>>>>> news:501dffe8$1@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

>>>>>> On 8/4/2012 2:39 PM, Research wrote:
>>>>>>> The WC was about to conclude with 3 shots and 3 hits. But it was
>>>>>>> pointed
>>>>>>> out that a fragment hit James Tauge. So they invented the missed
>>>>>>> shot
>>>>>>> theory. Then the SBT to cover all the wounds. Oswald was labeled the

>>>>>> That is not what prompted the SBT. It was Specter realizing that one
>>>>>> shooter could not hit Kennedy at Z-210 and then Connally at Z-240.
>>>>>> Not enough time to operate the bolt.

>>>>>>> villain. Which he could have been involved. But MANY eye and ear
>>>>>>> witnesses
>>>>>>> at the scene reported hearing 1 shot and then two shot almost
>>>>>>> simultaneously. One on top of the other. Which is what is on the
>>>>>>> Dallas
>>>>>>> dictabelt. 1/2 second apart. Two fast for Oswald alone. Why? Why
>>>>>>> did the
>>>>>>> government investigators avoid this issue and claim Oswald alone????

>>>>>> It wasn't exactly .5 sec. it was more like .7 sec.
>>>>>> Your wording is vague. Which government investigators?
>>>>>> The WC did it under orders from LBJ to prevent WWIII because they
>>>>>> thought
>>>>>> Castro ordered it.
>>>>>> The HSCA said Oswald was part of a conspiracy.

>>>>> Yes GRANDMA 1/2 second IS a vague term. Just go with it and stop your
>>>>> silly arguments. 2 tenths of one second doesn't make a mountain, not
>>>>> even
>>>>> a mold hill. Don't avoid the issue here. The issue is the shots
>>>>> were to
>>>>> close together for Oswald alone to fire them.

>>>>> This is one of the points the HSCA could not just explain away. So in
>>>>> their conclusion they "added" one line that there was a 95%
>>>>> probability of
>>>>> a conspiracy. And not that Oswald was involved in. Even though he
>>>>> may have
>>>>> been. He did deliver a "package" to the dep. Even though the witnesses
>>>>> said it was much smaller than the one found. I mean wasn't it the
>>>>> very man
>>>>> claiming Oswald carried the package into the building, himself carry a
>>>>> rifle into the building? His only collaborator was his sister?

>>>>> He supposedly owned the rifle found in the dep. How do we know it
>>>>> didn't
>>>>> really belonged to the Paines? Who claimed Oswald was involved in
>>>>> subversive groups, but was the one who led Oswald to these very
>>>>> groups.
>>>>> His only collaborator was his ex-wife, who was involved in a covert
>>>>> operation ran by her CIA father? Maybe to convict Oswald in the
>>>>> minds of
>>>>> the public? AND LBJ only pointed to Castro to divert blame and
>>>>> quilt to
>>>>> Castro. And to prevent WWIII was his excuse. Come on you really don't
>>>>> believe that do you? ER really? Do you think Castro was dumb enough to
>>>>> fire missile at the U.S. Not a win in ANY event for Cuba. We all
>>>>> know had
>>>>> he done that Cuba would have sank under the weight of U.S. missiles.

>>>>> This whole package deal stinks. Go ahead and rely on this bogus
>>>>> evidence
>>>>> if you want to...

>>>> There was enough time between the 2nd and 3rd shot for Clint Hill to
>>>> jump down and run to the Limousine.  That was almost 5 sec.

>>> And that's what the acoustical evidence shows. Coincidence?

>> It's not a coincidence at all but a result of BB&N deliberately trying
>> to find plausible matches to the known sequence of shots (known from all
>> the hard evidence in the case) in the many inaudible alleged ghosts of
>> noises that they located on the Dictabelt recording. That they "found"
>> what they were looking for should not be surprising. Nor does it mean
>> anything.

>> /sandy

> Excuse me? The math found the matches.

>>>>>> news:501dffe8$1@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

>>>>>>> On 8/4/2012 2:39 PM, Research wrote:
>>>>>>>> The WC was about to conclude with 3 shots and 3 hits. But it was
>>>>>>>> pointed
>>>>>>>> out that a fragment hit James Tauge. So they invented the missed
>>>>>>>> shot
>>>>>>>> theory. Then the SBT to cover all the wounds. Oswald was labeled
>>>>>>>> the

>>>>>>> That is not what prompted the SBT. It was Specter realizing that one
>>>>>>> shooter could not hit Kennedy at Z-210 and then Connally at Z-240.
>>>>>>> Not enough time to operate the bolt.

>>>>>>>> villain. Which he could have been involved. But MANY eye and ear
>>>>>>>> witnesses
>>>>>>>> at the scene reported hearing 1 shot and then two shot almost
>>>>>>>> simultaneously. One on top of the other. Which is what is on the
>>>>>>>> Dallas
>>>>>>>> dictabelt. 1/2 second apart. Two fast for Oswald alone. Why? Why
>>>>>>>> did the
>>>>>>>> government investigators avoid this issue and claim Oswald
>>>>>>>> alone????

>>>>>>> It wasn't exactly .5 sec. it was more like .7 sec.
>>>>>>> Your wording is vague. Which government investigators?
>>>>>>> The WC did it under orders from LBJ to prevent WWIII because they
>>>>>>> thought
>>>>>>> Castro ordered it.
>>>>>>> The HSCA said Oswald was part of a conspiracy.

>>>>>> Yes GRANDMA 1/2 second IS a vague term. Just go with it and stop your
>>>>>> silly arguments. 2 tenths of one second doesn't make a mountain, not
>>>>>> even
>>>>>> a mold hill. Don't avoid the issue here. The issue is the shots
>>>>>> were to
>>>>>> close together for Oswald alone to fire them.

>>>>>> This is one of the points the HSCA could not just explain away. So in
>>>>>> their conclusion they "added" one line that there was a 95%
>>>>>> probability of
>>>>>> a conspiracy. And not that Oswald was involved in. Even though he
>>>>>> may have
>>>>>> been. He did deliver a "package" to the dep. Even though the
>>>>>> witnesses
>>>>>> said it was much smaller than the one found. I mean wasn't it the
>>>>>> very man
>>>>>> claiming Oswald carried the package into the building, himself
>>>>>> carry a
>>>>>> rifle into the building? His only collaborator was his sister?

>>>>>> He supposedly owned the rifle found in the dep. How do we know it
>>>>>> didn't
>>>>>> really belonged to the Paines? Who claimed Oswald was involved in
>>>>>> subversive groups, but was the one who led Oswald to these very
>>>>>> groups.
>>>>>> His only collaborator was his ex-wife, who was involved in a covert
>>>>>> operation ran by her CIA father? Maybe to convict Oswald in the
>>>>>> minds of
>>>>>> the public? AND LBJ only pointed to Castro to divert blame and
>>>>>> quilt to
>>>>>> Castro. And to prevent WWIII was his excuse. Come on you really don't
>>>>>> believe that do you? ER really? Do you think Castro was dumb
>>>>>> enough to
>>>>>> fire missile at the U.S. Not a win in ANY event for Cuba. We all
>>>>>> know had
>>>>>> he done that Cuba would have sank under the weight of U.S. missiles.

>>>>>> This whole package deal stinks. Go ahead and rely on this bogus
>>>>>> evidence
>>>>>> if you want to...

>>>>> There was enough time between the 2nd and 3rd shot for Clint Hill to
>>>>> jump down and run to the Limousine.  That was almost 5 sec.

>>>> And that's what the acoustical evidence shows. Coincidence?

>>> It's not a coincidence at all but a result of BB&N deliberately trying
>>> to find plausible matches to the known sequence of shots (known from all
>>> the hard evidence in the case) in the many inaudible alleged ghosts of
>>> noises that they located on the Dictabelt recording. That they "found"
>>> what they were looking for should not be surprising. Nor does it mean
>>> anything.

>>> /sandy

>> Excuse me? The math found the matches.

> Way more than three (or four). They cherry-picked what they wanted.

> They could easily have decided more of the patterns found were "actual"
> shots. The ones they did pick were no more shots than the ones they
> rejected. The recording wasn't made when any shots were being fired.

>> Again, if they had found ONLY the three shots from the sniper's nest
>> all you WC defenders would embrace the acoustical evidence.

> It would be superfluous and just as provably bogus.

>>> There was enough time between the 2nd and 3rd shot for Clint Hill to
>>> jump down and run to the Limousine.  That was almost 5 sec.

>> And that's what the acoustical evidence shows. Coincidence?

> Your "acoustic evidence" is out of sync and has been rejected by the NAS
> and debunked by Dale Myers and others.  Patrolman McLain said it was not
> his radio and furthermore, his cycle was not where it needed to be to make
> this theory work.  This is a failed theory that has already been
> scientifically discredited.  No witness saw anyone on the GK in position
> to make this shot.  Witnesses closest to the wooden fence heard no shot
> from that direction.  There was no Smokey the Sniper on the Grassy Knoll.

>> On 8/6/2012 5:45 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
>>> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>>> On 8/6/2012 1:17 PM, claviger wrote:
>>>>> On Aug 6, 11:36 am, "Research" <questio...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> "Anthony Marsh" <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote in message

>>>> And that's what the acoustical evidence shows. Coincidence?

>>> It's not a coincidence at all but a result of BB&N deliberately trying
>>> to find plausible matches to the known sequence of shots (known from all
>>> the hard evidence in the case) in the many inaudible alleged ghosts of
>>> noises that they located on the Dictabelt recording. That they "found"
>>> what they were looking for should not be surprising. Nor does it mean
>>> anything.

>>> /sandy

>> Excuse me? The math found the matches.
>> If they were looking for 8 shots why didn't they find 8 shots on the
>> tape if you think it is so easy?

> Actually, "the math" found 15 matches.

>> Again, if they had found ONLY the three shots from the sniper's nest all
>> you WC defenders would embrace the acoustical evidence.

> If that had happened, you guys would be shouting from the rooftops
> that is was all a lie.

> --
> The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

>>>>>>> news:501dffe8$1@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

>>>>>>>> On 8/4/2012 2:39 PM, Research wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The WC was about to conclude with 3 shots and 3 hits. But it was
>>>>>>>>> pointed
>>>>>>>>> out that a fragment hit James Tauge. So they invented the missed
>>>>>>>>> shot
>>>>>>>>> theory. Then the SBT to cover all the wounds. Oswald was labeled
>>>>>>>>> the

>>>>>>>> That is not what prompted the SBT. It was Specter realizing that
>>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>> shooter could not hit Kennedy at Z-210 and then Connally at Z-240.
>>>>>>>> Not enough time to operate the bolt.

>>>>>>>>> villain. Which he could have been involved. But MANY eye and ear
>>>>>>>>> witnesses
>>>>>>>>> at the scene reported hearing 1 shot and then two shot almost
>>>>>>>>> simultaneously. One on top of the other. Which is what is on the
>>>>>>>>> Dallas
>>>>>>>>> dictabelt. 1/2 second apart. Two fast for Oswald alone. Why? Why
>>>>>>>>> did the
>>>>>>>>> government investigators avoid this issue and claim Oswald
>>>>>>>>> alone????

>>>>>>>> It wasn't exactly .5 sec. it was more like .7 sec.
>>>>>>>> Your wording is vague. Which government investigators?
>>>>>>>> The WC did it under orders from LBJ to prevent WWIII because they
>>>>>>>> thought
>>>>>>>> Castro ordered it.
>>>>>>>> The HSCA said Oswald was part of a conspiracy.

>>>>>>> Yes GRANDMA 1/2 second IS a vague term. Just go with it and stop
>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>> silly arguments. 2 tenths of one second doesn't make a mountain, not
>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>> a mold hill. Don't avoid the issue here. The issue is the shots
>>>>>>> were to
>>>>>>> close together for Oswald alone to fire them.

>>>>>>> This is one of the points the HSCA could not just explain away.
>>>>>>> So in
>>>>>>> their conclusion they "added" one line that there was a 95%
>>>>>>> probability of
>>>>>>> a conspiracy. And not that Oswald was involved in. Even though he
>>>>>>> may have
>>>>>>> been. He did deliver a "package" to the dep. Even though the
>>>>>>> witnesses
>>>>>>> said it was much smaller than the one found. I mean wasn't it the
>>>>>>> very man
>>>>>>> claiming Oswald carried the package into the building, himself
>>>>>>> carry a
>>>>>>> rifle into the building? His only collaborator was his sister?

>>>>>>> He supposedly owned the rifle found in the dep. How do we know it
>>>>>>> didn't
>>>>>>> really belonged to the Paines? Who claimed Oswald was involved in
>>>>>>> subversive groups, but was the one who led Oswald to these very
>>>>>>> groups.
>>>>>>> His only collaborator was his ex-wife, who was involved in a covert
>>>>>>> operation ran by her CIA father? Maybe to convict Oswald in the
>>>>>>> minds of
>>>>>>> the public? AND LBJ only pointed to Castro to divert blame and
>>>>>>> quilt to
>>>>>>> Castro. And to prevent WWIII was his excuse. Come on you really
>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>> believe that do you? ER really? Do you think Castro was dumb
>>>>>>> enough to
>>>>>>> fire missile at the U.S. Not a win in ANY event for Cuba. We all
>>>>>>> know had
>>>>>>> he done that Cuba would have sank under the weight of U.S. missiles.

>>>>>>> This whole package deal stinks. Go ahead and rely on this bogus
>>>>>>> evidence
>>>>>>> if you want to...

>>>>>> There was enough time between the 2nd and 3rd shot for Clint Hill to
>>>>>> jump down and run to the Limousine.  That was almost 5 sec.

>>>>> And that's what the acoustical evidence shows. Coincidence?

>>>> It's not a coincidence at all but a result of BB&N deliberately trying
>>>> to find plausible matches to the known sequence of shots (known from
>>>> all
>>>> the hard evidence in the case) in the many inaudible alleged ghosts of
>>>> noises that they located on the Dictabelt recording. That they "found"
>>>> what they were looking for should not be surprising. Nor does it mean
>>>> anything.

>>>> /sandy

>>> Excuse me? The math found the matches.

>> Way more than three (or four). They cherry-picked what they wanted.

> You know nothing about science

>>> On 8/6/2012 5:45 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
>>>> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>>>> On 8/6/2012 1:17 PM, claviger wrote:
>>>>>> On Aug 6, 11:36 am, "Research" <questio...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> "Anthony Marsh" <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote in message

>>>>> And that's what the acoustical evidence shows. Coincidence?

>>>> It's not a coincidence at all but a result of BB&N deliberately trying
>>>> to find plausible matches to the known sequence of shots (known from
>>>> all
>>>> the hard evidence in the case) in the many inaudible alleged ghosts of
>>>> noises that they located on the Dictabelt recording. That they "found"
>>>> what they were looking for should not be surprising. Nor does it mean
>>>> anything.

>>>> /sandy

>>> Excuse me? The math found the matches.
>>> If they were looking for 8 shots why didn't they find 8 shots on the
>>> tape if you think it is so easy?

>> Actually, "the math" found 15 matches.

> You know nothing about science and nothing about the acoustical
> evidence. BBN expected to find half of the matches to be false alarms
> due to the limitations of the tests.

> But they did not throw away matches. They grouped the matches by time
> and cane with 5 specific times on the tape when there were multiple
> matches with test shot. They threw out one match because they though the
> match close to it was better.

>> But that was absurd, so they threw away "matches" until they had the
>> scenario they wanted.

> Wrong. BBN did not have a specific number of shots they wanted. Barger
> was quite disturbed when he realized the fourth shot came from the
> grassy knoll. He would have been happy with just the three from the
> sniper's nest. So would you. You would have been trumpeting the
> acoustical evidence as proof that Oswald acted alone.

>>> Again, if they had found ONLY the three shots from the sniper's nest all
>>> you WC defenders would embrace the acoustical evidence.

>> If that had happened, you guys would be shouting from the rooftops
>> that is was all a lie.

> Well, when the HSCA released its report I was one of the first to point
> out that they unfairly rejected the FIFTH shot on the tape.

>> That's what you say about all the *other* inconvenient evidence, isn't
>> it?

> What inconvenient evidence? You are talking to the guy who proved that
> the Zapruder film is authentic.

> > Anthony,

> >>> There was enough time between the 2nd and 3rd shot for Clint Hill to
> >>> jump down and run to the Limousine.  That was almost 5 sec.

> >> And that's what the acoustical evidence shows. Coincidence?

> > Your "acoustic evidence" is out of sync and has been rejected by the NAS
> > and debunked by Dale Myers and others.  Patrolman McLain said it was not
> > his radio and furthermore, his cycle was not where it needed to be to make
> > this theory work.  This is a failed theory that has already been
> > scientifically discredited.  No witness saw anyone on the GK in position
> > to make this shot.  Witnesses closest to the wooden fence heard no shot
> > from that direction.  There was no Smokey the Sniper on the Grassy Knoll.

> Garbage recycled. We've been over this hundreds of times.

> > > and debunked by Dale Myers and others.  Patrolman McLain said it was not

> > > his radio and furthermore, his cycle was not where it needed to be to make

> > > this theory work.  This is a failed theory that has already been

> > > scientifically discredited.  No witness saw anyone on the GK in position

> > > to make this shot.  Witnesses closest to the wooden fence heard no shot

> > > from that direction.  There was no Smokey the Sniper on the Grassy Knoll.

> > Garbage recycled. We've been over this hundreds of times.

> And you still don't get it.  The "acoustic evidence" is junk science with

> no corroboration.

>>>> Your "acoustic evidence" is out of sync and has been rejected by the NAS

>>>> and debunked by Dale Myers and others.  Patrolman McLain said it was not

>>>> his radio and furthermore, his cycle was not where it needed to be to make

>>>> this theory work.  This is a failed theory that has already been

>>>> scientifically discredited.  No witness saw anyone on the GK in position

>>>> to make this shot.  Witnesses closest to the wooden fence heard no shot

>>>> from that direction.  There was no Smokey the Sniper on the Grassy Knoll.

>>> Garbage recycled. We've been over this hundreds of times.

>> And you still don't get it.  The "acoustic evidence" is junk science with

>> no corroboration.

> And no peer review. The HSCA was intellectually lazy in accepting it at

>>>>>>>> news:501dffe8$1@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

>>>>>>>>> On 8/4/2012 2:39 PM, Research wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> The WC was about to conclude with 3 shots and 3 hits. But it was
>>>>>>>>>> pointed
>>>>>>>>>> out that a fragment hit James Tauge. So they invented the missed
>>>>>>>>>> shot
>>>>>>>>>> theory. Then the SBT to cover all the wounds. Oswald was labeled
>>>>>>>>>> the

>>>>>>>>> That is not what prompted the SBT. It was Specter realizing
>>>>>>>>> that one
>>>>>>>>> shooter could not hit Kennedy at Z-210 and then Connally at Z-240.
>>>>>>>>> Not enough time to operate the bolt.

>>>>>>>>>> villain. Which he could have been involved. But MANY eye and ear
>>>>>>>>>> witnesses
>>>>>>>>>> at the scene reported hearing 1 shot and then two shot almost
>>>>>>>>>> simultaneously. One on top of the other. Which is what is on the
>>>>>>>>>> Dallas
>>>>>>>>>> dictabelt. 1/2 second apart. Two fast for Oswald alone. Why? Why
>>>>>>>>>> did the
>>>>>>>>>> government investigators avoid this issue and claim Oswald
>>>>>>>>>> alone????

>>>>>>>>> It wasn't exactly .5 sec. it was more like .7 sec.
>>>>>>>>> Your wording is vague. Which government investigators?
>>>>>>>>> The WC did it under orders from LBJ to prevent WWIII because they
>>>>>>>>> thought
>>>>>>>>> Castro ordered it.
>>>>>>>>> The HSCA said Oswald was part of a conspiracy.

>>>>>>>> Yes GRANDMA 1/2 second IS a vague term. Just go with it and stop
>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>> silly arguments. 2 tenths of one second doesn't make a mountain,
>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>> a mold hill. Don't avoid the issue here. The issue is the shots
>>>>>>>> were to
>>>>>>>> close together for Oswald alone to fire them.

>>>>>>>> This is one of the points the HSCA could not just explain away.
>>>>>>>> So in
>>>>>>>> their conclusion they "added" one line that there was a 95%
>>>>>>>> probability of
>>>>>>>> a conspiracy. And not that Oswald was involved in. Even though he
>>>>>>>> may have
>>>>>>>> been. He did deliver a "package" to the dep. Even though the
>>>>>>>> witnesses
>>>>>>>> said it was much smaller than the one found. I mean wasn't it the
>>>>>>>> very man
>>>>>>>> claiming Oswald carried the package into the building, himself
>>>>>>>> carry a
>>>>>>>> rifle into the building? His only collaborator was his sister?

>>>>>>>> He supposedly owned the rifle found in the dep. How do we know it
>>>>>>>> didn't
>>>>>>>> really belonged to the Paines? Who claimed Oswald was involved in
>>>>>>>> subversive groups, but was the one who led Oswald to these very
>>>>>>>> groups.
>>>>>>>> His only collaborator was his ex-wife, who was involved in a covert
>>>>>>>> operation ran by her CIA father? Maybe to convict Oswald in the
>>>>>>>> minds of
>>>>>>>> the public? AND LBJ only pointed to Castro to divert blame and
>>>>>>>> quilt to
>>>>>>>> Castro. And to prevent WWIII was his excuse. Come on you really
>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>> believe that do you? ER really? Do you think Castro was dumb
>>>>>>>> enough to
>>>>>>>> fire missile at the U.S. Not a win in ANY event for Cuba. We all
>>>>>>>> know had
>>>>>>>> he done that Cuba would have sank under the weight of U.S.
>>>>>>>> missiles.

>>>>>>>> This whole package deal stinks. Go ahead and rely on this bogus
>>>>>>>> evidence
>>>>>>>> if you want to...

>>>>>>> There was enough time between the 2nd and 3rd shot for Clint Hill to
>>>>>>> jump down and run to the Limousine.  That was almost 5 sec.

>>>>>> And that's what the acoustical evidence shows. Coincidence?

>>>>> It's not a coincidence at all but a result of BB&N deliberately trying
>>>>> to find plausible matches to the known sequence of shots (known
>>>>> from all
>>>>> the hard evidence in the case) in the many inaudible alleged ghosts of
>>>>> noises that they located on the Dictabelt recording. That they "found"
>>>>> what they were looking for should not be surprising. Nor does it mean
>>>>> anything.

>>>>> /sandy

>>>> Excuse me? The math found the matches.

>>> Way more than three (or four). They cherry-picked what they wanted.

>> You know nothing about science

> Ha ha ha.

> I know that this methodology has been repeated a total number of 0 times
> since this first time. The earlier investigation at Kent State was under
> vastly different conditions.

> I know the most important thing about it: it isn't evidence at all.

>> BBN found 15 significant matches. They expected about half of those
>> would be false alarms due to the inherent looseness of the tests. But
>> many of the matches were merely the same shot recorded by nearby
>> microphones, not separate shots. So they could group the 15 matches
>> into 5 specific times on the tape. They threw out one set because it
>> was too soon after a better match. That is how they narrowed it down
>> to 4 shots. If any had an agenda to find a specific number of shots it
>> was Gary Mack who said he could HEAR 6 shots on the tape. BBN did not
>> design the tests to find a specific number of shots. If it was just
>> random noise then they could have found 10 or more shots at many
>> places on the tape. But they found 4 within the known time range of
>> the shooting in Dealey Plaza. Coincidence? Yeah about 1 time out of a
>> million.

> Of course there was an ostensible rationale for their cherry-picking. Of
> course they could explain it to  themselves. That's always the case.

>>> BBN found 15 significant matches. They expected about half of those
>>> would be false alarms due to the inherent looseness of the tests. But
>>> many of the matches were merely the same shot recorded by nearby
>>> microphones, not separate shots. So they could group the 15 matches
>>> into 5 specific times on the tape. They threw out one set because it
>>> was too soon after a better match. That is how they narrowed it down
>>> to 4 shots. If any had an agenda to find a specific number of shots it
>>> was Gary Mack who said he could HEAR 6 shots on the tape. BBN did not
>>> design the tests to find a specific number of shots. If it was just
>>> random noise then they could have found 10 or more shots at many
>>> places on the tape. But they found 4 within the known time range of
>>> the shooting in Dealey Plaza. Coincidence? Yeah about 1 time out of a
>>> million.

>> Of course there was an ostensible rationale for their cherry-picking. Of
>> course they could explain it to  themselves. That's always the case.

>There was no cherry picking. You don't understand science. They EXPECTED
>that about half the matches would be false positives.

>>>>>>>>> news:501dffe8$1@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

>>>>>>>>>> On 8/4/2012 2:39 PM, Research wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> The WC was about to conclude with 3 shots and 3 hits. But it was
>>>>>>>>>>> pointed
>>>>>>>>>>> out that a fragment hit James Tauge. So they invented the missed
>>>>>>>>>>> shot
>>>>>>>>>>> theory. Then the SBT to cover all the wounds. Oswald was labeled
>>>>>>>>>>> the

>>>>>>>>>> That is not what prompted the SBT. It was Specter realizing
>>>>>>>>>> that one
>>>>>>>>>> shooter could not hit Kennedy at Z-210 and then Connally at
>>>>>>>>>> Z-240.
>>>>>>>>>> Not enough time to operate the bolt.

>>>>>>>>>>> villain. Which he could have been involved. But MANY eye and ear
>>>>>>>>>>> witnesses
>>>>>>>>>>> at the scene reported hearing 1 shot and then two shot almost
>>>>>>>>>>> simultaneously. One on top of the other. Which is what is on the
>>>>>>>>>>> Dallas
>>>>>>>>>>> dictabelt. 1/2 second apart. Two fast for Oswald alone. Why? Why
>>>>>>>>>>> did the
>>>>>>>>>>> government investigators avoid this issue and claim Oswald
>>>>>>>>>>> alone????

>>>>>>>>>> It wasn't exactly .5 sec. it was more like .7 sec.
>>>>>>>>>> Your wording is vague. Which government investigators?
>>>>>>>>>> The WC did it under orders from LBJ to prevent WWIII because they
>>>>>>>>>> thought
>>>>>>>>>> Castro ordered it.
>>>>>>>>>> The HSCA said Oswald was part of a conspiracy.

>>>>>>>>> Yes GRANDMA 1/2 second IS a vague term. Just go with it and stop
>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>> silly arguments. 2 tenths of one second doesn't make a mountain,
>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>> a mold hill. Don't avoid the issue here. The issue is the shots
>>>>>>>>> were to
>>>>>>>>> close together for Oswald alone to fire them.

>>>>>>>>> This is one of the points the HSCA could not just explain away.
>>>>>>>>> So in
>>>>>>>>> their conclusion they "added" one line that there was a 95%
>>>>>>>>> probability of
>>>>>>>>> a conspiracy. And not that Oswald was involved in. Even though he
>>>>>>>>> may have
>>>>>>>>> been. He did deliver a "package" to the dep. Even though the
>>>>>>>>> witnesses
>>>>>>>>> said it was much smaller than the one found. I mean wasn't it the
>>>>>>>>> very man
>>>>>>>>> claiming Oswald carried the package into the building, himself
>>>>>>>>> carry a
>>>>>>>>> rifle into the building? His only collaborator was his sister?

>>>>>>>>> He supposedly owned the rifle found in the dep. How do we know it
>>>>>>>>> didn't
>>>>>>>>> really belonged to the Paines? Who claimed Oswald was involved in
>>>>>>>>> subversive groups, but was the one who led Oswald to these very
>>>>>>>>> groups.
>>>>>>>>> His only collaborator was his ex-wife, who was involved in a
>>>>>>>>> covert
>>>>>>>>> operation ran by her CIA father? Maybe to convict Oswald in the
>>>>>>>>> minds of
>>>>>>>>> the public? AND LBJ only pointed to Castro to divert blame and
>>>>>>>>> quilt to
>>>>>>>>> Castro. And to prevent WWIII was his excuse. Come on you really
>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>> believe that do you? ER really? Do you think Castro was dumb
>>>>>>>>> enough to
>>>>>>>>> fire missile at the U.S. Not a win in ANY event for Cuba. We all
>>>>>>>>> know had
>>>>>>>>> he done that Cuba would have sank under the weight of U.S.
>>>>>>>>> missiles.

>>>>>>>>> This whole package deal stinks. Go ahead and rely on this bogus
>>>>>>>>> evidence
>>>>>>>>> if you want to...

>>>>>>>> There was enough time between the 2nd and 3rd shot for Clint
>>>>>>>> Hill to
>>>>>>>> jump down and run to the Limousine.  That was almost 5 sec.

>>>>>>> And that's what the acoustical evidence shows. Coincidence?

>>>>>> It's not a coincidence at all but a result of BB&N deliberately
>>>>>> trying
>>>>>> to find plausible matches to the known sequence of shots (known
>>>>>> from all
>>>>>> the hard evidence in the case) in the many inaudible alleged
>>>>>> ghosts of
>>>>>> noises that they located on the Dictabelt recording. That they
>>>>>> "found"
>>>>>> what they were looking for should not be surprising. Nor does it mean
>>>>>> anything.

>>>>>> /sandy

>>>>> Excuse me? The math found the matches.

>>>> Way more than three (or four). They cherry-picked what they wanted.

>>> You know nothing about science

>> Ha ha ha.

>> I know that this methodology has been repeated a total number of 0 times
>> since this first time. The earlier investigation at Kent State was under
>> vastly different conditions.

> Not vastly different.
> And the basic principles have been around since artillery in WWI. Sound
> ranging and Echo location.

> The basic science is being used in cities to detect the source of
> gunfire and by US forces overseas to detect where enemy gunfire is
> coming from. DARPA is working on a system to automatically fire back at
> the enemy with accuracy down to inches of the barrel.

>> I know that Barger himself thought the critics may well have had a valid
>> point, regarding the impossibility of that recording having been made
>> during the assassination. He could not and would not defend his earlier
>> findings.

> No, he didn't. You're just making that up. You can't quote him saying
> that. He did defend his work.

>> I know the most important thing about it: it isn't evidence at all.

> It certainly is evidence. Just like fingerprints.

>>>>>>>>>> news:501dffe8$1@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/4/2012 2:39 PM, Research wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> The WC was about to conclude with 3 shots and 3 hits. But it
>>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>>> pointed
>>>>>>>>>>>> out that a fragment hit James Tauge. So they invented the
>>>>>>>>>>>> missed
>>>>>>>>>>>> shot
>>>>>>>>>>>> theory. Then the SBT to cover all the wounds. Oswald was
>>>>>>>>>>>> labeled
>>>>>>>>>>>> the

>>>>>>>>>>> That is not what prompted the SBT. It was Specter realizing
>>>>>>>>>>> that one
>>>>>>>>>>> shooter could not hit Kennedy at Z-210 and then Connally at
>>>>>>>>>>> Z-240.
>>>>>>>>>>> Not enough time to operate the bolt.

>>>>>>>>>>>> villain. Which he could have been involved. But MANY eye and
>>>>>>>>>>>> ear
>>>>>>>>>>>> witnesses
>>>>>>>>>>>> at the scene reported hearing 1 shot and then two shot almost
>>>>>>>>>>>> simultaneously. One on top of the other. Which is what is on
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> Dallas
>>>>>>>>>>>> dictabelt. 1/2 second apart. Two fast for Oswald alone. Why?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Why
>>>>>>>>>>>> did the
>>>>>>>>>>>> government investigators avoid this issue and claim Oswald
>>>>>>>>>>>> alone????

>>>>>>>>>>> It wasn't exactly .5 sec. it was more like .7 sec.
>>>>>>>>>>> Your wording is vague. Which government investigators?
>>>>>>>>>>> The WC did it under orders from LBJ to prevent WWIII because
>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>> thought
>>>>>>>>>>> Castro ordered it.
>>>>>>>>>>> The HSCA said Oswald was part of a conspiracy.

>>>>>>>>>> Yes GRANDMA 1/2 second IS a vague term. Just go with it and stop
>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>> silly arguments. 2 tenths of one second doesn't make a mountain,
>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>> a mold hill. Don't avoid the issue here. The issue is the shots
>>>>>>>>>> were to
>>>>>>>>>> close together for Oswald alone to fire them.

>>>>>>>>>> This is one of the points the HSCA could not just explain away.
>>>>>>>>>> So in
>>>>>>>>>> their conclusion they "added" one line that there was a 95%
>>>>>>>>>> probability of
>>>>>>>>>> a conspiracy. And not that Oswald was involved in. Even though he
>>>>>>>>>> may have
>>>>>>>>>> been. He did deliver a "package" to the dep. Even though the
>>>>>>>>>> witnesses
>>>>>>>>>> said it was much smaller than the one found. I mean wasn't it the
>>>>>>>>>> very man
>>>>>>>>>> claiming Oswald carried the package into the building, himself
>>>>>>>>>> carry a
>>>>>>>>>> rifle into the building? His only collaborator was his sister?

>>>>>>>>>> He supposedly owned the rifle found in the dep. How do we know it
>>>>>>>>>> didn't
>>>>>>>>>> really belonged to the Paines? Who claimed Oswald was involved in
>>>>>>>>>> subversive groups, but was the one who led Oswald to these very
>>>>>>>>>> groups.
>>>>>>>>>> His only collaborator was his ex-wife, who was involved in a
>>>>>>>>>> covert
>>>>>>>>>> operation ran by her CIA father? Maybe to convict Oswald in the
>>>>>>>>>> minds of
>>>>>>>>>> the public? AND LBJ only pointed to Castro to divert blame and
>>>>>>>>>> quilt to
>>>>>>>>>> Castro. And to prevent WWIII was his excuse. Come on you really
>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>> believe that do you? ER really? Do you think Castro was dumb
>>>>>>>>>> enough to
>>>>>>>>>> fire missile at the U.S. Not a win in ANY event for Cuba. We all
>>>>>>>>>> know had
>>>>>>>>>> he done that Cuba would have sank under the weight of U.S.
>>>>>>>>>> missiles.

>>>>>>>>>> This whole package deal stinks. Go ahead and rely on this bogus
>>>>>>>>>> evidence
>>>>>>>>>> if you want to...

>>>>>>>>> There was enough time between the 2nd and 3rd shot for Clint
>>>>>>>>> Hill to
>>>>>>>>> jump down and run to the Limousine.  That was almost 5 sec.

>>>>>>>> And that's what the acoustical evidence shows. Coincidence?

>>>>>>> It's not a coincidence at all but a result of BB&N deliberately
>>>>>>> trying
>>>>>>> to find plausible matches to the known sequence of shots (known
>>>>>>> from all
>>>>>>> the hard evidence in the case) in the many inaudible alleged
>>>>>>> ghosts of
>>>>>>> noises that they located on the Dictabelt recording. That they
>>>>>>> "found"
>>>>>>> what they were looking for should not be surprising. Nor does it
>>>>>>> mean
>>>>>>> anything.

>>>>>>> /sandy

>>>>>> Excuse me? The math found the matches.

>>>>> Way more than three (or four). They cherry-picked what they wanted.

>>>> You know nothing about science

>>> Ha ha ha.

>>> I know that this methodology has been repeated a total number of 0 times
>>> since this first time. The earlier investigation at Kent State was under
>>> vastly different conditions.

>> Not vastly different.
>> And the basic principles have been around since artillery in WWI.
>> Sound ranging and Echo location.

>> The basic science is being used in cities to detect the source of
>> gunfire and by US forces overseas to detect where enemy gunfire is
>> coming from. DARPA is working on a system to automatically fire back
>> at the enemy with accuracy down to inches of the barrel.

>>> I know that Barger himself thought the critics may well have had a valid
>>> point, regarding the impossibility of that recording having been made
>>> during the assassination. He could not and would not defend his earlier
>>> findings.

>> No, he didn't. You're just making that up. You can't quote him saying
>> that. He did defend his work.

> No, he hasn't. He said he saw some potential problems with the NAS
> analysis and suggested further tests that could resolve the questions.
> He certainly wasn't ready to disavow his results yet. But in a 2001
> e-mail, he wrote: "I gather from the [email] traffic I've seen that this
> evidence is in dispute - at least between some of you. Well, it's an
> important question, because if it can be shown that there was no vehicle
> or person with a police radio near the trajectory where I found it to
> be, then, that is impeaching evidence. "

>>>> and nothing about the acoustical evidence.

>>> I know the most important thing about it: it isn't evidence at all.

>> It certainly is evidence. Just like fingerprints.

> Fingerprints aren't relevant if they are not from the crime scene.
> The recording isn't relevant, as it was made after the assassination was
> over.

> news:501dffe8$1@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

> > On 8/4/2012 2:39 PM, Research wrote:
> >> The WC was about to conclude with 3 shots and 3 hits. But it was
> >> pointed
> >> out that a fragment hit James Tauge. So they invented the missed shot
> >> theory. Then the SBT to cover all the wounds. Oswald was labeled the

> > That is not what prompted the SBT. It was Specter realizing that one
> > shooter could not hit Kennedy at Z-210 and then Connally at Z-240.
> > Not enough time to operate the bolt.

> >> villain. Which he could have been involved. But MANY eye and ear
> >> witnesses
> >> at the scene reported hearing 1 shot and then two shot almost
> >> simultaneously. One on top of the other. Which is what is on the Dallas
> >> dictabelt. 1/2 second apart. Two fast for Oswald alone. Why? Why did
> >> the
> >> government investigators avoid this issue and claim Oswald alone????

> > It wasn't exactly .5 sec. it was more like .7 sec.
> > Your wording is vague. Which government investigators?
> > The WC did it under orders from LBJ to prevent WWIII because they
> > thought
> > Castro ordered it.
> > The HSCA said Oswald was part of a conspiracy.

> Yes GRANDMA 1/2 second IS a vague term. Just go with it and stop your
> silly arguments. 2 tenths of one second doesn't make a mountain, not even
> a mold hill. Don't avoid the issue here. The issue is the shots were to
> close together for Oswald alone to fire them.

> This is one of the points the HSCA could not just explain away. So in
> their conclusion they "added" one line that there was a 95% probability of
> a conspiracy. And not that Oswald was involved in. Even though he may have
> been. He did deliver a "package" to the dep. Even though the witnesses
> said it was much smaller than the one found. I mean wasn't it the very man
> claiming Oswald carried the package into the building, himself carry a
> rifle into the building? His only collaborator was his sister?

> He supposedly owned the rifle found in the dep. How do we know it didn't
> really belonged to the Paines? Who claimed Oswald was involved in
> subversive groups, but was the one who led Oswald to these very groups.
> His only collaborator was his ex-wife, who was involved in a covert
> operation ran by her CIA father? Maybe to convict Oswald in the minds of
> the public? AND LBJ only pointed to Castro to divert blame and quilt to
> Castro. And to prevent WWIII was his excuse. Come on you really don't
> believe that do you? ER really? Do you think Castro was dumb enough to
> fire missile at the U.S. Not a win in ANY event for Cuba. We all know had
> he done that Cuba would have sank under the weight of U.S. missiles.

> This whole package deal stinks. Go ahead and rely on this bogus evidence
> if you want to...

> > "bigdog" <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

> > news:527548b1-9a66-45cb-8e70-d54c6935108e@googlegroups.com...

> > On Saturday, August 4, 2012 2:39:18 PM UTC-4, Research wrote:

> > > The WC was about to conclude with 3 shots and 3 hits. But it was pointed

> > > out that a fragment hit James Tauge. So they invented the missed shot

> > > theory. Then the SBT to cover all the wounds. Oswald was labeled the

> > > villain. Which he could have been involved. But MANY eye and ear witnesses

> > > at the scene reported hearing 1 shot and then two shot almost

> > > simultaneously. One on top of the other. Which is what is on the Dallas

> > > dictabelt. 1/2 second apart. Two fast for Oswald alone. Why? Why did the

> > > government investigators avoid this issue and claim Oswald alone????

> > The SBT and Oswald being the sole shooter are the only conclusions

> > supported by the evidence. You can't construct a viable alternative to the

> > SBT without dismissing some key piece(s) of evidence. No one has given us

> > one in 48 years and we know you aren't going to try.

> > What key pieces are you talking bout? 2 or 3 shooters? then you don't have

> > SBT or nutters. But you know that already that is why you are on the

> > attack. Again LNers avoid the issues?

> A little sketchy on the details. Vagueness is the hallmark of all

> alternatives to the SBT because specificity does them in. The devil is in

> the details. Try coming up with an alternative which explains where these

> two or three shooters were, the shots they fired, the wounds, if any, that

> those shots caused, and where the bullets went. You don't even have to

> prove the alternative. Just give us something that is compatible with the

> evidence.

> You claim the LNers avoid the issues. Here's your chance to show us how it

> is done. Deal with the issues I've raised head on. I'm betting you won't

> be able to. It's a bet I have never lost.

>>>>>>>>>>> news:501dffe8$1@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/4/2012 2:39 PM, Research wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The WC was about to conclude with 3 shots and 3 hits. But it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointed
>>>>>>>>>>>>> out that a fragment hit James Tauge. So they invented the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> missed
>>>>>>>>>>>>> shot
>>>>>>>>>>>>> theory. Then the SBT to cover all the wounds. Oswald was
>>>>>>>>>>>>> labeled
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the

>>>>>>>>>>>> That is not what prompted the SBT. It was Specter realizing
>>>>>>>>>>>> that one
>>>>>>>>>>>> shooter could not hit Kennedy at Z-210 and then Connally at
>>>>>>>>>>>> Z-240.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Not enough time to operate the bolt.

>>>>>>>>>>>>> villain. Which he could have been involved. But MANY eye and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ear
>>>>>>>>>>>>> witnesses
>>>>>>>>>>>>> at the scene reported hearing 1 shot and then two shot almost
>>>>>>>>>>>>> simultaneously. One on top of the other. Which is what is on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dallas
>>>>>>>>>>>>> dictabelt. 1/2 second apart. Two fast for Oswald alone. Why?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why
>>>>>>>>>>>>> did the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> government investigators avoid this issue and claim Oswald
>>>>>>>>>>>>> alone????

>>>>>>>>>>>> It wasn't exactly .5 sec. it was more like .7 sec.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Your wording is vague. Which government investigators?
>>>>>>>>>>>> The WC did it under orders from LBJ to prevent WWIII because
>>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>> thought
>>>>>>>>>>>> Castro ordered it.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The HSCA said Oswald was part of a conspiracy.

>>>>>>>>>>> Yes GRANDMA 1/2 second IS a vague term. Just go with it and stop
>>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>> silly arguments. 2 tenths of one second doesn't make a mountain,
>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>> a mold hill. Don't avoid the issue here. The issue is the shots
>>>>>>>>>>> were to
>>>>>>>>>>> close together for Oswald alone to fire them.

>>>>>>>>>>> This is one of the points the HSCA could not just explain away.
>>>>>>>>>>> So in
>>>>>>>>>>> their conclusion they "added" one line that there was a 95%
>>>>>>>>>>> probability of
>>>>>>>>>>> a conspiracy. And not that Oswald was involved in. Even
>>>>>>>>>>> though he
>>>>>>>>>>> may have
>>>>>>>>>>> been. He did deliver a "package" to the dep. Even though the
>>>>>>>>>>> witnesses
>>>>>>>>>>> said it was much smaller than the one found. I mean wasn't it
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> very man
>>>>>>>>>>> claiming Oswald carried the package into the building, himself
>>>>>>>>>>> carry a
>>>>>>>>>>> rifle into the building? His only collaborator was his sister?

>>>>>>>>>>> He supposedly owned the rifle found in the dep. How do we
>>>>>>>>>>> know it
>>>>>>>>>>> didn't
>>>>>>>>>>> really belonged to the Paines? Who claimed Oswald was
>>>>>>>>>>> involved in
>>>>>>>>>>> subversive groups, but was the one who led Oswald to these very
>>>>>>>>>>> groups.
>>>>>>>>>>> His only collaborator was his ex-wife, who was involved in a
>>>>>>>>>>> covert
>>>>>>>>>>> operation ran by her CIA father? Maybe to convict Oswald in the
>>>>>>>>>>> minds of
>>>>>>>>>>> the public? AND LBJ only pointed to Castro to divert blame and
>>>>>>>>>>> quilt to
>>>>>>>>>>> Castro. And to prevent WWIII was his excuse. Come on you really
>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>> believe that do you? ER really? Do you think Castro was dumb
>>>>>>>>>>> enough to
>>>>>>>>>>> fire missile at the U.S. Not a win in ANY event for Cuba. We all
>>>>>>>>>>> know had
>>>>>>>>>>> he done that Cuba would have sank under the weight of U.S.
>>>>>>>>>>> missiles.

>>>>>>>>>>> This whole package deal stinks. Go ahead and rely on this bogus
>>>>>>>>>>> evidence
>>>>>>>>>>> if you want to...

>>>>>>>>>> There was enough time between the 2nd and 3rd shot for Clint
>>>>>>>>>> Hill to
>>>>>>>>>> jump down and run to the Limousine.  That was almost 5 sec.

>>>>>>>>> And that's what the acoustical evidence shows. Coincidence?

>>>>>>>> It's not a coincidence at all but a result of BB&N deliberately
>>>>>>>> trying
>>>>>>>> to find plausible matches to the known sequence of shots (known
>>>>>>>> from all
>>>>>>>> the hard evidence in the case) in the many inaudible alleged
>>>>>>>> ghosts of
>>>>>>>> noises that they located on the Dictabelt recording. That they
>>>>>>>> "found"
>>>>>>>> what they were looking for should not be surprising. Nor does it
>>>>>>>> mean
>>>>>>>> anything.

>>>>>>>> /sandy

>>>>>>> Excuse me? The math found the matches.

>>>>>> Way more than three (or four). They cherry-picked what they wanted.

>>>>> You know nothing about science

>>>> Ha ha ha.

>>>> I know that this methodology has been repeated a total number of 0
>>>> times
>>>> since this first time. The earlier investigation at Kent State was
>>>> under
>>>> vastly different conditions.

>>> Not vastly different.
>>> And the basic principles have been around since artillery in WWI.
>>> Sound ranging and Echo location.

>>> The basic science is being used in cities to detect the source of
>>> gunfire and by US forces overseas to detect where enemy gunfire is
>>> coming from. DARPA is working on a system to automatically fire back
>>> at the enemy with accuracy down to inches of the barrel.

>>>> I know that Barger himself thought the critics may well have had a
>>>> valid
>>>> point, regarding the impossibility of that recording having been made
>>>> during the assassination. He could not and would not defend his earlier
>>>> findings.

>>> No, he didn't. You're just making that up. You can't quote him saying
>>> that. He did defend his work.

>> No, he hasn't. He said he saw some potential problems with the NAS
>> analysis and suggested further tests that could resolve the questions.
>> He certainly wasn't ready to disavow his results yet. But in a 2001
>> e-mail, he wrote: "I gather from the [email] traffic I've seen that this
>> evidence is in dispute - at least between some of you. Well, it's an
>> important question, because if it can be shown that there was no vehicle
>> or person with a police radio near the trajectory where I found it to
>> be, then, that is impeaching evidence. "

> More misrepresentation. That is not admitting that the critics have a
> valid point as you put it.

>> So James E. Barger, who led the original study, did not say the odds
>> were astronomical against the supposed matching being coincidental
>> and/or a result of manipulation of the data. He admitted that it was
>> quite possible he had been wrong.

> Not QUITE possible. He didn't say that or think that.

>> He has never, nor has anyone from his team, defended the original
>> findings at any point in the intervening eleven years. Now, if that

> Yes he has. In the Congressional Record. In interviews. You don't do
> careful research. You just sling mud and hope something sticks.

>> statement is wrong, I'm sure you have the citation to prove me wrong at
>> the tip of your fingers. Let's have it.

> I have uploaded them several times, but you never pay attention,
> intentionally.

>>>>> and nothing about the acoustical evidence.

>>>> I know the most important thing about it: it isn't evidence at all.

>>> It certainly is evidence. Just like fingerprints.

>> Fingerprints aren't relevant if they are not from the crime scene.
>> The recording isn't relevant, as it was made after the assassination was
>> over.

> The recording WAS made from the crime scene and during the shooting.

> news:d92eda5b-53ad-482f-8243-d56ed7be4e7a@w14g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 6, 11:36 am, "Research" <questio...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > "Anthony Marsh" <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote in message

> >news:501dffe8$1@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

> > > On 8/4/2012 2:39 PM, Research wrote:
> > >> The WC was about to conclude with 3 shots and 3 hits. But it was
> > >> pointed
> > >> out that a fragment hit James Tauge. So they invented the missed shot
> > >> theory. Then the SBT to cover all the wounds. Oswald was labeled the

> > > That is not what prompted the SBT. It was Specter realizing that one
> > > shooter could not hit Kennedy at Z-210 and then Connally at Z-240.
> > > Not enough time to operate the bolt.

> > >> villain. Which he could have been involved. But MANY eye and ear
> > >> witnesses
> > >> at the scene reported hearing 1 shot and then two shot almost
> > >> simultaneously. One on top of the other. Which is what is on the Dallas
> > >> dictabelt. 1/2 second apart. Two fast for Oswald alone. Why? Why did
> > >> the
> > >> government investigators avoid this issue and claim Oswald alone????

> > > It wasn't exactly .5 sec. it was more like .7 sec.
> > > Your wording is vague. Which government investigators?
> > > The WC did it under orders from LBJ to prevent WWIII because they
> > > thought
> > > Castro ordered it.
> > > The HSCA said Oswald was part of a conspiracy.

> > Yes GRANDMA 1/2 second IS a vague term. Just go with it and stop your
> > silly arguments. 2 tenths of one second doesn't make a mountain, not even
> > a mold hill. Don't avoid the issue here. The issue is the shots were to
> > close together for Oswald alone to fire them.

> > This is one of the points the HSCA could not just explain away. So in
> > their conclusion they "added" one line that there was a 95% probability of
> > a conspiracy. And not that Oswald was involved in. Even though he may have
> > been. He did deliver a "package" to the dep. Even though the witnesses
> > said it was much smaller than the one found. I mean wasn't it the very man
> > claiming Oswald carried the package into the building, himself carry a
> > rifle into the building? His only collaborator was his sister?

> > He supposedly owned the rifle found in the dep. How do we know it didn't
> > really belonged to the Paines? Who claimed Oswald was involved in
> > subversive groups, but was the one who led Oswald to these very groups.
> > His only collaborator was his ex-wife, who was involved in a covert
> > operation ran by her CIA father? Maybe to convict Oswald in the minds of
> > the public? AND LBJ only pointed to Castro to divert blame and quilt to
> > Castro. And to prevent WWIII was his excuse. Come on you really don't
> > believe that do you? ER really? Do you think Castro was dumb enough to
> > fire missile at the U.S. Not a win in ANY event for Cuba. We all know had
> > he done that Cuba would have sank under the weight of U.S. missiles.

> > This whole package deal stinks. Go ahead and rely on this bogus evidence
> > if you want to...

> There was enough time between the 2nd and 3rd shot for Clint Hill to
> jump down and run to the Limousine.  That was almost 5 sec.

> How does that make ANY sence? Hill didn't jump and run until after the 3rd
> shot. Look at the Nix film again then make your snide comments!

>>>>>>>>>>>> news:501dffe8$1@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/4/2012 2:39 PM, Research wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The WC was about to conclude with 3 shots and 3 hits. But it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out that a fragment hit James Tauge. So they invented the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theory. Then the SBT to cover all the wounds. Oswald was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> labeled
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the

>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is not what prompted the SBT. It was Specter realizing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that one
>>>>>>>>>>>>> shooter could not hit Kennedy at Z-210 and then Connally at
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Z-240.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not enough time to operate the bolt.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> villain. Which he could have been involved. But MANY eye and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ear
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> witnesses
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at the scene reported hearing 1 shot and then two shot almost
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simultaneously. One on top of the other. Which is what is on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dallas
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dictabelt. 1/2 second apart. Two fast for Oswald alone. Why?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> did the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> government investigators avoid this issue and claim Oswald
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alone????

>>>>>>>>>>>>> It wasn't exactly .5 sec. it was more like .7 sec.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your wording is vague. Which government investigators?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The WC did it under orders from LBJ to prevent WWIII because
>>>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thought
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Castro ordered it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The HSCA said Oswald was part of a conspiracy.

>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes GRANDMA 1/2 second IS a vague term. Just go with it and
>>>>>>>>>>>> stop
>>>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>>> silly arguments. 2 tenths of one second doesn't make a
>>>>>>>>>>>> mountain,
>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>>> a mold hill. Don't avoid the issue here. The issue is the shots
>>>>>>>>>>>> were to
>>>>>>>>>>>> close together for Oswald alone to fire them.

>>>>>>>>>>>> This is one of the points the HSCA could not just explain away.
>>>>>>>>>>>> So in
>>>>>>>>>>>> their conclusion they "added" one line that there was a 95%
>>>>>>>>>>>> probability of
>>>>>>>>>>>> a conspiracy. And not that Oswald was involved in. Even
>>>>>>>>>>>> though he
>>>>>>>>>>>> may have
>>>>>>>>>>>> been. He did deliver a "package" to the dep. Even though the
>>>>>>>>>>>> witnesses
>>>>>>>>>>>> said it was much smaller than the one found. I mean wasn't it
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> very man
>>>>>>>>>>>> claiming Oswald carried the package into the building, himself
>>>>>>>>>>>> carry a
>>>>>>>>>>>> rifle into the building? His only collaborator was his sister?

>>>>>>>>>>>> He supposedly owned the rifle found in the dep. How do we
>>>>>>>>>>>> know it
>>>>>>>>>>>> didn't
>>>>>>>>>>>> really belonged to the Paines? Who claimed Oswald was
>>>>>>>>>>>> involved in
>>>>>>>>>>>> subversive groups, but was the one who led Oswald to these very
>>>>>>>>>>>> groups.
>>>>>>>>>>>> His only collaborator was his ex-wife, who was involved in a
>>>>>>>>>>>> covert
>>>>>>>>>>>> operation ran by her CIA father? Maybe to convict Oswald in the
>>>>>>>>>>>> minds of
>>>>>>>>>>>> the public? AND LBJ only pointed to Castro to divert blame and
>>>>>>>>>>>> quilt to
>>>>>>>>>>>> Castro. And to prevent WWIII was his excuse. Come on you really
>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>>> believe that do you? ER really? Do you think Castro was dumb
>>>>>>>>>>>> enough to
>>>>>>>>>>>> fire missile at the U.S. Not a win in ANY event for Cuba. We
>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>> know had
>>>>>>>>>>>> he done that Cuba would have sank under the weight of U.S.
>>>>>>>>>>>> missiles.

>>>>>>>>>>>> This whole package deal stinks. Go ahead and rely on this bogus
>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence
>>>>>>>>>>>> if you want to...

>>>>>>>>>>> There was enough time between the 2nd and 3rd shot for Clint
>>>>>>>>>>> Hill to
>>>>>>>>>>> jump down and run to the Limousine.  That was almost 5 sec.

>>>>>>>>>> And that's what the acoustical evidence shows. Coincidence?

>>>>>>>>> It's not a coincidence at all but a result of BB&N deliberately
>>>>>>>>> trying
>>>>>>>>> to find plausible matches to the known sequence of shots (known
>>>>>>>>> from all
>>>>>>>>> the hard evidence in the case) in the many inaudible alleged
>>>>>>>>> ghosts of
>>>>>>>>> noises that they located on the Dictabelt recording. That they
>>>>>>>>> "found"
>>>>>>>>> what they were looking for should not be surprising. Nor does it
>>>>>>>>> mean
>>>>>>>>> anything.

>>>>>>>>> /sandy

>>>>>>>> Excuse me? The math found the matches.

>>>>>>> Way more than three (or four). They cherry-picked what they wanted.

>>>>>> You know nothing about science

>>>>> Ha ha ha.

>>>>> I know that this methodology has been repeated a total number of 0
>>>>> times
>>>>> since this first time. The earlier investigation at Kent State was
>>>>> under
>>>>> vastly different conditions.

>>>> Not vastly different.
>>>> And the basic principles have been around since artillery in WWI.
>>>> Sound ranging and Echo location.

>>>> The basic science is being used in cities to detect the source of
>>>> gunfire and by US forces overseas to detect where enemy gunfire is
>>>> coming from. DARPA is working on a system to automatically fire back
>>>> at the enemy with accuracy down to inches of the barrel.

>>>>> I know that Barger himself thought the critics may well have had a
>>>>> valid
>>>>> point, regarding the impossibility of that recording having been made
>>>>> during the assassination. He could not and would not defend his
>>>>> earlier
>>>>> findings.

>>>> No, he didn't. You're just making that up. You can't quote him saying
>>>> that. He did defend his work.

>>> No, he hasn't. He said he saw some potential problems with the NAS
>>> analysis and suggested further tests that could resolve the questions.
>>> He certainly wasn't ready to disavow his results yet. But in a 2001
>>> e-mail, he wrote: "I gather from the [email] traffic I've seen that this
>>> evidence is in dispute - at least between some of you. Well, it's an
>>> important question, because if it can be shown that there was no vehicle
>>> or person with a police radio near the trajectory where I found it to
>>> be, then, that is impeaching evidence. "

>> More misrepresentation. That is not admitting that the critics have a
>> valid point as you put it.

>>> So James E. Barger, who led the original study, did not say the odds
>>> were astronomical against the supposed matching being coincidental
>>> and/or a result of manipulation of the data. He admitted that it was
>>> quite possible he had been wrong.

>> Not QUITE possible. He didn't say that or think that.

> Can't you read?
> He doesn't say NAS can't be right because that is mathematically wildly
> improbable. He says, hmm, they may have a point.

>> What is it about a 99.5% probability that you don't understand?

>>> He has never, nor has anyone from his team, defended the original
>>> findings at any point in the intervening eleven years. Now, if that

>> Yes he has. In the Congressional Record. In interviews. You don't do
>> careful research. You just sling mud and hope something sticks.

>>> statement is wrong, I'm sure you have the citation to prove me wrong at
>>> the tip of your fingers. Let's have it.

>> I have uploaded them several times, but you never pay attention,
>> intentionally.

> We had this same discussion before, and you never came up with anything
> like that.

>>>>>> and nothing about the acoustical evidence.

>>>>> I know the most important thing about it: it isn't evidence at all.

>>>> It certainly is evidence. Just like fingerprints.

>>> Fingerprints aren't relevant if they are not from the crime scene.
>>> The recording isn't relevant, as it was made after the assassination was
>>> over.

>> The recording WAS made from the crime scene and during the shooting.

> That's simply an article of faith for you.

> /sm

>> news:501dffe8$1@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

>>> On 8/4/2012 2:39 PM, Research wrote:
>>>> The WC was about to conclude with 3 shots and 3 hits. But it was
>>>> pointed
>>>> out that a fragment hit James Tauge. So they invented the missed shot
>>>> theory. Then the SBT to cover all the wounds. Oswald was labeled the

>>> That is not what prompted the SBT. It was Specter realizing that one
>>> shooter could not hit Kennedy at Z-210 and then Connally at Z-240.
>>> Not enough time to operate the bolt.

>>>> villain. Which he could have been involved. But MANY eye and ear
>>>> witnesses
>>>> at the scene reported hearing 1 shot and then two shot almost
>>>> simultaneously. One on top of the other. Which is what is on the Dallas
>>>> dictabelt. 1/2 second apart. Two fast for Oswald alone. Why? Why did
>>>> the
>>>> government investigators avoid this issue and claim Oswald alone????

>>> It wasn't exactly .5 sec. it was more like .7 sec.
>>> Your wording is vague. Which government investigators?
>>> The WC did it under orders from LBJ to prevent WWIII because they
>>> thought
>>> Castro ordered it.
>>> The HSCA said Oswald was part of a conspiracy.

>> Yes GRANDMA 1/2 second IS a vague term. Just go with it and stop your
>> silly arguments. 2 tenths of one second doesn't make a mountain, not even
>> a mold hill. Don't avoid the issue here. The issue is the shots were to
>> close together for Oswald alone to fire them.

>> This is one of the points the HSCA could not just explain away. So in
>> their conclusion they "added" one line that there was a 95% probability of
>> a conspiracy. And not that Oswald was involved in. Even though he may have
>> been. He did deliver a "package" to the dep. Even though the witnesses
>> said it was much smaller than the one found. I mean wasn't it the very man
>> claiming Oswald carried the package into the building, himself carry a
>> rifle into the building? His only collaborator was his sister?

>> He supposedly owned the rifle found in the dep. How do we know it didn't
>> really belonged to the Paines? Who claimed Oswald was involved in
>> subversive groups, but was the one who led Oswald to these very groups.
>> His only collaborator was his ex-wife, who was involved in a covert
>> operation ran by her CIA father? Maybe to convict Oswald in the minds of
>> the public? AND LBJ only pointed to Castro to divert blame and quilt to
>> Castro. And to prevent WWIII was his excuse. Come on you really don't
>> believe that do you? ER really? Do you think Castro was dumb enough to
>> fire missile at the U.S. Not a win in ANY event for Cuba. We all know had
>> he done that Cuba would have sank under the weight of U.S. missiles.

>> This whole package deal stinks. Go ahead and rely on this bogus evidence
>> if you want to...

> There was enough time between the 2nd and 3rd shot for Clint Hill to
> jump down and run to the Limousine.  That was almost 5 sec.

> How does that make ANY sence? Hill didn't jump and run until after the 3rd
> shot. Look at the Nix film again then make your snide comments!

>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:501dffe8$1@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/4/2012 2:39 PM, Research wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The WC was about to conclude with 3 shots and 3 hits. But it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out that a fragment hit James Tauge. So they invented the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theory. Then the SBT to cover all the wounds. Oswald was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> labeled
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is not what prompted the SBT. It was Specter realizing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shooter could not hit Kennedy at Z-210 and then Connally at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Z-240.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not enough time to operate the bolt.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> villain. Which he could have been involved. But MANY eye and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ear
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> witnesses
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at the scene reported hearing 1 shot and then two shot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> almost
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simultaneously. One on top of the other. Which is what is on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dallas
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dictabelt. 1/2 second apart. Two fast for Oswald alone. Why?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> did the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> government investigators avoid this issue and claim Oswald
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alone????

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It wasn't exactly .5 sec. it was more like .7 sec.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your wording is vague. Which government investigators?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The WC did it under orders from LBJ to prevent WWIII because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thought
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Castro ordered it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The HSCA said Oswald was part of a conspiracy.

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes GRANDMA 1/2 second IS a vague term. Just go with it and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> stop
>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>>>> silly arguments. 2 tenths of one second doesn't make a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mountain,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a mold hill. Don't avoid the issue here. The issue is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> shots
>>>>>>>>>>>>> were to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> close together for Oswald alone to fire them.

>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is one of the points the HSCA could not just explain
>>>>>>>>>>>>> away.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> their conclusion they "added" one line that there was a 95%
>>>>>>>>>>>>> probability of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a conspiracy. And not that Oswald was involved in. Even
>>>>>>>>>>>>> though he
>>>>>>>>>>>>> may have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> been. He did deliver a "package" to the dep. Even though the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> witnesses
>>>>>>>>>>>>> said it was much smaller than the one found. I mean wasn't it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> very man
>>>>>>>>>>>>> claiming Oswald carried the package into the building, himself
>>>>>>>>>>>>> carry a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> rifle into the building? His only collaborator was his sister?

>>>>>>>>>>>>> He supposedly owned the rifle found in the dep. How do we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> know it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> didn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> really belonged to the Paines? Who claimed Oswald was
>>>>>>>>>>>>> involved in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> subversive groups, but was the one who led Oswald to these
>>>>>>>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>>>>>>>> groups.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> His only collaborator was his ex-wife, who was involved in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> covert
>>>>>>>>>>>>> operation ran by her CIA father? Maybe to convict Oswald in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> minds of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the public? AND LBJ only pointed to Castro to divert blame and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> quilt to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Castro. And to prevent WWIII was his excuse. Come on you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe that do you? ER really? Do you think Castro was dumb
>>>>>>>>>>>>> enough to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fire missile at the U.S. Not a win in ANY event for Cuba. We
>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>> know had
>>>>>>>>>>>>> he done that Cuba would have sank under the weight of U.S.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> missiles.

>>>>>>>>>>>>> This whole package deal stinks. Go ahead and rely on this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> bogus
>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence
>>>>>>>>>>>>> if you want to...

>>>>>>>>>>>> There was enough time between the 2nd and 3rd shot for Clint
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hill to
>>>>>>>>>>>> jump down and run to the Limousine.  That was almost 5 sec.

>>>>>>>>>>> And that's what the acoustical evidence shows. Coincidence?

>>>>>>>>>> It's not a coincidence at all but a result of BB&N deliberately
>>>>>>>>>> trying
>>>>>>>>>> to find plausible matches to the known sequence of shots (known
>>>>>>>>>> from all
>>>>>>>>>> the hard evidence in the case) in the many inaudible alleged
>>>>>>>>>> ghosts of
>>>>>>>>>> noises that they located on the Dictabelt recording. That they
>>>>>>>>>> "found"
>>>>>>>>>> what they were looking for should not be surprising. Nor does it
>>>>>>>>>> mean
>>>>>>>>>> anything.

>>>>>>>>>> /sandy

>>>>>>>>> Excuse me? The math found the matches.

>>>>>>>> Way more than three (or four). They cherry-picked what they wanted.

>>>>>>> You know nothing about science

>>>>>> Ha ha ha.

>>>>>> I know that this methodology has been repeated a total number of 0
>>>>>> times
>>>>>> since this first time. The earlier investigation at Kent State was
>>>>>> under
>>>>>> vastly different conditions.

>>>>> Not vastly different.
>>>>> And the basic principles have been around since artillery in WWI.
>>>>> Sound ranging and Echo location.

>>>>> The basic science is being used in cities to detect the source of
>>>>> gunfire and by US forces overseas to detect where enemy gunfire is
>>>>> coming from. DARPA is working on a system to automatically fire back
>>>>> at the enemy with accuracy down to inches of the barrel.

>>>>>> I know that Barger himself thought the critics may well have had a
>>>>>> valid
>>>>>> point, regarding the impossibility of that recording having been made
>>>>>> during the assassination. He could not and would not defend his
>>>>>> earlier
>>>>>> findings.

>>>>> No, he didn't. You're just making that up. You can't quote him saying
>>>>> that. He did defend his work.

>>>> No, he hasn't. He said he saw some potential problems with the NAS
>>>> analysis and suggested further tests that could resolve the questions.
>>>> He certainly wasn't ready to disavow his results yet. But in a 2001
>>>> e-mail, he wrote: "I gather from the [email] traffic I've seen that
>>>> this
>>>> evidence is in dispute - at least between some of you. Well, it's an
>>>> important question, because if it can be shown that there was no
>>>> vehicle
>>>> or person with a police radio near the trajectory where I found it to
>>>> be, then, that is impeaching evidence. "

>>> More misrepresentation. That is not admitting that the critics have a
>>> valid point as you put it.

>>>> So James E. Barger, who led the original study, did not say the odds
>>>> were astronomical against the supposed matching being coincidental
>>>> and/or a result of manipulation of the data. He admitted that it was
>>>> quite possible he had been wrong.

>>> Not QUITE possible. He didn't say that or think that.

>> Can't you read?
>> He doesn't say NAS can't be right because that is mathematically wildly
>> improbable. He says, hmm, they may have a point.

> No, he doesn't and you can quote him saying that.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:501dffe8$1@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/4/2012 2:39 PM, Research wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The WC was about to conclude with 3 shots and 3 hits.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out that a fragment hit James Tauge. So they invented the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theory. Then the SBT to cover all the wounds. Oswald was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> labeled
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is not what prompted the SBT. It was Specter realizing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shooter could not hit Kennedy at Z-210 and then Connally at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Z-240.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not enough time to operate the bolt.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> villain. Which he could have been involved. But MANY eye
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ear
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> witnesses
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at the scene reported hearing 1 shot and then two shot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> almost
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simultaneously. One on top of the other. Which is what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dallas
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dictabelt. 1/2 second apart. Two fast for Oswald alone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> did the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> government investigators avoid this issue and claim Oswald
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alone????

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It wasn't exactly .5 sec. it was more like .7 sec.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your wording is vague. Which government investigators?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The WC did it under orders from LBJ to prevent WWIII because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thought
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Castro ordered it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The HSCA said Oswald was part of a conspiracy.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes GRANDMA 1/2 second IS a vague term. Just go with it and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> silly arguments. 2 tenths of one second doesn't make a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mountain,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a mold hill. Don't avoid the issue here. The issue is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shots
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> close together for Oswald alone to fire them.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is one of the points the HSCA could not just explain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> away.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their conclusion they "added" one line that there was a 95%
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> probability of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a conspiracy. And not that Oswald was involved in. Even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> though he
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been. He did deliver a "package" to the dep. Even though the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> witnesses
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> said it was much smaller than the one found. I mean wasn't it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> very man
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claiming Oswald carried the package into the building,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> himself
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> carry a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rifle into the building? His only collaborator was his
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sister?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He supposedly owned the rifle found in the dep. How do we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> didn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really belonged to the Paines? Who claimed Oswald was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> involved in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subversive groups, but was the one who led Oswald to these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> groups.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> His only collaborator was his ex-wife, who was involved in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> covert
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operation ran by her CIA father? Maybe to convict Oswald
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> minds of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the public? AND LBJ only pointed to Castro to divert blame
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quilt to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Castro. And to prevent WWIII was his excuse. Come on you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe that do you? ER really? Do you think Castro was dumb
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enough to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fire missile at the U.S. Not a win in ANY event for Cuba. We
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know had
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he done that Cuba would have sank under the weight of U.S.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missiles.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This whole package deal stinks. Go ahead and rely on this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bogus
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if you want to...

>>>>>>>>>>>>> There was enough time between the 2nd and 3rd shot for Clint
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hill to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> jump down and run to the Limousine.  That was almost 5 sec.

>>>>>>>>>>>> And that's what the acoustical evidence shows. Coincidence?

>>>>>>>>>>> It's not a coincidence at all but a result of BB&N deliberately
>>>>>>>>>>> trying
>>>>>>>>>>> to find plausible matches to the known sequence of shots (known
>>>>>>>>>>> from all
>>>>>>>>>>> the hard evidence in the case) in the many inaudible alleged
>>>>>>>>>>> ghosts of
>>>>>>>>>>> noises that they located on the Dictabelt recording. That they
>>>>>>>>>>> "found"
>>>>>>>>>>> what they were looking for should not be surprising. Nor does it
>>>>>>>>>>> mean
>>>>>>>>>>> anything.

>>>>>>>>>>> /sandy

>>>>>>>>>> Excuse me? The math found the matches.

>>>>>>>>> Way more than three (or four). They cherry-picked what they
>>>>>>>>> wanted.

>>>>>>>> You know nothing about science

>>>>>>> Ha ha ha.

>>>>>>> I know that this methodology has been repeated a total number of 0
>>>>>>> times
>>>>>>> since this first time. The earlier investigation at Kent State was
>>>>>>> under
>>>>>>> vastly different conditions.

>>>>>> Not vastly different.
>>>>>> And the basic principles have been around since artillery in WWI.
>>>>>> Sound ranging and Echo location.

>>>>>> The basic science is being used in cities to detect the source of
>>>>>> gunfire and by US forces overseas to detect where enemy gunfire is
>>>>>> coming from. DARPA is working on a system to automatically fire back
>>>>>> at the enemy with accuracy down to inches of the barrel.

>>>>>>> I know that Barger himself thought the critics may well have had a
>>>>>>> valid
>>>>>>> point, regarding the impossibility of that recording having been
>>>>>>> made
>>>>>>> during the assassination. He could not and would not defend his
>>>>>>> earlier
>>>>>>> findings.

>>>>>> No, he didn't. You're just making that up. You can't quote him saying
>>>>>> that. He did defend his work.

>>>>> No, he hasn't. He said he saw some potential problems with the NAS
>>>>> analysis and suggested further tests that could resolve the questions.
>>>>> He certainly wasn't ready to disavow his results yet. But in a 2001
>>>>> e-mail, he wrote: "I gather from the [email] traffic I've seen that
>>>>> this
>>>>> evidence is in dispute - at least between some of you. Well, it's an
>>>>> important question, because if it can be shown that there was no
>>>>> vehicle
>>>>> or person with a police radio near the trajectory where I found it to
>>>>> be, then, that is impeaching evidence. "

>>>> More misrepresentation. That is not admitting that the critics have a
>>>> valid point as you put it.

>>>>> So James E. Barger, who led the original study, did not say the odds
>>>>> were astronomical against the supposed matching being coincidental
>>>>> and/or a result of manipulation of the data. He admitted that it was
>>>>> quite possible he had been wrong.

>>>> Not QUITE possible. He didn't say that or think that.

>>> Can't you read?
>>> He doesn't say NAS can't be right because that is mathematically wildly
>>> improbable. He says, hmm, they may have a point.

>> No, he doesn't and you can quote him saying that.

> That's the only logical *sense* of the quote I did give.
> /sm

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:501dffe8$1@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/4/2012 2:39 PM, Research wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The WC was about to conclude with 3 shots and 3 hits.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out that a fragment hit James Tauge. So they invented the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theory. Then the SBT to cover all the wounds. Oswald was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> labeled
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is not what prompted the SBT. It was Specter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> realizing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shooter could not hit Kennedy at Z-210 and then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Connally at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Z-240.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not enough time to operate the bolt.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> villain. Which he could have been involved. But MANY eye
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ear
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> witnesses
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at the scene reported hearing 1 shot and then two shot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> almost
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simultaneously. One on top of the other. Which is what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dallas
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dictabelt. 1/2 second apart. Two fast for Oswald alone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> did the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> government investigators avoid this issue and claim
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oswald
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alone????

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It wasn't exactly .5 sec. it was more like .7 sec.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your wording is vague. Which government investigators?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The WC did it under orders from LBJ to prevent WWIII
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thought
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Castro ordered it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The HSCA said Oswald was part of a conspiracy.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes GRANDMA 1/2 second IS a vague term. Just go with it and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> silly arguments. 2 tenths of one second doesn't make a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mountain,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a mold hill. Don't avoid the issue here. The issue is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shots
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> close together for Oswald alone to fire them.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is one of the points the HSCA could not just explain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> away.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their conclusion they "added" one line that there was a 95%
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> probability of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a conspiracy. And not that Oswald was involved in. Even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> though he
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been. He did deliver a "package" to the dep. Even though
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> witnesses
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> said it was much smaller than the one found. I mean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wasn't it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> very man
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claiming Oswald carried the package into the building,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> himself
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> carry a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rifle into the building? His only collaborator was his
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sister?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He supposedly owned the rifle found in the dep. How do we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> didn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really belonged to the Paines? Who claimed Oswald was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> involved in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subversive groups, but was the one who led Oswald to these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> groups.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> His only collaborator was his ex-wife, who was involved
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> covert
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operation ran by her CIA father? Maybe to convict Oswald
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> minds of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the public? AND LBJ only pointed to Castro to divert blame
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quilt to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Castro. And to prevent WWIII was his excuse. Come on you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe that do you? ER really? Do you think Castro was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dumb
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enough to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fire missile at the U.S. Not a win in ANY event for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cuba. We
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know had
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he done that Cuba would have sank under the weight of U.S.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missiles.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This whole package deal stinks. Go ahead and rely on this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bogus
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if you want to...

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There was enough time between the 2nd and 3rd shot for Clint
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hill to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jump down and run to the Limousine.  That was almost 5 sec.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And that's what the acoustical evidence shows. Coincidence?

>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's not a coincidence at all but a result of BB&N
>>>>>>>>>>>>> deliberately
>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to find plausible matches to the known sequence of shots
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (known
>>>>>>>>>>>>> from all
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the hard evidence in the case) in the many inaudible alleged
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ghosts of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> noises that they located on the Dictabelt recording. That they
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "found"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> what they were looking for should not be surprising. Nor
>>>>>>>>>>>>> does it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean
>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything.

>>>>>>>>>>>>> /sandy

>>>>>>>>>>>> Excuse me? The math found the matches.

>>>>>>>>>>> Way more than three (or four). They cherry-picked what they
>>>>>>>>>>> wanted.

>>>>>>>>>> You know nothing about science

>>>>>>>>> Ha ha ha.

>>>>>>>>> I know that this methodology has been repeated a total number of 0
>>>>>>>>> times
>>>>>>>>> since this first time. The earlier investigation at Kent State was
>>>>>>>>> under
>>>>>>>>> vastly different conditions.

>>>>>>>> Not vastly different.
>>>>>>>> And the basic principles have been around since artillery in WWI.
>>>>>>>> Sound ranging and Echo location.

>>>>>>>> The basic science is being used in cities to detect the source of
>>>>>>>> gunfire and by US forces overseas to detect where enemy gunfire is
>>>>>>>> coming from. DARPA is working on a system to automatically fire
>>>>>>>> back
>>>>>>>> at the enemy with accuracy down to inches of the barrel.

>>>>>>>>> I know that Barger himself thought the critics may well have had a
>>>>>>>>> valid
>>>>>>>>> point, regarding the impossibility of that recording having been
>>>>>>>>> made
>>>>>>>>> during the assassination. He could not and would not defend his
>>>>>>>>> earlier
>>>>>>>>> findings.

>>>>>>>> No, he didn't. You're just making that up. You can't quote him
>>>>>>>> saying
>>>>>>>> that. He did defend his work.

>>>>>>> No, he hasn't. He said he saw some potential problems with the NAS
>>>>>>> analysis and suggested further tests that could resolve the
>>>>>>> questions.
>>>>>>> He certainly wasn't ready to disavow his results yet. But in a 2001
>>>>>>> e-mail, he wrote: "I gather from the [email] traffic I've seen that
>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>> evidence is in dispute - at least between some of you. Well, it's an
>>>>>>> important question, because if it can be shown that there was no
>>>>>>> vehicle
>>>>>>> or person with a police radio near the trajectory where I found
>>>>>>> it to
>>>>>>> be, then, that is impeaching evidence. "

>>>>>> More misrepresentation. That is not admitting that the critics have a
>>>>>> valid point as you put it.

>>>>>>> So James E. Barger, who led the original study, did not say the odds
>>>>>>> were astronomical against the supposed matching being coincidental
>>>>>>> and/or a result of manipulation of the data. He admitted that it was
>>>>>>> quite possible he had been wrong.

>>>>>> Not QUITE possible. He didn't say that or think that.

>>>>> Can't you read?
>>>>> He doesn't say NAS can't be right because that is mathematically
>>>>> wildly
>>>>> improbable. He says, hmm, they may have a point.

>>>> No, he doesn't and you can quote him saying that.

>>> That's the only logical *sense* of the quote I did give.
>>> /sm

>> So you admit right here in public that it is only YOUR interpretation of
>> what he said, not what he actually said.

> "Admit"? Anybody who

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:501dffe8$1@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/4/2012 2:39 PM, Research wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The WC was about to conclude with 3 shots and 3 hits.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pointed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out that a fragment hit James Tauge. So they invented
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theory. Then the SBT to cover all the wounds. Oswald was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> labeled
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is not what prompted the SBT. It was Specter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> realizing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shooter could not hit Kennedy at Z-210 and then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Connally at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Z-240.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not enough time to operate the bolt.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> villain. Which he could have been involved. But MANY eye
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ear
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> witnesses
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at the scene reported hearing 1 shot and then two shot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> almost
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simultaneously. One on top of the other. Which is what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dallas
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dictabelt. 1/2 second apart. Two fast for Oswald alone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> did the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> government investigators avoid this issue and claim
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oswald
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alone????

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It wasn't exactly .5 sec. it was more like .7 sec.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your wording is vague. Which government investigators?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The WC did it under orders from LBJ to prevent WWIII
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thought
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Castro ordered it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The HSCA said Oswald was part of a conspiracy.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes GRANDMA 1/2 second IS a vague term. Just go with it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> silly arguments. 2 tenths of one second doesn't make a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mountain,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a mold hill. Don't avoid the issue here. The issue is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shots
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> close together for Oswald alone to fire them.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is one of the points the HSCA could not just explain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> away.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their conclusion they "added" one line that there was a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 95%
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> probability of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a conspiracy. And not that Oswald was involved in. Even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> though he
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been. He did deliver a "package" to the dep. Even though
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> witnesses
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> said it was much smaller than the one found. I mean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wasn't it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> very man
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claiming Oswald carried the package into the building,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> himself
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> carry a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rifle into the building? His only collaborator was his
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sister?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He supposedly owned the rifle found in the dep. How do we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> didn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really belonged to the Paines? Who claimed Oswald was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> involved in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subversive groups, but was the one who led Oswald to these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> groups.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> His only collaborator was his ex-wife, who was involved
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> covert
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operation ran by her CIA father? Maybe to convict Oswald
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> minds of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the public? AND LBJ only pointed to Castro to divert blame
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quilt to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Castro. And to prevent WWIII was his excuse. Come on you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe that do you? ER really? Do you think Castro was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dumb
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enough to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fire missile at the U.S. Not a win in ANY event for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cuba. We
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know had
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he done that Cuba would have sank under the weight of U.S.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missiles.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This whole package deal stinks. Go ahead and rely on this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bogus
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if you want to...

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There was enough time between the 2nd and 3rd shot for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Clint
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hill to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jump down and run to the Limousine.  That was almost 5 sec.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And that's what the acoustical evidence shows. Coincidence?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's not a coincidence at all but a result of BB&N
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deliberately
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to find plausible matches to the known sequence of shots
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (known
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the hard evidence in the case) in the many inaudible alleged
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ghosts of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> noises that they located on the Dictabelt recording. That
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "found"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what they were looking for should not be surprising. Nor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /sandy

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Excuse me? The math found the matches.

>>>>>>>>>>>> Way more than three (or four). They cherry-picked what they
>>>>>>>>>>>> wanted.

>>>>>>>>>>> You know nothing about science

>>>>>>>>>> Ha ha ha.

>>>>>>>>>> I know that this methodology has been repeated a total number
>>>>>>>>>> of 0
>>>>>>>>>> times
>>>>>>>>>> since this first time. The earlier investigation at Kent State
>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>> under
>>>>>>>>>> vastly different conditions.

>>>>>>>>> Not vastly different.
>>>>>>>>> And the basic principles have been around since artillery in WWI.
>>>>>>>>> Sound ranging and Echo location.

>>>>>>>>> The basic science is being used in cities to detect the source of
>>>>>>>>> gunfire and by US forces overseas to detect where enemy gunfire is
>>>>>>>>> coming from. DARPA is working on a system to automatically fire
>>>>>>>>> back
>>>>>>>>> at the enemy with accuracy down to inches of the barrel.

>>>>>>>>>> I know that Barger himself thought the critics may well have
>>>>>>>>>> had a
>>>>>>>>>> valid
>>>>>>>>>> point, regarding the impossibility of that recording having been
>>>>>>>>>> made
>>>>>>>>>> during the assassination. He could not and would not defend his
>>>>>>>>>> earlier
>>>>>>>>>> findings.

>>>>>>>>> No, he didn't. You're just making that up. You can't quote him
>>>>>>>>> saying
>>>>>>>>> that. He did defend his work.

>>>>>>>> No, he hasn't. He said he saw some potential problems with the NAS
>>>>>>>> analysis and suggested further tests that could resolve the
>>>>>>>> questions.
>>>>>>>> He certainly wasn't ready to disavow his results yet. But in a 2001
>>>>>>>> e-mail, he wrote: "I gather from the [email] traffic I've seen that
>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>> evidence is in dispute - at least between some of you. Well,
>>>>>>>> it's an
>>>>>>>> important question, because if it can be shown that there was no
>>>>>>>> vehicle
>>>>>>>> or person with a police radio near the trajectory where I found
>>>>>>>> it to
>>>>>>>> be, then, that is impeaching evidence. "

>>>>>>> More misrepresentation. That is not admitting that the critics
>>>>>>> have a
>>>>>>> valid point as you put it.

>>>>>>>> So James E. Barger, who led the original study, did not say the
>>>>>>>> odds
>>>>>>>> were astronomical against the supposed matching being coincidental
>>>>>>>> and/or a result of manipulation of the data. He admitted that it
>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>> quite possible he had been wrong.

>>>>>>> Not QUITE possible. He didn't say that or think that.

>>>>>> Can't you read?

> news:d92eda5b-53ad-482f-8243-d56ed7be4e7a@w14g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 6, 11:36 am, "Research" <questio...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > "Anthony Marsh" <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote in message

> >news:501dffe8$1@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

> > > On 8/4/2012 2:39 PM, Research wrote:
> > >> The WC was about to conclude with 3 shots and 3 hits. But it was
> > >> pointed
> > >> out that a fragment hit James Tauge. So they invented the missed shot
> > >> theory. Then the SBT to cover all the wounds. Oswald was labeled the

> > > That is not what prompted the SBT. It was Specter realizing that one
> > > shooter could not hit Kennedy at Z-210 and then Connally at Z-240.
> > > Not enough time to operate the bolt.

> > >> villain. Which he could have been involved. But MANY eye and ear
> > >> witnesses
> > >> at the scene reported hearing 1 shot and then two shot almost
> > >> simultaneously. One on top of the other. Which is what is on the
> > >> Dallas
> > >> dictabelt. 1/2 second apart. Two fast for Oswald alone. Why? Why did
> > >> the
> > >> government investigators avoid this issue and claim Oswald alone????

> > > It wasn't exactly .5 sec. it was more like .7 sec.
> > > Your wording is vague. Which government investigators?
> > > The WC did it under orders from LBJ to prevent WWIII because they
> > > thought
> > > Castro ordered it.
> > > The HSCA said Oswald was part of a conspiracy.

> > Yes GRANDMA 1/2 second IS a vague term. Just go with it and stop your
> > silly arguments. 2 tenths of one second doesn't make a mountain, not
> > even
> > a mold hill. Don't avoid the issue here. The issue is the shots were to
> > close together for Oswald alone to fire them.

> > This is one of the points the HSCA could not just explain away. So in
> > their conclusion they "added" one line that there was a 95% probability
> > of
> > a conspiracy. And not that Oswald was involved in. Even though he may
> > have
> > been. He did deliver a "package" to the dep. Even though the witnesses
> > said it was much smaller than the one found. I mean wasn't it the very
> > man
> > claiming Oswald carried the package into the building, himself carry a
> > rifle into the building? His only collaborator was his sister?

> > He supposedly owned the rifle found in the dep. How do we know it didn't
> > really belonged to the Paines? Who claimed Oswald was involved in
> > subversive groups, but was the one who led Oswald to these very groups.
> > His only collaborator was his ex-wife, who was involved in a covert
> > operation ran by her CIA father? Maybe to convict Oswald in the minds of
> > the public? AND LBJ only pointed to Castro to divert blame and quilt to
> > Castro. And to prevent WWIII was his excuse. Come on you really don't
> > believe that do you? ER really? Do you think Castro was dumb enough to
> > fire missile at the U.S. Not a win in ANY event for Cuba. We all know
> > had
> > he done that Cuba would have sank under the weight of U.S. missiles.

> > This whole package deal stinks. Go ahead and rely on this bogus evidence
> > if you want to...

> There was enough time between the 2nd and 3rd shot for Clint Hill to
> jump down and run to the Limousine. That was almost 5 sec.

> How does that make ANY sence? Hill didn't jump and run until after the 3rd
> shot. Look at the Nix film again then make your snide comments!