What point were you
>>trying to make?
>>
>>
>>>But we do hear
>>>
>>>
>>>>the squeals of the tires, changing gears, a car horn honking, and the
>>>>sirens very close. This indicates that the cycle with the open microphone
>>>>was very close to the front part of the motorcade, which sped off to
>>>>Parkland Hospital.
>>>
>>>
>>>Oh, come on, man! LOL. The sirens come up as they pass the motorcycle at
>>>the Trade Mart, at the moment in time the front of the motorcade was
>>>passing the
>>
>>The sirens come up as McLain catches up with the limousine.
>
>
> Nonsense. The sirens are clearly heard passing the stuck microphone. There
> is no slow sound of any motorcycle "catching up" with the sirens. The sirens
> approach, pass, and leave the area of the stuck microphone.
>
No, the sound of the sirens indicate co-mingling.
> Why are you now talking about McLain? I thought you were talking about
> Harkness? You just pull up any names you find to make your various claims.
> Of course, 99% of the general public would have no idea what you are talking
> about.
>
I did not start a discussion about Harkness. McLain was the cyclist
identified by the HSCA as having the open microphone.
>
>>>Trade Mart. They come in from a distance, they pass the stuck microphone,
>>>and they go off into the distance.
>>>
>>
>>No, the volume goes up and down and back up again, as if the open
>>microphone is catching up with and then falling back from the other escort
>>cycles.
>
>
> No, you are hearing several DIFFERENT sirens passing the stuck microphone.
> Geeze, man, ask a sound engineer or a TV reporter or cameraman.
>
>
I said several other sirens.
>>Exactly which cycles do you think it was picking up?
>>
>>
>>>What you are saying is the kind of baloney conspiracy writers made up
>>>years ago, for consumption by the general public, who had no access to
>>>the actual recordings, and who had no way to reveal the hoaxes contained
>>>in those old false claims.
>>
>>Baloney. Don Thomas and several others have access to the actual
>>recordings and believe that the open microphone captured the shots.
>
>
> Conspiracy buff. Sorry, I'm with the scientists on this.
>
No you are not. Don Thomas was not a conspiracy buff. BBN and Weiss and
Aschkenasy were not conspiracy buffs. They were acoustical scientists
asked to do studies to resolve the issue one way or the other.
> This
>
>>was not for the consumption of the general public, which is largely
>>unaware of the acoustical studies.
>
>
> It was for the consumption of TV and newspaper reporters, specifically for
> the generation of new "conspiracy" headlines in newspapers and news shows
> around the world. Conspiracy guys pull stunts like this every few years.
>
Don Thomas' study was not for the consumption of TV and newspaper
reporters. It was published in a scientific journal.
jwrush
Yeah, there were different vehicles with different kinds of sirens all
passing the Trade Mart close together. Some sirens were going up in tone
while others were going down. This is typical of a bunch of different kinds
of sirens passing a single microphone.
Anthony Marsh
Nonsense. Ford and the SS tested the limousine before it went into
service and it was capable of achieving the speeds required in the time
required.
> Further the long term changes in volume of the sirens are inconsistent
> with emergency vehicles passing a stationary microphone. For this
> scenario to work the lead sirens would have passed at a leisurely speed
> of 30 mph and were followed by three groups of sirens spaced more than
> one city block apart.
>
This is something that I believe can be tested. I believe that emergency
vehicles used different types of sirens with different sounds. Those
sirens we can hear on the tape are consistent with the 2-wheel escort
cycles and in fact we can even hear the one on the cycle with the open
microphone being turned on.
> Herbert
Steve
I have been offline for several days. I am asking whether o not you,
perhaps in another thread, have posted your notes concerning the "Take
off, Buddy!" stuff you say you have.
I noticed ( last time I looked) that you didn't respond to my mention
of this, and would like to refresh your memory since , as you say, this
is your proof that McLain was "Budy" and who another officer was
talking too and so forth.
Please. We want to see exactly where it is that you are hearing these
words.
Thank you
Steve Barber
Anthony Marsh
> "Anthony Marsh" <ama...@quik.com> wrote in message
> news:2jsHe.941$eh1.770@trndny07...
>
> Marsh,
>
>
>
> If we professional researchers heard sirens at the start of the run to the
> hospital, we would be telling you about it. If we heard gunshots, we would
> have been sending around tapes of them 25-40 years ago. If we heard any
> sounds like 400 people cheering (rather than just one or two guys talking)
> or 400 people screaming, we would have written articles about it decades
> ago.
>
>
>
Listen up. For the last time, no one heard gunshots on the tape. End of
discussion.
> If we saw photos of gunmen on the grassy knoll, we would have identified,
> arrested, tried, convicted, and electrocuted them by now.
>
>
No, because you can't even see the Black Dog Man.
>
> Your common myth that we would not try to find any conspirators, if they
> existed, is silly. As far back as December of 1963 I tried to help the SS
Talk to Mary Woodward. She wrote immediately that shots came from behind
her. Then her paper took that out of her story.
> identify the three guys in the photos with Oswald at the Trade Mart. For
> years I've been just about the only person who has said that there were 3
Why didn't you identify those other two men BEFORE the assassination?
You could have prevented the assassination of President Kennedy and your
failed to do so.
> people with Oswald that day, and Oswald said in his resume that he had a
> "four man" demonstration. I told Jim Garrison back in the '60s that I saw
> three men with Oswald at the Trade Mart.
>
>
>
> But you guys fumbled the ball on that. You let those other two guys go
> unnoticed and not investigated for the past 42 years. Harold Weisberg tried
> to tell me that they weren't with Oswald, although I am the one who saw them
> with Oswald, and I saw the short one handing out leaflets with Oswald and
> with Steele.
>
>
>
> You guys just don't know how to investigate this case. Those two other guys
> should have been investigated by Weisberg and Garrison and by your side, and
> tracked down 35 years ago, back in the 1960s.
jwrush
Hey, yeah, tell us about this ""Take off, Buddy!" stuff that you've got on
tape. Let's hear it. Post it in a link.
Anthony Marsh
268.5.
jwrush
> This is something that I believe can be tested. I believe that emergency
> vehicles used different types of sirens with different sounds. Those
> sirens we can hear on the tape are consistent with the 2-wheel escort
> cycles and in fact we can even hear the one on the cycle with the open
> microphone being turned on.
No we can't. If we could hear that, then we would hear his siren all the
way to the hospital. And why would he travel at high speed for 3 minutes
before turning on his siren?
All we hear are several sirens passing the stuck microphone at the Trade
Mart.
jwrush
> jwrush wrote:
>
>> "Anthony Marsh" <ama...@quik.com> wrote in message
>> news:2jsHe.941$eh1.770@trndny07...
>>
>> Marsh,
>>
>>
>>
>> If we professional researchers heard sirens at the start of the run to
>> the hospital, we would be telling you about it. If we heard gunshots, we
>> would have been sending around tapes of them 25-40 years ago. If we heard
>> any sounds like 400 people cheering (rather than just one or two guys
>> talking) or 400 people screaming, we would have written articles about it
>> decades ago.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Listen up. For the last time, no one heard gunshots on the tape. End of
> discussion.
>
>> If we saw photos of gunmen on the grassy knoll, we would have identified,
>> arrested, tried, convicted, and electrocuted them by now.
>>
>>
>
> No, because you can't even see the Black Dog Man.
I see a black blob on a retouched enlargement of the photo.
>
>
>>
>> Your common myth that we would not try to find any conspirators, if they
>> existed, is silly. As far back as December of 1963 I tried to help the SS
>
> Talk to Mary Woodward. She wrote immediately that shots came from behind
> her. Then her paper took that out of her story.
>
>
>> identify the three guys in the photos with Oswald at the Trade Mart. For
>> years I've been just about the only person who has said that there were 3
>
> Why didn't you identify those other two men BEFORE the assassination?
I saw about a million people a year in New Orleans. I wasn't a reporter
then, and I had no idea which ones might shoot someone in the future. Why
haven't you identified them during the past 42 years? Why didn't Mark Lane
or Carl Oglesby identify them? Or Garrison or Weisberg? Why haven't you
posted pictures of them? Why has the "conspiracy" community completely
ignored them? Why hasn't Judyth identified them. Didn't she say she was
with Oswald at the Trade Mart? Stuckey asked the names of Oswald's other
members, but Oswald refused to say.
Herbert Blenner
Read my opening sentence. I am talking about deceleration, which depends
upon the force of traction between tires and the roadway. Neither Ford nor
the SS could have increased this force since the limousine rode of tires
of standard width.
Herbert
SDL
A few weeks ago it was "channel 5" and now you're hearing "special 5"? How
can anyone take you seriously when you can't even hear the spoken words
correctly? It is "signal 5", not "channel 5", not "special 5" and not
"special k".
Steve L.
jwrush
> Steve wrote:
>
>> Tony Marsh,
>> I have been offline for several days. I am asking whether o not you,
>> perhaps in another thread, have posted your notes concerning the "Take
>> off, Buddy!" stuff you say you have.
>>
>> I noticed ( last time I looked) that you didn't respond to my mention
>> of this, and would like to refresh your memory since , as you say, this
>> is your proof that McLain was "Budy" and who another officer was
>> talking too and so forth.
>>
>> Please. We want to see exactly where it is that you are hearing these
>> words. Thank you
>>
>> Steve Barber
>>
>>
>
> 268.5.
>
Give us a little more information than that. For example, on what Channel
and in between which time annotations do you hear this "Take off, Buddy!",
so we can locate it on our copies of the police recordings.
If you have a sound file that we can listen to, please post it.
Herbert Blenner
What I hear is a subjective and carry as much weight as those who hear
the words hold everything secure in the alleged Decker crosstalk or a
few cycles of sirens slowly increasing and decreasing in volume.
Measurements speak louder than subjective sensations. The sirens reach
a maximum amplitude within tenths of a second from their audible start.
Although briefness of this peak causes the ear to perceive a lesser
volume, the ear hears a short-term increase in volume inconsistent with
a siren approaching a microphone.
Now tell us, Steve, what have your measured from the signals on the
Dictabelt?
Herbert
Herbert Blenner
At what speed did the initial sirens approach the stuck microphone?
If you cannot correctly answer this question then you should not be
discussing this issue.
Herbert
tomnln
most important autopsy in History.
That didn't bother you at all.
"jwrush" <jwr...@advantas.net> wrote in message
news:42ef...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Steve
268.5.
Tony, you need to be more specific. Come on. If this were me you
would be jumping all over me.
Be a man and post the transcript that leads up to this. You copped out
of this last time I asked. You gave this number, I told you it was
exactly what Todd Vaughan said it was, and you conveniently mentioned
that you had to look for your notes.
You need to tell exactly the LAST words spoken by ANYONE speaking, and
then point out the words we will hear immedaitaley follwoing that. All
you have said so far( in a post back in March or April) was that it was
during the time the sirens begin.
Post it right here, Tony and no more of this him-hawing around. What
are the last words spoken leading up to the words "Take off" buddy!"
What are the last words spoken and then the next words spoken are your
"take off, Buddy!" I am trying to word this in a way so that I don't
have to repeat this again.
Post it, Tony. You have had ample time to locate the notes you said
you had to "look up".
Steve
Martin Shackelford
ballistics?
Martin
jwrush
> Didn't you cite a urologist, Dr. John Lattimer, on forensic medicine and
> ballistics?
>
> Martin
Yes, a well-trained a medical doctor. A doctor trained in many fields of
medicine and human anatomy, who later specialized in urology. He wrote a
great article about this in the AMA journal, and he cited my work in that
article.
jwrush
"Steve" <drumr...@wmconnect.com> wrote in message
news:1123048287.3...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Go get him, Steve! Make him put up or shut up.
jwrush
You tell me. What speeds do you think they were traveling? How fast was the
cop traveling when he said "Special 5" and "Channel 5"?
Anthony Marsh
> Tony dropped this in:
>
> 268.5.
>
>
> Tony, you need to be more specific. Come on. If this were me you
> would be jumping all over me.
No. You asked me to specify when. I just did. Exactly. You can also see
this in my rebuttal.
> Be a man and post the transcript that leads up to this. You copped out
Which transcript? I would have to write my own.
> of this last time I asked. You gave this number, I told you it was
> exactly what Todd Vaughan said it was, and you conveniently mentioned
> that you had to look for your notes.
> You need to tell exactly the LAST words spoken by ANYONE speaking, and
> then point out the words we will hear immedaitaley follwoing that. All
> you have said so far( in a post back in March or April) was that it was
> during the time the sirens begin.
>
Not exactly DURING the time the sirens begin. BEFORE his siren begins.
> Post it right here, Tony and no more of this him-hawing around. What
> are the last words spoken leading up to the words "Take off" buddy!"
> What are the last words spoken and then the next words spoken are your
> "take off, Buddy!" I am trying to word this in a way so that I don't
> have to repeat this again.
>
I can not verify the last words, but they could be "Check out on traffic."
> Post it, Tony. You have had ample time to locate the notes you said
> you had to "look up".
>
> Steve
>
>
Anthony Marsh
Read my rebuttal. This is on channel 1 over the open microphone. 268.5
seconds after the microphone became stuck open. I have never seen a
transcript posted which is accurate enough for me to quote you all the
messages before and after.
jwrush
You should be able to tell us what else is heard on Ch 1 at the time you are
talking about.
I found the segment I think you are talking about. I used my 1981 Time-Clock
Master to find it. I'll let Steve know where it it.
Steve
- Show quoted text -
jwrush wrote:
> "Anthony Marsh" <ama...@quik.com> wrote in message
> news:6jQHe.16006$QX2.10999@trndny01...
>>Steve wrote:
>>>Tony Marsh,
>>> I have been offline for several days. I am asking whether o not you,
>>>perhaps in another thread, have posted your notes concerning the "Take
>>>off, Buddy!" stuff you say you have.
>>> I noticed ( last time I looked) that you didn't respond to my mention
>>>of this, and would like to refresh your memory since , as you say, this
>>>is your proof that McLain was "Buddy" and who another officer was
>>>talking too and so forth.
>>> Please. We want to see exactly where it is that you are hearing these
>>>words. Thank you
>>>Steve Barber
>>268.5.
> Give us a little more information than that. For example, on what Channel
> and in between which time annotations do you hear this "Take off, Buddy!",
> so we can locate it on our copies of the police recordings.
> If you have a sound file that we can listen to, please post it.
Tony wriote:
Read my rebuttal. This is on channel 1 over the open microphone. 268.5
seconds after the microphone became stuck open. I have never seen a
transcript posted which is accurate enough for me to quote you all the
messages before and after.
--
Anthony Marsh
Steve writes:
Tony,
I have read your rebuttal, naturally, and I am fully aware of which
recording we are talking about or we wouldn't be having this
discussion. Reading your rebuttal was what prompted me to take this
action years ago, and I still have never received a straight answer
from you. ( what was that about being "evasive"???) I told you that
the words you are hearing are the words Todd Vaughan pointed out to you
years and years ago, and that the actual words spoken are "Checked out
on traffic". You then posted, saying that I am not listening to the
correct location, and then tried to tell me it was around the time of
the sirens. When I then told you that after then listening to the
sirens area you suggested that, yes, that is the "Checked out on
traffic" in reponse to the dispatcher asking "Anybody know where 56
is?" you replied, posting that you need to look at your notes" which I
have been waiting on since March and April. Now, here we are back at
"square 1".
You need to listen to the recording of that section since you say you
haven't been able to locate a transcript of the channel one
transmissions. It is the one and only way you are going to prove your
point since you cannot locate a proper transcript.
Herbert Blenner
The open microphone traveled with nearly all the sirens. I have noted
about two exceptions where the open microphone could have passed
stationary sirens such as those stopping traffic at intersections along
the emergency route.
Unlike yourself, my conclusions follow from the evidence. The sirens
did not pass a stationary open microphone for the simple reason that
the Dictabelt records a hundredfold increase in siren power within a
fraction of a second after becoming audible. I have posted this
evidence before and you ignore it.
http://www.members.aol.com/hdblenner/startofsirens.wav
Of course this sample is one of many sequences, which shows that open
microphone moved with the sirens.
> How fast was the
> cop traveling when he said "Special 5" and "Channel 5"?
Your sarcasm betrays your lack of knowledge. Now tell us about the
Doppler effect upon a siren moving directly toward the open microphone.
For many it has been a long hot summer and we can use a good laugh.
Herbert
Anthony Marsh
Why? You have already stated up front that you refuse to read my articles.
http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh/rebuttal.htm
Anthony Marsh
> "Anthony Marsh" <ama...@quik.com> wrote in message
> news:dYPHe.15940$QX2.6325@trndny01...
>
>>jwrush wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Anthony Marsh" <ama...@quik.com> wrote in message
>>>news:2jsHe.941$eh1.770@trndny07...
>>>
>>>Marsh,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>If we professional researchers heard sirens at the start of the run to
>>>the hospital, we would be telling you about it. If we heard gunshots, we
>>>would have been sending around tapes of them 25-40 years ago. If we heard
>>>any sounds like 400 people cheering (rather than just one or two guys
>>>talking) or 400 people screaming, we would have written articles about it
>>>decades ago.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Listen up. For the last time, no one heard gunshots on the tape. End of
>>discussion.
>>
>>
>>>If we saw photos of gunmen on the grassy knoll, we would have identified,
>>>arrested, tried, convicted, and electrocuted them by now.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>No, because you can't even see the Black Dog Man.
>
>
> I see a black blob on a retouched enlargement of the photo.
>
Balony. What is the name of the photograph you are looking at and where
did you ever find a "retouched" enlargement?
>
>>
>>>Your common myth that we would not try to find any conspirators, if they
>>>existed, is silly. As far back as December of 1963 I tried to help the SS
>>
>>Talk to Mary Woodward. She wrote immediately that shots came from behind
>>her. Then her paper took that out of her story.
>>
>>
>>
>>>identify the three guys in the photos with Oswald at the Trade Mart. For
>>>years I've been just about the only person who has said that there were 3
>>
>>Why didn't you identify those other two men BEFORE the assassination?
>
>
> I saw about a million people a year in New Orleans. I wasn't a reporter
> then, and I had no idea which ones might shoot someone in the future. Why
> haven't you identified them during the past 42 years? Why didn't Mark Lane
> or Carl Oglesby identify them? Or Garrison or Weisberg? Why haven't you
> posted pictures of them? Why has the "conspiracy" community completely
> ignored them? Why hasn't Judyth identified them. Didn't she say she was
> with Oswald at the Trade Mart? Stuckey asked the names of Oswald's other
> members, but Oswald refused to say.
Admit it, you failed. I thought you were going around telling everyone
that at that time you were a reporter and you interviewed Oswald and
took the photos of him. If you really weren't a reporter them, what were
you doing at the Trade Mart photographing Oswald? Who was your real
employer then?
jwrush
You tell me about the Doppler effect, Herb. What do you hear in the
Doppler effect in the siren sequence?
jwrush
> jwrush wrote:
>
>> "Anthony Marsh" <ama...@quik.com> wrote in message
>> news:6QOHe.15856$QX2.479@trndny01...
>>
>> Hey, yeah, tell us about this ""Take off, Buddy!" stuff that you've got
>> on tape. Let's hear it. Post it in a link.
>
>
> Why? You have already stated up front that you refuse to read my articles.
>
> http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh/rebuttal.htm
>
>
"About two minutes after the shots, a fellow officer yells to the cyclist
with the open mike, "Take off, Buddy.","
That's nonsense. The cop is saying something like what Steve says he is
saying. The siren you hear is passing the stuck microphone at the Trade
Mart. The statement "checked out on traffic" (or something like that)
occurs while the sirens are passing the trade mart at about 12:33:35,
about 3 1/2 minutes after the assassiantion. You don't even know the time
of day the transmissions were made! Lol, you need a copy of my Time-Clock
Master tape so you can tell what time of day it was when the transmissions
were made.
You are so far off base, it's funny. Lol.
Steve
jw wrote:
How fast was the
> cop traveling when he said "Special 5" and "Channel 5"?
Herbert wrote:
Your sarcasm betrays your lack of knowledge. Now tell us about the
Doppler effect upon a siren moving directly toward the open microphone.
For many it has been a long hot summer and we can use a good laugh.
Steve writes:
Herbert,
First,
Try to stay on the topic of "channel 5"/"special 5" before you try
to move onto the Doppler effect.
Secondly,
I believe that you are correct in saying "...it has been a long, hot
summer, and we can all use a good laugh." I must say though, that the
laughter has still not died down because of the many things that you
have suggested appear on the channel one that in fact do not appear on
channel one.
I suggest you download Windows Media player 10 and slow down the
recording so you can hear the transmission better without changing the
pitch, and you listen to what you are claiming is "channel 5" and/or
"special 5" and see that you are in complete error. The letter "g" is
very audible within the word signal before the officer says "5".
jwrush
> jwrush wrote:
>
>> "Anthony Marsh" <ama...@quik.com> wrote in message
>> news:6QOHe.15856$QX2.479@trndny01...
>>
>> Hey, yeah, tell us about this ""Take off, Buddy!" stuff that you've got
>> on tape. Let's hear it. Post it in a link.
>
>
> Why? You have already stated up front that you refuse to read my articles.
>
> http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh/rebuttal.htm
>
From your article:
"I pointed out that there was a transmission on the ch. 1 tape which
proves that it was McLain's cycle with the open mike. About two minutes
after the shots, a fellow officer yells to the cyclist with the open mike,
"Take off, Buddy.", whereupon the cyclist turns on his siren and speeds
off to catch up with the motorcade."
From Bowles website, quoting McLain:
"While looking about, I looked through an opening in the decorative wall
behind the fountain and pond in Dealey Plaza running parallel to Houston
Street. I saw the President's limousine going west on Elm Street fairly
slow, and a man was running along behind it, holding on to the handrail,
and jumping onto the rear of the car. I was sure by that, that something
serious had happened. Then Chief Curry radioed for us to go to the
hospital -- Parkland Hospital, and the lead jockeys started off code 3
(using sirens with their red lights). So I did the same. I pulled up to
Houston and Elm and turned left to go west on Elm. As I turned I saw Bobby
(a presidential escort officer) on his hands and knees, and his motorcycle
was on its side. For an instant I thought he had been hurt, but then I
noticed that he was crawling and attempting to stand up. By the time I
reached him, he was on his feet and heading up the hill to my right, the
one they now refer to as the grassy knoll. I accelerated to catch up with
the rest of the motorcade. Turning right and up onto Stemmons Freeway,
northbound, I opened it up. I neared them as we reached where Stemmons
goes over Continental, and about even with the Cabana Motel (about 600 to
800 feet north). I was part of the motorcade en route to the hospital."
http://www.jfk-online.com/bowles6.html#a
----------------------------------
He didn't wait two minutes. He didn't turn his siren off. His was probably
one of the sirens heard at 12:33:35 by the stuck mike at the Trade Mart.
The stuck mike at the trade mart was stuck while he was driving fast on
Stemmons and while his siren was on and while he was in the motorcade on
the way to parkland, so the stuck mike could not have been on his
motorcycle or in the Plaza.
Anthony Marsh
Just the fact that Todd Vaughan said something does not prove that he is
correct. If you are talking about what I think you are talking about the
words are faint and appear to be radioed in by another unit. What I am
talking about is much clearer and appears to come over the open
microphone acoustically, not being transmitted by another unit.
> correct location, and then tried to tell me it was around the time of
> the sirens. When I then told you that after then listening to the
> sirens area you suggested that, yes, that is the "Checked out on
> traffic" in reponse to the dispatcher asking "Anybody know where 56
> is?" you replied, posting that you need to look at your notes" which I
> have been waiting on since March and April. Now, here we are back at
> "square 1".
>
Those could be the words of the message before "Take off, Buddy." I am
not 100% sure. You or Todd may have cleaned up the English or the
Southern accent. The actual message may be slightly different.
> You need to listen to the recording of that section since you say you
> haven't been able to locate a transcript of the channel one
> transmissions. It is the one and only way you are going to prove your
> point since you cannot locate a proper transcript.
>
I never said that. I have several transcripts, almost every one of them
inaccurate in some way. You know from personal experience that the
existing transcripts are full of errors. Sometimes people clean up the
language to make the officers not look like country bumpkins using
incorrect grammar. Look at the Bowles transcript, for example:
12:32:56 91 91, request a "5."
12:33:01 (Blending with the end of 91's message, the sound of sirens
can be heard, faintly, but increasing in loudness.)(70)
12:33:03 Disp 10-4. Anybody know where 56 is? (The siren sounds
continue.)(71)
12:33:08 ? He checked out on traffic.
12:33:18 75 75, Signal 5? (Sirens continue; motor sounds slow and
irregular.)
12:33:26 76 76 clear. (Sirens continue; motor sound revved-up.)
_____________________________________________________________________________
For the message in question, do you really think that he said "He"
checked out on traffic? Do you hear the word "he"? I believe that you
have always said that the message is exactly, "Checked out on traffic"
without the leading "he." This is why I said that I can not be sure what
that message really was. Now, look at the time Bowles noted for that
message. 12:33:08. How many seconds after the microphone became stuck
open is that?
Notice that just after that Bowles says the motor sounds slow and
irregular? Not speeding up to 70 MPH as Rush suggests. Then a few
seconds after that he notes that the motor sound revved up. That is the
moment when McLain sped up.
PS If you dig a little deeper you might find that many years ago I
suggested to everyone that we collaborate on creating better
transcripts, even if it meant WC defenders working with conspiracy
believers. You didn't seem too interested.
Anthony Marsh
Please explain how the stationary vehicles could have their sirens on. Not
the motorcycles. And it was the motorcycles usually who stopped traffic.
Are you suggesting stationary police cars with their sirens on?
> Unlike yourself, my conclusions follow from the evidence. The sirens
> did not pass a stationary open microphone for the simple reason that
> the Dictabelt records a hundredfold increase in siren power within a
> fraction of a second after becoming audible. I have posted this
> evidence before and you ignore it.
>
> http://www.members.aol.com/hdblenner/startofsirens.wav
>
> Of course this sample is one of many sequences, which shows that open
> microphone moved with the sirens.
>
>
>
>>How fast was the
>>cop traveling when he said "Special 5" and "Channel 5"?
>
>
> Your sarcasm betrays your lack of knowledge. Now tell us about the
> Doppler effect upon a siren moving directly toward the open microphone.
> For many it has been a long hot summer and we can use a good laugh.
>
> Herbert
>
>
Herbert Blenner
The sirens end 2.5 minute after the alleged Decker crosstalk. I wonder
whether your Time-Clock Master jumped backward or just lost a minute in
forcing the arrival of the emergency vehicles at the Trade Mart?
In any event your credibility on this timing issue is comparably with
equating a split second rise of the sirens from inaudibility to maximum
amplitude to a siren passing a stationary microphone. Do you want to
try for strike three?
Herbert
jwrush
I was talking about the fastest speed of the limousine, up on Stemmons. They
could not drive that fast on surface streets. I wasn't talking about the
stuck micropone motorcycle. I doubt it if ever went more than 15 mph or
maybe a little more.
jwrush
No.
Marsh, you're doing everything backwards. Your are trying to force-fit the
sounds on Ch 1 and McLain's position and motion and speed to your conspiracy
theory. You can't do that.
You've got to analyze the recordings without regard to any theory, then
figure out exactly what is happening on Ch 1 and at what time.
jwrush
I've got that time period as about 2:37 between Decker and the end of the
sirens. They ended at about 34:07, Channel 2 time.
Herb, you need a "stereo" dual-track version with the two channels synched
up so you can tell what time of day it was in Dallas when these
transmissions took place. Trying to do all your timing from the start of the
stuck microphone is too confusing. The Ch 1 and Ch 2 clocks didn't have the
same reading.
Steve
Tony writes:
Just the fact that Todd Vaughan said something does not prove that he
is
correct. If you are talking about what I think you are talking about
the
words are faint and appear to be radioed in by another unit. What I am
talking about is much clearer and appears to come over the open
microphone acoustically, not being transmitted by another unit.
Steve writes:
The words I am referrring to that Todd pointed out are the only words
we hear spoken wihtin 4 seconds after the the words: "Anybody know
where 56 is?". Those words are " Checked out on traffic", and they are
the only words spoken right before the sirens beging that could
possibly be confused as "Take off, Buddy!". It turns out that Todd was
correct, so, the "proof" is right there that he *is* correct.
> correct location, and then tried to tell me it was around the time of
> the sirens. When I then told you that after then listening to the
> sirens area you suggested that, yes, that is the "Checked out on
> traffic" in reponse to the dispatcher asking "Anybody know where 56
> is?" you replied, posting that you need to look at your notes" which I
> have been waiting on since March and April. Now, here we are back at
> "square 1".
Tony wrote:
Those could be the words of the message before "Take off, Buddy." I am
not 100% sure. You or Todd may have cleaned up the English or the
Southern accent. The actual message may be slightly different.
Steve writes:
Please pull out your recordings. You are playing a game with this.
You need to listen to the portion in question so you can stop using the
terms "Could be" and "I am not 100% sure", and doing all this guessing.
You are the person who is making the claim that you have "proof" that
McLain is the cop with the open mic based on "Take off, Buddy!" as your
rebuttal states, you need to be prepared to present *ALL* evidence
when asked for it. Please.
> You need to listen to the recording of that section since you say you
> haven't been able to locate a transcript of the channel one
> transmissions. It is the one and only way you are going to prove your
> point since you cannot locate a proper transcript.
Tony wrote:
I never said that. I have several transcripts, almost every one of them
inaccurate in some way. You know from personal experience that the
existing transcripts are full of errors. Sometimes people clean up the
language to make the officers not look like country bumpkins using
incorrect grammar. Look at the Bowles transcript, for example:
12:32:56 91 91, request a "5."
12:33:01 (Blending with the end of 91's message, the
sound of sirens
can be heard, faintly, but increasing in loudness.)(70)
12:33:03 Disp 10-4. Anybody know where 56 is? (The siren
sounds
continue.)(71)
12:33:08 ? He checked out on traffic.
12:33:18 75 75, Signal 5? (Sirens continue; motor sounds
slow and
irregular.)
12:33:26 76 76 clear. (Sirens continue; motor sound
revved-up.)
_____________________________________________________________________________
Steve writes:
Tony, I don't think that it is necessary to denigrate the police
officers who worked for the Dallas police department. Calling them
disrespectful names such as "country bumpkins" is totally unnecessary,
and you have no proof that anyone "cleaned" up the transcripts so as to
attempt at making them look better than you perceive the police
officers.
You *did* say in your previous post: " I have never seen a transcript
posted which is accurate enough for me to quote you all the messages
before and after." and that was what I was refering to by saying that
you haven't been able to locate a proper transcript of the police
transmissions. My apologies for the poor wording on my part.
Furthermore, this is why you should type out your own transcripts of
what you think you hear when you say you have "proof" that you have
found something at the time you find it.
Tony wrote:
For the message in question, do you really think that he said "He"
checked out on traffic? Do you hear the word "he"? I believe that you
have always said that the message is exactly, "Checked out on traffic"
without the leading "he." This is why I said that I can not be sure
what
that message really was. Now, look at the time Bowles noted for that
message. 12:33:08. How many seconds after the microphone became stuck
open is that?
Steve writes:
No, you are correct. actually I do not hear the word "He". I always
maintained that it is just the words "Checked out on traffic". The
officer may have said the word "He" but I don't hear it, and it may not
be audible.
Tony wrote:
Notice that just after that Bowles says the motor sounds slow and
irregular? Not speeding up to 70 MPH as Rush suggests. Then a few
seconds after that he notes that the motor sound revved up. That is the
moment when McLain sped up.
Steve writes:
I am not going to get in the midle of the disagreement between you and
Johann, but, I will say that you have no proof to say that "Mclain
sped up" enough to pin the open mic on him other than you opinion. You
and I do not know *when* McLain speeded up. To say you do is really
stretching it.
Tony wrote:
PS If you dig a little deeper you might find that many years ago I
suggested to everyone that we collaborate on creating better
transcripts, even if it meant WC defenders working with conspiracy
believers. You didn't seem too interested.
Steve writes:
I am all for it. In fact, I did write out my own transcripts years
ago from my recordings. The problem with working with you that I have
found over the years though is, you claim that I "tamper" with things.
You make accusations that are unfounded and totally uncalled for. I
find it very difficult to work with someone who accuses me of some of
the things you have accused me of over the years so, if I "didn't seem
too interested" you have no one to blame but yourself, and your record
speaks for itself with this matter as far as where I am concerned.
I believe John McAdams bought my transcriptsoff me some years ago-back
in 1998, 1999 or 2000.) .John, if you read this, can we work together
at getting these out there?
Steve Barber
jwrush
Lol, I wondered when you would accuse me of being part of the Great
Conspiracy.
Who was your employer when you lobbied congress to get the HSCA started,
back when you were working with Mark Lane and when he was getting money from
the KGB?
Herbert Blenner
Steve wrote:
> jw wrote:
> How fast was the
> > cop traveling when he said "Special 5" and "Channel 5"?
>
> Herbert wrote:
>
> Your sarcasm betrays your lack of knowledge. Now tell us about the
> Doppler effect upon a siren moving directly toward the open microphone.
>
> For many it has been a long hot summer and we can use a good laugh.
>
>
> Steve writes:
>
> Herbert,
>
>
> First,
>
> Try to stay on the topic of "channel 5"/"special 5" before you try
> to move onto the Doppler effect.
Who appointed your monitor of where someone replies to an issue?
SDL raised the question. He said.
SDL quote on.
A few weeks ago it was "channel 5" and now you're hearing "special 5"? How
can anyone take you seriously when you can't even hear the spoken words
correctly? It is "signal 5", not "channel 5", not "special 5" and not
"special k".
SDL quote off.
I replied.
HB Quote on.
What I hear is a subjective and carry as much weight as those who hear the
words hold everything secure in the alleged Decker crosstalk or a few
cycles of sirens slowly increasing and decreasing in volume.
Measurements speak louder than subjective sensations. The sirens reach a
maximum amplitude within tenths of a second from their audible start.
Although briefness of this peak causes the ear to perceive a lesser
volume, the ear hears a short-term increase in volume inconsistent with a
siren approaching a microphone.
Now tell us, Steve, what have your measured from the signals on the
Dictabelt?
HB Quote off.
Now Mr. Barber show readers you have what it takes to discuss the
differences between subjective hearing and objective measurements.
>
> Secondly,
>
> I believe that you are correct in saying "...it has been a long, hot
> summer, and we can all use a good laugh." I must say though, that the
> laughter has still not died down because of the many things that you
> have suggested appear on the channel one that in fact do not appear on
> channel one.
They are laughing at the crosstalk sham. Even Johann Rush admits not
really hearing "hold everything secure" on Channel 1.
Source: Johann's films #40
Johann Rush Quote on.
Ok, ok, so Steve, O'Dell, and I really don't hear "hold everything secure"
on Channel 1. But if we got PhDs in science, then we could hear "hold
everything secure"? Or maybe, we are not "qualified" to say what we hear,
but if we had PhDs in science, then we could legitimately say, "Hey!
That's Sheriff Decker saying 'hold everything secure'!"
Quote off.
>
> I suggest you download Windows Media player 10 and slow down the
> recording so you can hear the transmission better without changing the
> pitch, and you listen to what you are claiming is "channel 5" and/or
> "special 5" and see that you are in complete error. The letter "g" is
> very audible within the word signal before the officer says "5".
Windows media player is a toy for kids. If you want to make a contribution
then learn how to use adult tools, such as oscillographs and
spectrographs. Perhaps then you will realize the folly of the sirens
passing a stationary open microphone.
http://www.members.aol.com/hdblenner/startofsirens.wav
I measure a hundredfold increase in siren power within a fraction of a
second after becoming audible. For this reason, I conclude that the sirens
did not pass a stationary open microphone.
Herbert
Anthony Marsh
>
> Tony writes:
>
> Just the fact that Todd Vaughan said something does not prove that he
> is
> correct. If you are talking about what I think you are talking about
> the
> words are faint and appear to be radioed in by another unit. What I am
> talking about is much clearer and appears to come over the open
> microphone acoustically, not being transmitted by another unit.
>
>
> Steve writes:
>
> The words I am referrring to that Todd pointed out are the only words
> we hear spoken wihtin 4 seconds after the the words: "Anybody know
> where 56 is?". Those words are " Checked out on traffic", and they are
> the only words spoken right before the sirens beging that could
> possibly be confused as "Take off, Buddy!". It turns out that Todd was
> correct, so, the "proof" is right there that he *is* correct.
>
You just said that the words are "Checked out on traffic." That disagrees
with the Bowles transcript which quotes it as "He checked out on traffic."
So, which is correct? Is Bowles using a different tape on which he can
hear the word "he" or is the difference that you can not hear the word
"he"? Or could it possibly be that Bowles tries to clean up the phrasing
by adding the implied "he"? This is one of the many problems with the
transcripts. And does "He checked out on traffic" sound like correct
grammar to you? Maybe the correct wording should be "He's checked out on
traffic" and Bowles did not think of that or would have written that
instead.
>
>>correct location, and then tried to tell me it was around the time of
>>the sirens. When I then told you that after then listening to the
>>sirens area you suggested that, yes, that is the "Checked out on
>>traffic" in reponse to the dispatcher asking "Anybody know where 56
>>is?" you replied, posting that you need to look at your notes" which I
>>have been waiting on since March and April. Now, here we are back at
>>"square 1".
>
>
>
> Tony wrote:
>
> Those could be the words of the message before "Take off, Buddy." I am
> not 100% sure. You or Todd may have cleaned up the English or the
> Southern accent. The actual message may be slightly different.
>
>
> Steve writes:
>
> Please pull out your recordings. You are playing a game with this.
> You need to listen to the portion in question so you can stop using the
> terms "Could be" and "I am not 100% sure", and doing all this guessing.
> You are the person who is making the claim that you have "proof" that
> McLain is the cop with the open mic based on "Take off, Buddy!" as your
> rebuttal states, you need to be prepared to present *ALL* evidence
> when asked for it. Please.
>
I am not 100% sure that what YOU claim the words are turns out to be
what they really are.
>
>> You need to listen to the recording of that section since you say you
>>haven't been able to locate a transcript of the channel one
>>transmissions. It is the one and only way you are going to prove your
>>point since you cannot locate a proper transcript.
>
>
>
>
> Tony wrote:
>
>
> I never said that. I have several transcripts, almost every one of them
>
> inaccurate in some way. You know from personal experience that the
> existing transcripts are full of errors. Sometimes people clean up the
> language to make the officers not look like country bumpkins using
> incorrect grammar. Look at the Bowles transcript, for example:
>
> 12:32:56 91 91, request a "5."
> 12:33:01 (Blending with the end of 91's message, the
> sound of sirens
> can be heard, faintly, but increasing in loudness.)(70)
> 12:33:03 Disp 10-4. Anybody know where 56 is? (The siren
> sounds
> continue.)(71)
> 12:33:08 ? He checked out on traffic.
> 12:33:18 75 75, Signal 5? (Sirens continue; motor sounds
> slow and
> irregular.)
> 12:33:26 76 76 clear. (Sirens continue; motor sound
> revved-up.)
> ______________________________茁_____________________________茁________________
>
>
>
> Steve writes:
>
> Tony, I don't think that it is necessary to denigrate the police
> officers who worked for the Dallas police department. Calling them
Well of course we know that you would never denigrate anyone in
government. However, some of us are practical enough to realize that
sometimes we do need to denigrate those in government.
> disrespectful names such as "country bumpkins" is totally unnecessary,
> and you have no proof that anyone "cleaned" up the transcripts so as to
> attempt at making them look better than you perceive the police
> officers.
The actual recordings are full of phrasing which makes them sound like
country bumpkins, but which the official transcripts cleaned up.
>
> You *did* say in your previous post: " I have never seen a transcript
> posted which is accurate enough for me to quote you all the messages
> before and after." and that was what I was refering to by saying that
> you haven't been able to locate a proper transcript of the police
> transmissions. My apologies for the poor wording on my part.
Show me what YOU consider a proper transcript. You know from your study
of the transcripts that the FBI was unsatisfied with the DPD produced
transcripts and even the Warren Commission was not pleased with the
official transcripts.
> Furthermore, this is why you should type out your own transcripts of
> what you think you hear when you say you have "proof" that you have
> found something at the time you find it.
>
I have typed out SOME of my own transcripts. Now, if you had bothered to
actually read some of the transcripts online you'd notice that I helped
edit one version. That does not endorse it as being perfect.
worked 02/17/1990
copied 09/11/1992
reworked 12/14/1992
Russ Shearer
Scanned by Jay Johnson
ASCII file edited by Anthony Marsh 11/04/93
What were YOU doing at the time? Helping?
I also did something that no one else had done. I produced a brief
transcript in which I noted the exact notes that the dispatcher
whistled. I even asked others if they could identify the tune.
> Tony wrote:
>
> For the message in question, do you really think that he said "He"
> checked out on traffic? Do you hear the word "he"? I believe that you
> have always said that the message is exactly, "Checked out on traffic"
> without the leading "he." This is why I said that I can not be sure
> what
> that message really was. Now, look at the time Bowles noted for that
> message. 12:33:08. How many seconds after the microphone became stuck
> open is that?
>
> Steve writes:
>
> No, you are correct. actually I do not hear the word "He". I always
> maintained that it is just the words "Checked out on traffic". The
> officer may have said the word "He" but I don't hear it, and it may not
> be audible.
>
Well, thanks, but I don't want to be just correct. I am also curious to
know what the words actually were. Did the officer really say "he"?
Why would Bowles include the word "he" if the officer never said that
word? Now do you see what I mean about various people phrasing the
transcripts the way they WANT them to sound?
> Tony wrote:
>
> Notice that just after that Bowles says the motor sounds slow and
> irregular? Not speeding up to 70 MPH as Rush suggests. Then a few
> seconds after that he notes that the motor sound revved up. That is the
>
> moment when McLain sped up.
>
>
> Steve writes:
>
> I am not going to get in the midle of the disagreement between you and
> Johann, but, I will say that you have no proof to say that "Mclain
> sped up" enough to pin the open mic on him other than you opinion. You
> and I do not know *when* McLain speeded up. To say you do is really
> stretching it.
>
>
Well, ignore whether it was McLain or not. Whoever it was did not speed up
until then. That could indicate that he sped up after he turned on his
siren. Or do you think that Bowles is simply making this up from his
imagination?
> Tony wrote:
>
>
> PS If you dig a little deeper you might find that many years ago I
> suggested to everyone that we collaborate on creating better
> transcripts, even if it meant WC defenders working with conspiracy
> believers. You didn't seem too interested.
>
> Steve writes:
>
> I am all for it. In fact, I did write out my own transcripts years
> ago from my recordings. The problem with working with you that I have
> found over the years though is, you claim that I "tamper" with things.
Oh course I will claim that you tamper with things when you admit that
you have. I just claimed that Bowles tampered with the wording in the
transcript and your version of that message confirms it.
> You make accusations that are unfounded and totally uncalled for. I
> find it very difficult to work with someone who accuses me of some of
> the things you have accused me of over the years so, if I "didn't seem
> too interested" you have no one to blame but yourself, and your record
> speaks for itself with this matter as far as where I am concerned.
>
> I believe John McAdams bought my transcriptsoff me some years ago-back
> in 1998, 1999 or 2000.) .John, if you read this, can we work together
> at getting these out there?
>
McAdams has a version of the transcripts online.
Done by Russ Shearer. Do you think his is accurate and complete? I don't
see the "checked out on traffic" message listed.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpdtapes/index.htm
Michael O'Dell
Herbert,
Rush was being sarcastic. How'd you miss that?
> Quote off.
>>
>> I suggest you download Windows Media player 10 and slow down the
>> recording so you can hear the transmission better without changing the
>> pitch, and you listen to what you are claiming is "channel 5" and/or
>> "special 5" and see that you are in complete error. The letter "g" is
>> very audible within the word signal before the officer says "5".
>
> Windows media player is a toy for kids. If you want to make a contribution
> then learn how to use adult tools, such as oscillographs and
> spectrographs. Perhaps then you will realize the folly of the sirens
> passing a stationary open microphone.
>
> http://www.members.aol.com/hdblenner/startofsirens.wav
>
> I measure a hundredfold increase in siren power within a fraction of a
> second after becoming audible. For this reason, I conclude that the sirens
> did not pass a stationary open microphone.
>
> Herbert
>
You know, there's a whole lot of reasoning that has to go between those
two sentences, and isn't there. Not that I'm encouraging you.
Michael
jwrush
That's the biggest bunch of baloney you've said so far. The sirens passing
the microphone sound just like sirens passing a microphone.
Herbert Blenner
Numbers do not lie.
http://www.members.aol.com/hdblenner/trackone0238.jpg
The relative magnitude of the siren peaks at nineteen, approximately
ten times the average magnitude of the vocal signal. This puts the
siren at about 20 db over the voice and occurs a fraction of a second
after the sirens became audible.
By ear, we even briefly hear an abnormally loud siren, which is
promptly attenuated by a simultaneous reception.
http://www.members.aol.com/hdblenner/trackone0238.wav
> The sirens passing
> the microphone sound just like sirens passing a microphone.
If you were worth you salt, then you would pay attention to detail. But
then again, the differences in rise time, duration and fall times of
siren volumes would force you to abandon the nonsense of sirens passing
a stationary microphone.
Herbert
Herbert Blenner
So what else in new?
>
>
> > Quote off.
> >>
> >> I suggest you download Windows Media player 10 and slow down the
> >> recording so you can hear the transmission better without changing the
> >> pitch, and you listen to what you are claiming is "channel 5" and/or
> >> "special 5" and see that you are in complete error. The letter "g" is
> >> very audible within the word signal before the officer says "5".
> >
> > Windows media player is a toy for kids. If you want to make a contribution
> > then learn how to use adult tools, such as oscillographs and
> > spectrographs. Perhaps then you will realize the folly of the sirens
> > passing a stationary open microphone.
> >
> > http://www.members.aol.com/hdblenner/startofsirens.wav
> >
> > I measure a hundredfold increase in siren power within a fraction of a
> > second after becoming audible. For this reason, I conclude that the sirens
> > did not pass a stationary open microphone.
> >
> > Herbert
> >
>
> You know, there's a whole lot of reasoning that has to go between those
> two sentences, and isn't there. Not that I'm encouraging you.
You are missing the relationship between distances of the sirens from
the open microphone and their recorded magnitudes. In particular the
magnitudes are inversely proportional to the distances. The speculation
of sirens passing a microphone rests upon this relationship.
However, in a FM system simultaneous receptions either vocal or silent
reduce the recorded the magnitude of the sirens. This is exactly what
my spectrographic analysis shows.
http://www.members.aol.com/hdblenner/trackone0238.jpg
Herbert
>
> Michael
jwrush
The "slender white male" remark of Sawyer isn't listed either. Why would
you post a link to an incomplete transcript and then say something isn't
listed?
jwrush
>
> Numbers do not lie.
>
> http://www.members.aol.com/hdblenner/trackone0238.jpg
>
> The relative magnitude of the siren peaks at nineteen, approximately
> ten times the average magnitude of the vocal signal. This puts the
> after the sirens became audible.
You don't even know what you're looking at, Herb.
>
> By ear, we even briefly hear an abnormally loud siren, which is
> promptly attenuated by a simultaneous reception.
> http://www.members.aol.com/hdblenner/trackone0238.wav
What in the heck is an "abnormally loud siren"?
Steve
Subj: post to tony
Date: 8/5/2005 11:47:07 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Drumrolls3
To: Drumrolls3
- Show quoted text -
> Tony writes:
> Just the fact that Todd Vaughan said something does not prove that he
> is
> correct. If you are talking about what I think you are talking about
> the
> words are faint and appear to be radioed in by another unit. What I am
> talking about is much clearer and appears to come over the open
> microphone acoustically, not being transmitted by another unit.
> Steve writes:
> The words I am referrring to that Todd pointed out are the only words
> we hear spoken wihtin 4 seconds after the the words: "Anybody know
> where 56 is?". Those words are " Checked out on traffic", and they are
> the only words spoken right before the sirens beging that could
> possibly be confused as "Take off, Buddy!". It turns out that Todd was
> correct, so, the "proof" is right there that he *is* correct.
Tony wrote:
You just said that the words are "Checked out on traffic." That
disagrees
with the Bowles transcript which quotes it as "He checked out on
traffic."
So, which is correct? Is Bowles using a different tape on which he can
hear the word "he" or is the difference that you can not hear the word
"he"? Or could it possibly be that Bowles tries to clean up the
phrasing
by adding the implied "he"? This is one of the many problems with the
transcripts. And does "He checked out on traffic" sound like correct
grammar to you? Maybe the correct wording should be "He's checked out
on
traffic" and Bowles did not think of that or would have written that
instead.
Steve writes:
Wrong. I just quoted the words Todd pointed out to me as "checked out
of traffic".
I just happen to agree with Todd after my own listening to te recording
that the words spoken are "Checked out of traffic".
You seem to think that I am forced to believe that Bowles' transcript
is gospel. You couldnt be more wrong. This nonsense about Bowles
adding words and changing words in his transcript so as not to make the
officers "sound like a bunch of country bumpkins" as you say, is both
ridiculous and irrelevant.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
>>correct location, and then tried to tell me it was around the time of
>>the sirens. When I then told you that after then listening to the
>>sirens area you suggested that, yes, that is the "Checked out on
>>traffic" in reponse to the dispatcher asking "Anybody know where 56
>>is?" you replied, posting that you need to look at your notes" which I
>>have been waiting on since March and April. Now, here we are back at
>>"square 1".
> Tony wrote:
> Those could be the words of the message before "Take off, Buddy." I am
> not 100% sure. You or Todd may have cleaned up the English or the
> Southern accent. The actual message may be slightly different.
> Steve writes:
> Please pull out your recordings. You are playing a game with this.
> You need to listen to the portion in question so you can stop using the
> terms "Could be" and "I am not 100% sure", and doing all this guessing.
> You are the person who is making the claim that you have "proof" that
> McLain is the cop with the open mic based on "Take off, Buddy!" as your
> rebuttal states, you need to be prepared to present *ALL* evidence
> when asked for it. Please.
Tony wrote:
I am not 100% sure that what YOU claim the words are turns out to be
what they really are.
Steve writes:
Pull out your recordings and listen to it using whatver method you
have to slow it down w/o changing the pitch. You can't do a thing
until you pull out the recording you have and listen and stop relying
on the transcripts you keep beringing up. Furthermore, I am not the
person who discovered what the words are, Todd Vaughan is the person
who pointed this out to you years ago. Your emphasis on the word "YOU"
( meaning me)is in error.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
>> You need to listen to the recording of that section since you say you
>>haven't been able to locate a transcript of the channel one
>>transmissions. It is the one and only way you are going to prove your
>>point since you cannot locate a proper transcript.
> Tony wrote:
> I never said that. I have several transcripts, almost every one of them
> inaccurate in some way. You know from personal experience that the
> existing transcripts are full of errors. Sometimes people clean up the
> language to make the officers not look like country bumpkins using
> incorrect grammar. Look at the Bowles transcript, for example:
> 12:32:56 91 91, request a "5."
> 12:33:01 (Blending with the end of 91's message, the
> sound of sirens
> can be heard, faintly, but increasing in loudness.)(70)
> 12:33:03 Disp 10-4. Anybody know where 56 is? (The siren
> sounds
> continue.)(71)
> 12:33:08 ? He checked out on traffic.
> 12:33:18 75 75, Signal 5? (Sirens continue; motor sounds
> slow and
> irregular.)
> 12:33:26 76 76 clear. (Sirens continue; motor sound
> revved-up.)
> _____________________________________________________________________________
> Steve writes:
> Tony, I don't think that it is necessary to denigrate the police
> officers who worked for the Dallas police department. Calling them
Tony wrote:
Well of course we know that you would never denigrate anyone in
government. However, some of us are practical enough to realize that
sometimes we do need to denigrate those in government.
Steve writes:
LOL!!!
> disrespectful names such as "country bumpkins" is totally unnecessary,
> and you have no proof that anyone "cleaned" up the transcripts so as to
> attempt at making them look better than you perceive the police
> officers.
The actual recordings are full of phrasing which makes them sound like
country bumpkins, but which the official transcripts cleaned up.
> You *did* say in your previous post: " I have never seen a transcript
> posted which is accurate enough for me to quote you all the messages
> before and after." and that was what I was refering to by saying that
> you haven't been able to locate a proper transcript of the police
> transmissions. My apologies for the poor wording on my part.
Tony wrote:
Show me what YOU consider a proper transcript. You know from your study
of the transcripts that the FBI was unsatisfied with the DPD produced
transcripts and even the Warren Commission was not pleased with the
official transcripts.
Steve writes:
I don't rely on any of the transcripts. And Iam totally in agreement
witht Bowles' transcript wordings. He leaves aout a lot of words
spoken,which could very easily have been due to time constraints, but
it isnt up to me to decide why he left out words here and there.
> Furthermore, this is why you should type out your own transcripts of
> what you think you hear when you say you have "proof" that you have
> found something at the time you find it.
I have typed out SOME of my own transcripts. Now, if you had bothered
to
actually read some of the transcripts online you'd notice that I helped
edit one version. That does not endorse it as being perfect.
worked 02/17/1990
copied 09/11/1992
reworked 12/14/1992
Russ Shearer
Scanned by Jay Johnson
ASCII file edited by Anthony Marsh 11/04/93
What were YOU doing at the time? Helping?
I also did something that no one else had done. I produced a brief
transcript in which I noted the exact notes that the dispatcher
whistled. I even asked others if they could identify the tune.
http://tinypic.com/a0e7v8.jpg
Steve writes:
In a previous post after I stated : " Be a man and post the transcript
that leads up to this. You copped out ..."
You then asked:
" Which transcript? I would have to write my own. "
Now here, you are saying that you have typed out SOME of your own
transcripts." Which is it?
As far as your "helping" others put together transcripts and so forth,
good for you, Tony! Why do you ask me though, ' What were you doing
at the time? Helping?"
That is a rather silly question in light of the fact that I was not
asked to help, nor do I know who these people are you mention. It's
not possible for me to help if no one asked me to help.
As far as your "I also did something that no one else had done. I
produced a brief
transcript in which I noted the exact notes that the dispatcher
whistled. I even asked others if they could identify the tune." Yes, I
remember this, and still, to this day cannot see any relevance to what
it proves or disproves. I went to my tuned percussion and played the
notes whistled by the officer on my tubular bells, just to see if the
notes were in perfect harmony with the tuned percussion, based on the
tape speed of the cassette player I used at the time. They were, but,
since that isn't a scientific method, and there are scientific methods
that can do this, it, too, is irrelevant.
> Tony wrote:
> For the message in question, do you really think that he said "He"
> checked out on traffic? Do you hear the word "he"? I believe that you
> have always said that the message is exactly, "Checked out on traffic"
> without the leading "he." This is why I said that I can not be sure
> what
> that message really was. Now, look at the time Bowles noted for that
> message. 12:33:08. How many seconds after the microphone became stuck
> open is that?
> Steve writes:
> No, you are correct. actually I do not hear the word "He". I always
> maintained that it is just the words "Checked out on traffic". The
> officer may have said the word "He" but I don't hear it, and it may not
> be audible.
Tony wrote:
Well, thanks, but I don't want to be just correct. I am also curious to
know what the words actually were. Did the officer really say "he"?
Why would Bowles include the word "he" if the officer never said that
word? Now do you see what I mean about various people phrasing the
transcripts the way they WANT them to sound?
Steve writes:
Well, again, you seem more interested in the erroneous transcripts
floating around rather than to listen to the recording itself.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> Tony wrote:
Tony wrote:
Oh course I will claim that you tamper with things when you admit that
you have. I just claimed that Bowles tampered with the wording in the
transcript and your version of that message confirms it.
Steve writes:
I will not "admit" that I have "tampered" with anything because I
haven't at any time. It is just the way you and you alone perceive
things.
> You make accusations that are unfounded and totally uncalled for. I
> find it very difficult to work with someone who accuses me of some of
> the things you have accused me of over the years so, if I "didn't seem
> too interested" you have no one to blame but yourself, and your record
> speaks for itself with this matter as far as where I am concerned.
> I believe John McAdams bought my transcriptsoff me some years ago-back
> in 1998, 1999 or 2000.) .John, if you read this, can we work together
> at getting these out there?
McAdams has a version of the transcripts online.
Done by Russ Shearer. Do you think his is accurate and complete? I
don't
see the "checked out on traffic" message listed.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpdtapes/index.htm
Steve writes:
No it is not accurate and complete. It isnt possible to get anyone
to do an "accurate and complete" transcript for the simple fact that no
one is going to sit down and point out every single word, phrase, tone,
etc, etc.,on the recording to the satisfaction of others, least of all
you. The transcript I made that .John M has now wouldnt satisy you.
But, lets get back on topic here since you managed to sway away from my
point:.
Pull out your recording, listen to the section you claim contains the
words" Take off, Buddy!" type out the LAST words spoken BEFORE we
should hear your "Take off, Buddy!" and post it here. Don't bring up
any other subjects or points until AFTER you have done so, just type it
up and post it here, please.
Thank you.
SDL
> SDL wrote:
>
>>Herbert Blenner wrote:
>>
>>>jwrush wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Herbert Blenner" <a1e...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>jwrush wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Anthony Marsh" <ama...@quik.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>jwrush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"John Hill" <jo...@ev1.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>news:42ec...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>>>>>>>>>>Hello,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>It has long been contended that there was **NO** 3 wheel, flathead
>>>>>>>>>>Harley-Davidson Servi-car in DP at the time of the shooting,
>>>>>>>>>>therefore
>>>>>>>>>>making it impossible for the Dictabelt recording with flathead
>>>>>>>>>>engine
>>>>>>>>>>noises on it to have been made in DP at the time of the shooting.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>---------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Hi John. This has been known the whole time. There is even film of
>>>>>>>>>>Harkness on his 3-wheeler in Dealey Plaza.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Since Harkness was supervising the traffic officers from Main and
>>>>>>>>>>Field
>>>>>>>>>>along the parade route to Elm and Houston, he would have used
>>>>>>>>>>Channel
>>>>>>>>>>2,
>>>>>>>>>>not Channel 1, since the motorcade was using Channel 2 for
>>>>>>>>>>motorcade
>>>>>>>>>>transmissions.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>But Trade Mart 3-wheelers would have used both channels, Channel 1
>>>>>>>>>>for
>>>>>>>>>>transmitting messages around, near, and from the Trade Mart area,
>>>>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>>>>for
>>>>>>>>>>regular non-motorcade traffic that day, and Channel 2 for listening
>>>>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>>>>the progress of the motorcade. The stuck microphone was stuck when
>>>>>>>>>>Harkness transmitted his "fifth floor" message on Channel 2, from
>>>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>>Plaza, and this is one of the "crosstalk" segments that was picked
>>>>>>>>>>up
>>>>>>>>>>by
>>>>>>>>>>the Channel 1 stuck microphone, as Harkness transmitted on Channel
>>>>>>>>>>2.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>There are no motorcade sounds on the stuck microphone sequence, no
>>>>>>>>>>cheering crowds, no gunshots, no screams, and no motorcade sounds
>>>>>>>>>>at
>>>>>>>>>>all
>>>>>>>>>>until the front of the motorcade reaches the Trade Mart, and then
>>>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>>stuck microphone at the Trade Mart picks up the sounds of the
>>>>>>>>>>passing
>>>>>>>>>>sirens, as the motorcade passes the Trade Mart on the way to
>>>>>>>>>>Parkland.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>That is simply not true. Due to the high level of background noise,
>>>>>>>>>we
>>>>>>>>>would not expect to hear the crowds, screams, gunshots.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Not so. We can hear people talking in some segments at the Trade Mart,
>>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>>we should be able to hear cheers and screams, and loud gunshots, if
>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>stuck microphone was at the Plaza. Also, we wouldn't hear the sirens
>>>>>>>>reaching the Trade Mart, if the stuck microphone were in the Plaza.
>>>>>>>>Also,
>>>>>>>>Harkness was on Channel 2, not Channel 1.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>But we do hear
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>the squeals of the tires, changing gears, a car horn honking, and
>>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>sirens very close. This indicates that the cycle with the open
>>>>>>>>>microphone
>>>>>>>>>was very close to the front part of the motorcade, which sped off to
>>>>>>>>>Parkland Hospital.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Oh, come on, man! LOL. The sirens come up as they pass the motorcycle
>>>>>>>>at
>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>Trade Mart, at the moment in time the front of the motorcade was
>>>>>>>>passing
>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>Trade Mart. They come in from a distance, they pass the stuck
>>>>>>>>microphone,
>>>>>>>>and they go off into the distance.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>What you are saying is the kind of baloney conspiracy writers made up
>>>>>>>>years
>>>>>>>>ago, for consumption by the general public, who had no access to the
>>>>>>>>actual
>>>>>>>>recordings, and who had no way to reveal the hoaxes contained in those
>>>>>>>>old
>>>>>>>>false claims.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The huge braking distance, approximately three times farther than a
>>>>>>>standard automobile, of the overweight limousine directly limited its
>>>>>>>deceleration and safety considerations restricted acceleration. As a
>>>>>>>result the limousine and its escorts could not reach the Trade Mart at
>>>>>>>time that the Dictabelt recorded the sirens.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Herb, just a few weeks ago you didn't even know the limousine reached the
>>>>>>Trade Mart at all. You tried to claim it went to Parkland by some other
>>>>>>route. You demanded that I prove to you it passed the Trade Mart, then
>>>>>>O'Dell posted the picture from my video, showing it passing the Trade
>>>>>>Mart.
>>>>>>You are completely out of the loop on this topic, Herb.
>>>>>
>>>>>Evasion gets you nowhere.
>>>>>
>>>>>You claim that the emergency vehicles made it to the south side of the
>>>>>Trade Mart in two minutes. Now post your evidence or retract your
>>>>>nonsense.
>>>>>
>>>>>BTW, the Warren Commission still reports the emergency vehicles passed
>>>>>the north side of the Trade Mart and the President's physician being
>>>>>unaware of the shooting went on to the (south side) of the Trade Mart.
>>>>>
>>>>>Now perhaps you can post the Ashmore photo, which shows the limousine
>>>>>in a totally unsuitable acoustic environment to explain the sirens
>>>>>recorded by the Dictabelt.
>>>>>
>>>>>Herbert
>>>>
>>>>Sorry, Herb, but you are out of the loop.
>>>
>>>
>>>Thank you, Johann, for making my day.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>For others reading this, I finally got a copy of my Time-Clock Master tape
>>>>dubbed to VHS, which gives me more accurate timing of the events, and I
>>>>just listened to it while watching the clock read-out. Looks like right
>>>>after Curry starts saying "Go to the Hospital", the sirens come up on
>>>>Channel 1 about 3:05 minutes later. That would have been in the general
>>>>area of the Trade Mart.
>>>
>>>
>>>The sirens become audible during a break in simultaneous receptions. I
>>>interpret the preceding message as special five.
>>
>>A few weeks ago it was "channel 5" and now you're hearing "special 5"? How
>>can anyone take you seriously when you can't even hear the spoken words
>>correctly? It is "signal 5", not "channel 5", not "special 5" and not
>>"special k".
>>
>
>
> What I hear is a subjective and carry as much weight as those who hear
> the words hold everything secure in the alleged Decker crosstalk or a
> few cycles of sirens slowly increasing and decreasing in volume.
>
No you're opinion does not carry as much weight as others because you
are the ONLY one saying that the words are "channel 5" or "special 5".
Everyone else hears "signal 5". No one has ever agreed with you on this.
So your subjective
opinion is totally outweighed by the overwhelming amount of people that
disagree with you. Again, no one else agrees with you on the "channel 5"
or "special 5". No one.
Steve L.
> Measurements speak louder than subjective sensations. The sirens reach
> a maximum amplitude within tenths of a second from their audible start.
> Although briefness of this peak causes the ear to perceive a lesser
> volume, the ear hears a short-term increase in volume inconsistent with
> a siren approaching a microphone.
>
> Now tell us, Steve, what have your measured from the signals on the
> Dictabelt?
>
> Herbert
>
>
Herbert Blenner
I call your bluff, Mr. Rush.
You do not have the faintest idea of what my 3-D graphic shows. Prove
me wrong by explaining to our readers the meaning of the magnitude,
frequency and time axes.
>
> >
> > By ear, we even briefly hear an abnormally loud siren, which is
> > promptly attenuated by a simultaneous reception.
> > http://www.members.aol.com/hdblenner/trackone0238.wav
>
> What in the heck is an "abnormally loud siren"?
You know what I mean be an abnormally loud siren. A fraction of a
second after becoming audible this individual siren exceeded the
combined magnitudes of some sirens on the first peak approximately
seven seconds later. Now are you going to argue that the lead siren
jumped 300 feet in fractions of a second then leaped backward to rejoin
the pack?
Clearly, if the Dictabelt contained evidence of sirens passing a
stationary open microphone you would post it to counter my critique.
Your resort one line put downs merely confirms the foolishness of your
position.
Herbert
Herbert Blenner
I do not care if others agree with me especially when the overwhelming
majority hear engine sounds, which measurements show are not present.
Clearly, Steve, you are confusing a popularity contest with science.
Now tell us which is more important, two words or the most prominent
and prolonged sound on the Dictabelt.
> So your subjective
> opinion is totally outweighed by the overwhelming amount of people that
> disagree with you. Again, no one else agrees with you on the "channel 5"
> or "special 5". No one.
>
> Steve L.
I wonder how many would agree that they hear signal five on the files
where I hear two different words preceding five?
http://www.members.aol.com/hdblenner/trackone03270328.wav
http://www.members.aol.com/hdblenner/trackone0237.wav
http://www.members.aol.com/hdblenner/trackone02500251.wav
Herbert
jwrush
Herb, the Channel 1 recording has voice, sirens, mechanical noises, and
microphone bumps and clicks (when the microphone is hitting parts of the
motorcycle) all mixed in together. You can't claim that a click spike is
some kind of mysterious sudden abnormal peak inside a siren sound.
I worked with optical sound tracks years ago, and I used to see spikes like
that in many of my sound films. They were caused by different noises. You
could have on sudden sound spike right in the middle of a long single steady
organ note. The spike could be caused by the organist's watch hitting the
wood on the side of the organ, if the microphone was near the organist. On
some guitar recordings, you can hear the musical notes, plus the guitarist's
fingers scraping the strings as he changes finger positions.
In an outdoor open-air recording of several sirens passing a microphone, you
can not claim that all noises and spikes on your print-out are due only to
sirens. You seem to have had absolutely no experience with live natural
outdoor sound recording.
Steve
where I hear two different words preceding five?
http://www.members.aol.com/hdblenner/trackone03270328.wav
http://www.members.aol.com/hdblenner/trackone0237.wav
http://www.members.aol.com/hdblenner/trackone02500251.wav
Herbert
What I hear could be just as easily confused for the officer saying "75
single file" does this mean that is what h e is saying though, now does
it? I dont hear antything that sounds remotely *close* to the word
"channel" or "special" as you say you do, Herbert.
As a side note, why are you even bringing this up? What does this have
to do with the assassination?
Herbert Blenner
Just as I thought. You do not know how to interpret a spectrograph.
Each spike represents a narrowband sinusoid. Simple sounds such as a
siren appear as a few spikes spaced at equal intervals along the
frequency axis. In particular the spectrograph shows the prominent
second harmonic at 1.3 kHz and the lesser third harmonic at 1.95 kHz.
The siren filter in the Channel-I transmitter greatly reduced the
magnitude of the 0.65 kHz fundamental siren frequency.
I can attribute the largest spike on the graph to the siren because it
has the same frequency and harmonic content as the audible siren, which
rose from inaudibility and continued for many seconds.
Voice being complex signals appear as many sinusoids of frequencies
well below 1 kHz that change in magnitude over hundreds of
milliseconds. Since many frequencies share the power of the voice,
their magnitudes are substantially smaller than the siren, which to the
ear is equally loud.
Mechanical noises, microphone bumps and clicks do not appear on a
spectrograph as spikes. Instead these transient signals contain nearly
every frequency and have very small magnitudes.
>
> I worked with optical sound tracks years ago, and I used to see spikes like
> that in many of my sound films. They were caused by different noises. You
> could have on sudden sound spike right in the middle of a long single steady
> organ note. The spike could be caused by the organist's watch hitting the
> wood on the side of the organ, if the microphone was near the organist. On
> some guitar recordings, you can hear the musical notes, plus the guitarist's
> fingers scraping the strings as he changes finger positions.
Confront reality, Mr. Rush, you were an appliance operator. Brief
events appear as spikes on a plot of magnitude verses time. On a
spectrograph, showing magnitude verses frequency, a spike represents a
continuing single frequency signal.
>
> In an outdoor open-air recording of several sirens passing a microphone, you
> can not claim that all noises and spikes on your print-out are due only to
> sirens. You seem to have had absolutely no experience with live natural
> outdoor sound recording.
Those who know their oscillograph from their spectrograph can prove
more than you can imagine. For example at one instance the ear hears
the sirens getting louder and some incorrectly conclude that the sirens
came closer to the open microphone. The spectrograph shows the
frequencies of the sirens shifted away from the filter and exposed the
fundamental frequencies. So although the ear correctly reports
increased power from the sirens, it fails to recognize the essentially
unchanged magnitudes of the sirens.
For someone who understands so little you have a lot of nerve to berate
a retired engineer who could have designed the equipment, which you
operated.
Herbert
Anthony Marsh
I believe the answer is that this individual siren was on the cycle with
the open microphone.
> Clearly, if the Dictabelt contained evidence of sirens passing a
> stationary open microphone you would post it to counter my critique.
> Your resort one line put downs merely confirms the foolishness of your
> position.
>
> Herbert
>
>
>
>
>
Anthony Marsh
But you did not simply accept what Todd said. You listened to it for
yourself and verify what he said.
I did not use the word "discover." I used the word "claim." Those are
not the same. You are here now making a claim. Todd is not here now
announcing a discovery.
You are totally in agreement with the Bowles transcript wordings? Such
as when he leaves out words or adds words, as I just illustrated? No
wonder you confuse people with your messages.
Both. I have WRITTEN some of my own. I have not TYPED all of them. There
is a subtle difference in language between the words WRITTEN and TYPED.
> As far as your "helping" others put together transcripts and so forth,
> good for you, Tony! Why do you ask me though, ' What were you doing
> at the time? Helping?"
> That is a rather silly question in light of the fact that I was not
> asked to help, nor do I know who these people are you mention. It's
> not possible for me to help if no one asked me to help.
>
I'm sorry that you never knew any of these people. Is that because you
were a conspiracy believer or because you were a WC defender?
> As far as your "I also did something that no one else had done. I
> produced a brief
> transcript in which I noted the exact notes that the dispatcher
> whistled. I even asked others if they could identify the tune." Yes, I
> remember this, and still, to this day cannot see any relevance to what
> it proves or disproves. I went to my tuned percussion and played the
> notes whistled by the officer on my tubular bells, just to see if the
> notes were in perfect harmony with the tuned percussion, based on the
> tape speed of the cassette player I used at the time. They were, but,
> since that isn't a scientific method, and there are scientific methods
> that can do this, it, too, is irrelevant.
Learn the word Gedanken. You think of a way to test a proposition. If
the method works, it could prove a point. For example, the bell. If it
really were a bell and you identified the bell, you could record the
bell and find out what its TRUE pitch is. Then you could use that to
compare to the recordings and find out how fast or slow the playback is
compared to the TRUE pitch of the bell. Record a bell. Then play it back
and compare the frequency during the playback to the measured frequency
of the bell.
>
>
>
>>Tony wrote:
>>For the message in question, do you really think that he said "He"
>>checked out on traffic? Do you hear the word "he"? I believe that you
>>have always said that the message is exactly, "Checked out on traffic"
>>without the leading "he." This is why I said that I can not be sure
>>what
>>that message really was. Now, look at the time Bowles noted for that
>>message. 12:33:08. How many seconds after the microphone became stuck
>>open is that?
>> Steve writes:
>> No, you are correct. actually I do not hear the word "He". I always
>>maintained that it is just the words "Checked out on traffic". The
>>officer may have said the word "He" but I don't hear it, and it may not
>>be audible.
>
>
> Tony wrote:
>
> Well, thanks, but I don't want to be just correct. I am also curious to
>
> know what the words actually were. Did the officer really say "he"?
> Why would Bowles include the word "he" if the officer never said that
> word? Now do you see what I mean about various people phrasing the
> transcripts the way they WANT them to sound?
>
> Steve writes:
>
> Well, again, you seem more interested in the erroneous transcripts
> floating around rather than to listen to the recording itself.
>
>
You seemed to want to see examples of the incorrect phrasings that
Bowles created.
You admitted that you fiddled with the playback speed and also with the
volume levels.
>
>
>>You make accusations that are unfounded and totally uncalled for. I
>>find it very difficult to work with someone who accuses me of some of
>>the things you have accused me of over the years so, if I "didn't seem
>>too interested" you have no one to blame but yourself, and your record
>>speaks for itself with this matter as far as where I am concerned.
>> I believe John McAdams bought my transcriptsoff me some years ago-back
>>in 1998, 1999 or 2000.) .John, if you read this, can we work together
>>at getting these out there?
>
>
>
>
> McAdams has a version of the transcripts online.
> Done by Russ Shearer. Do you think his is accurate and complete? I
> don't
> see the "checked out on traffic" message listed.
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpdtapes/index.htm
>
> Steve writes:
>
> No it is not accurate and complete. It isnt possible to get anyone
> to do an "accurate and complete" transcript for the simple fact that no
> one is going to sit down and point out every single word, phrase, tone,
> etc, etc.,on the recording to the satisfaction of others, least of all
> you. The transcript I made that .John M has now wouldnt satisy you.
>
But you just demanded of me that I produce such a transcript.
jwrush
>
> Those who know their oscillograph from their spectrograph can prove
> more than you can imagine. For example at one instance the ear hears
> the sirens getting louder and some incorrectly conclude that the sirens
> came closer to the open microphone. The spectrograph shows the
> frequencies of the sirens shifted away from the filter and exposed the
> fundamental frequencies. So although the ear correctly reports
> increased power from the sirens, it fails to recognize the essentially
> unchanged magnitudes of the sirens.
>
Oh, come on Herb. The siren sounds sound like siren sounds of sirens
passing a microphone. There is no way you can get around that. The
magnitude changes because the microphones are coming toward the microphone
and going away from the microphone.
jwrush
Nope. Impossible. It would have been much louder than all the other sirens,
continuously, and it wouldn't sound like it was passing the microphone.
jwrush
It's definitely not "take off Buddy." Sounds to me like "checked out on
traffic." I think you should listen to a good copy of the recording.
Anthony Marsh
What is the "it's" to which you are referring? I am saying that there
are two separate and distinct messages, not that I heard "take off,
Buddy" instead of "checked out on traffic."
Steve
I am not going to respond to the rest of your post regarding this
topic, other than this.
If you have a problem with it, take it up with your congressmen.
Steve writes:
> I don't rely on any of the transcripts. And Iam totally in agreement
> witht Bowles' transcript wordings. He leaves aout a lot of words
> spoken,which could very easily have been due to time constraints, but
> it isnt up to me to decide why he left out words here and there.
Tony wrote:
You are totally in agreement with the Bowles transcript wordings? Such
as when he leaves out words or adds words, as I just illustrated? No
wonder you confuse people with your messages.
Steve writes:
Tony,
I made an error in my typing, and the word "agereement" was meant to
be "disagreement"( with Bolwes' transcript). I think that you would be
able to tell this if you read carefully that I am criticizing the fact
that he left words out in the rest of my sentence. I am definitely
**NOT** in agreemkentwith Blowles' transcripts, and never have been.
jwrush
> jwrush wrote:
>
>> "Anthony Marsh" <ama...@quik.com> wrote in message
>> news:3PTIe.1485$zB4.715@trndny08...
>>
>> It's definitely not "take off Buddy." Sounds to me like "checked out on
>> traffic." I think you should listen to a good copy of the recording.
>
>
> What is the "it's" to which you are referring? I am saying that there are
> two separate and distinct messages, not that I heard "take off, Buddy"
> instead of "checked out on traffic."
>
Hey, I asked you where "take off Buddy" is located and you said "268.5"
after the stuck microphone segment starts. I went there and there is no
"take off Buddy" at that location (or any other). What is there sounds like
"checked out on traffic."
Anthony Marsh
That siren does not sound as though it was passing the open microphone.
Anthony Marsh
That does not prove that the open microphone was stationary. It is just
the relative speeds which change, as the open microphone approaches the
other cycles, almost overtaking and then falling back.
jwrush
Sure it does. And there is more than one siren. There are several and they
are passing the open microphone.
jwrush
If that were true, you would hear the several sirens go up in and down in
volume in forward and then in reverse order. That is not heard on the
recording. So it is the sirens that are passing the microphone.
You hear sirens 1,2,3,4 pass the microphone.
You DON'T hear sirens 1,2,3,4,and then 4,3,2,1
Herbert Blenner
Steve wrote:
> I wonder how many would agree that they hear signal five on the files
> where I hear two different words preceding five?
>
> http://www.members.aol.com/hdblenner/trackone03270328.wav
>
>
> http://www.members.aol.com/hdblenner/trackone0237.wav
>
>
> http://www.members.aol.com/hdblenner/trackone02500251.wav
>
>
> Herbert
>
>
> What I hear could be just as easily confused for the officer saying "75
> single file" does this mean that is what h e is saying though, now does
> it? I dont hear antything that sounds remotely *close* to the word
> "channel" or "special" as you say you do, Herbert.
That's ok, Steve. If you did hear what I hear then I would make an
appointment to have my oscillographs checked. How's my sense of humor?
>
> As a side note, why are you even bringing this up? What does this have
> to do with the assassination?
Listening to channel one and two is akin to hearing part of a
conversation. For example we hear the Channel-II dispatcher issuing
traffic directories for no apparent reason. Possibly the dispatcher acted
upon information received from either the Secret Service radio or the
telephone. For these reasons, I posted the thread on alternative means of
police communications.
To my surprise usually rational people responded to this thread by saying
the police could not have used an alternative means of communications
because their selectors had two channels and no dialer. Strike that,
Steve. After I suggested citizen's band radio as an alternative, they said
the selector had a channel one and a channel two without a channel five. I
resisted asking my critics how did the police officers telephone the
station house without a dialer on their selectors?
Herbert
Anthony Marsh
Now you realize why you can not debate things with me. You make errors and
end up saying the opposite of what you intended. Welcome to the Internet.
It should be obvious from the way I quoted your words exactly that I was
pointing out your obvious error. Most of us are *****NOT***** in agreement
with the "Blowles'" [sic] transcripts. So, write your own and post it for
the benefit of all here.
Steve
I don't come in here to "debate things" Tony. I come here to discuss
things. Things that when you get cornered you won't respond to. Your
failure to repond to my thread "For Tony" is evidence of this.
My transcripts ****HAVE**** been written and they were written years
ago, and John McAdams has them, and if he wants to post them here, he
can do so. I don't have control of them. He does. So, ask him about
them.
On top of this, you have absolutely ZERO right in demanding that I
post anything " for the benefit of all here" when you are the person
who refuses to respond to my thread " For Tony". You worked your way
around that thead yesterday, but posted in many other threads at the
same time. You have failed to respond to a simple request of responding
to the thread "For Tony", and continue to do so, even though this, as
you say in your rebuttal, is "proof that McLain had the open mic". Now
if this were true, you would be doing everything in your power to post
it all over the place. I have posted two separate threads now trying
to get you to to do so, so let's see who it is who "can not 'debate'
things". And for the record, I re posted the same points raised in the
thread "For Tony" under a new, different thread since you seem to have
worked your way around it and avoided responding to it.
Steve
Anthony Marsh
No, you can not tell from the sound if it is other cycles passing the
open microphone or the open microphone passing the other cycles. What
you can tell is that they are moving at changing relative speeds.
> You hear sirens 1,2,3,4 pass the microphone.
>
No, that is not what is heard.
> You DON'T hear sirens 1,2,3,4,and then 4,3,2,1
>
And you don't need to hear that and that is not what I said.
jwrush
Not so. There are at least four vehicles, two cars and two motorcycles, all
passing the open microphone. The sirens are too brief for the open
microphone to be catching up with the four vehicles, and much too brief for
the open microphone to be passing in the opposite direction. So it is the
four vehicles that are moving, with the stuck microphone being stationary.
What
> you can tell is that they are moving at changing relative speeds.
I hear at least four sirens. I think they are the limo, Chief Curry's car,
and two motorcycles that were escorts. Their speeds change because the
vehicle speeds changed as they moved at different rates passed the Trade
Mart.
>
>> You hear sirens 1,2,3,4 pass the microphone.
>>
>
> No, that is not what is heard.
Well you tell us what you hear.
Herbert Blenner
Computing the relative speed from the three hundred foot pickup range
and the rise time of seven seconds for the sirens gives thirty miles
per hour. However, this calculation ignores the siren filter used by
the transmitter. Since the second harmonics dominated the sirens as
they began, the pickup range was less than one hundred fifty feet. So
relative speed was closer to fifteen miles per hour. This figure is
typical of a lager trying to catch up with the emergency vehicles.
In any event, the relative speed of thirty miles per hour is
unreasonable for sirens on emergency vehicles passing a stationary
microphone. A closer examination of the peaks in volumes show
individual differences in durations and rise times. These later
considerations show each peak occurred under differing acoustic
surroundings.
Herbert
jwrush
Unreasonable? They were passing the microphone at the Trade Mart. The had to
slow down in traffic and make the turn at the Trade Mart. If the microphone
had been up on the Stemmons, the passing speed of the motorcade would have
been much faster.
Your side has a big problem. The stuck microphone was at the Trade Mart, not
in Dealey Plaza. And it picked up the sounds of the passing motorcade sirens
about 3 1/2 minutes after the assassination, as the motorcade passed the
Trade Mart on the way to Parkland. And there is nothing you can do to change
this.
Herbert Blenner
A siren going from inaudibility to maximum amplitude in tenths of a
second is unreasonable for it passing a stationary microphone. You are
confusing changing radio conditions with distance between the sirens
and the microphone.
>
> Your side has a big problem. The stuck microphone was at the Trade Mart, not
> in Dealey Plaza. And it picked up the sounds of the passing motorcade sirens
> about 3 1/2 minutes after the assassination, as the motorcade passed the
> Trade Mart on the way to Parkland. And there is nothing you can do to change
> this.
A proper timing of the initiation of the sirens with assassination
gives you side a black eye. Now tell us Mr. Rush where you change this
crucible interval from one post to the next.
Herbert
jwrush
That's not what I hear on the recording. You must have a bad copy.
Anthony Marsh
Are you basing that claim on what you HEAR on the tape or what you THINK
should be there? There should be at least THREE cars, the lead car, the
limousine and the Queen Mary. And probably FOUR escort cycles, including
McLain who was catching up.
Do you claim that any of the sirens we can hear are on cars rather than
cycles? Surely you know that the sirens on the cars would be of a
different type. What about the car horn we hear? Which vehicle was that on?
And again, you do not understand the science. Because of the equivalency
principle you can not tell if the open microphone was stationary.
> What
>
>>you can tell is that they are moving at changing relative speeds.
>
>
> I hear at least four sirens. I think they are the limo, Chief Curry's car,
> and two motorcycles that were escorts. Their speeds change because the
> vehicle speeds changed as they moved at different rates passed the Trade
> Mart.
>
You should already know that the sirens on the cars were of a different
type. Tell me what you hear in those sirens which allows you to
differentiate between a car siren and a cycle siren.
>
>>>You hear sirens 1,2,3,4 pass the microphone.
>>>
>>
>>No, that is not what is heard.
>
>
> Well you tell us what you hear.
>
>
>
jwrush
LOL! Please, don't try to bring in General Relativity. This doesn't have
anything to do with acceleration or gravity and their equivalence or their
effects on clocks.
The sirens are clearly passing the motorcycle with the stuck microphone.
Even if you assume that all the cars and motorcycles with sirens stopped
dead in their tacks, while the open microphone passed them, the siren
pattern is not the same as the various vehicles passing the stopped open
microphone, because there is a changing relationship of the distances of
the various moving sirens to each other.
John Hill
news:1122906989.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Anyone care to point a photograph of Harkness in DP at 12:30? I rest my
> case.
Your point being?
--
John Hill (joisa)
>
> Rob
>
>