All Quiet on the 63 Hz Front

[Herbert Blenner]

BBN and W&A matched pulses from a test shot fired from the grassy knoll
with pulses on the Bowles tape of the Dictabelt. This match required
multiplying time on the Bowels tape by a 1.047-correction factor. If this
procedure were correct then dividing a 63 Hz hum on the Bowles tape by
1.047 would have given the correct 60 Hz frequency for the power line hum.

Spectrographs of silent periods on the Bowels tape of Channel-I reveal an
absence of lower frequency signals in the vicinity of 63 Hz. Instead the
tape has a dominant 60-Hz hum with a prominent 57 Hz- signal. This failure
to detect a 63-Hz hum on the Bowles tape and the finding of a prominent
57-Hz signal shows that BBN and W&A applied an improper correction to time
on the Bowels tape.

Comparison of the Bowels tape of the Channel-II Bellah broadcast with its
crosstalk on the Bowles tape of Channel-I corroborates my last conclusion.
In particular Channel-I reproduced the 1.68 kHz brieftone which
accompanied the Channel-II broadcast as a 1.68 kHz tone. This result does
more than disprove the contention that Bowles changed the playing speed of
the Dictabelt. The matching frequencies of the brieftones invalidate the
matching of the test shot with the alleged grassy knoll pattern on the
Bowles tape of the Dictabelt.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 8/17/2012 2:32 PM, Herbert Blenner wrote:
>
>
> BBN and W&A matched pulses from a test shot fired from the grassy knoll
> with pulses on the Bowles tape of the Dictabelt. This match required
> multiplying time on the Bowels tape by a 1.047-correction factor. If this
> procedure were correct then dividing a 63 Hz hum on the Bowles tape by
> 1.047 would have given the correct 60 Hz frequency for the power line hum.
>

What political gain do you attempt to accomplish with your agenda of
misrepresenting historical documents?
Their report said 1.043, not 1.047.
"Because any value between 1.03 and 1.07 was theoretically valid, it was
permissible to choose the value between those limits that created the
best match between the impulse and echo sequences. By fitting the DPD
tape recorded impulse sequence to our predicted echo sequences, we found
that a time-correction factor of 1.043 gave the best match, and we
therefore used that factor."

> Spectrographs of silent periods on the Bowels tape of Channel-I reveal an
> absence of lower frequency signals in the vicinity of 63 Hz. Instead the
> tape has a dominant 60-Hz hum with a prominent 57 Hz- signal. This failure
> to detect a 63-Hz hum on the Bowles tape and the finding of a prominent
> 57-Hz signal shows that BBN and W&A applied an improper correction to time
> on the Bowels tape.
>

Or it shows your incorrect assumptions and willingness to misrepresent data.

> Comparison of the Bowels tape of the Channel-II Bellah broadcast with its
> crosstalk on the Bowles tape of Channel-I corroborates my last conclusion.
> In particular Channel-I reproduced the 1.68 kHz brieftone which
> accompanied the Channel-II broadcast as a 1.68 kHz tone. This result does
> more than disprove the contention that Bowles changed the playing speed of
> the Dictabelt. The matching frequencies of the brieftones invalidate the
> matching of the test shot with the alleged grassy knoll pattern on the
> Bowles tape of the Dictabelt.
>

How would Bowles even change the playing speed? Show me the knob which
controls playback speed.
Is it calibrated for such fine adjustments?

>

[Herbert Blenner]

On Aug 17, 9:05 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 8/17/2012 2:32 PM, Herbert Blenner wrote:
>
>
>
> > BBN and W&A matched pulses from a test shot fired from the grassy knoll
> > with pulses on the Bowles tape of the Dictabelt. This match required
> > multiplying time on the Bowels tape by a 1.047-correction factor. If this
> > procedure were correct then dividing a 63 Hz hum on the Bowles tape by
> > 1.047 would have given the correct 60 Hz frequency for the power line hum.
>
> What political gain do you attempt to accomplish with your agenda of
> misrepresenting historical documents?
> Their report said 1.043, not 1.047.
> "Because any value between 1.03 and 1.07 was theoretically valid, it was
> permissible to choose the value between those limits that created the
> best match between the impulse and echo sequences. By fitting the DPD
> tape recorded impulse sequence to our predicted echo sequences, we found
> that a time-correction factor of 1.043 gave the best match, and we
> therefore used that factor."

I mistaken the 1.047-correction factor derived from the 57.3 Hz hum
with the 1.043-factor found by W&A.

Now show us justification for your charge of an agenda of
misrepresentation.

>
> > Spectrographs of silent periods on the Bowels tape of Channel-I reveal an
> > absence of lower frequency signals in the vicinity of 63 Hz. Instead the
> > tape has a dominant 60-Hz hum with a prominent 57 Hz- signal. This failure
> > to detect a 63-Hz hum on the Bowles tape and the finding of a prominent
> > 57-Hz signal shows that BBN and W&A applied an improper correction to time
> > on the Bowels tape.
>
> Or it shows your incorrect assumptions and willingness to misrepresent data.

Measurement of the 57.3 Hz-hum on the Bowles tape of the Dictabelt is
not an assumption.

http://hdblenner.com/duped_files/fivepercent.jpg

The proper correction factor for frequency becomes 60.00/57.32 =
1.047.

For someone who has never applied spectral analysis to the acoustic
records, you are way to prone to lambast someone who has written and
applied their own analysis program.

>
> > Comparison of the Bowels tape of the Channel-II Bellah broadcast with its
> > crosstalk on the Bowles tape of Channel-I corroborates my last conclusion.
> > In particular Channel-I reproduced the 1.68 kHz brieftone which
> > accompanied the Channel-II broadcast as a 1.68 kHz tone. This result does
> > more than disprove the contention that Bowles changed the playing speed of
> > the Dictabelt. The matching frequencies of the brieftones invalidate the
> > matching of the test shot with the alleged grassy knoll pattern on the
> > Bowles tape of the Dictabelt.
>
> How would Bowles even change the playing speed? Show me the knob which
> controls playback speed.
> Is it calibrated for such fine adjustments?

Your failure to understand the significance the brieftones with
matching frequencies is showing again, Marsh. They disprove the claim
that Bowles changed the playing speed for his taping of the Dictabelt.
You in your ignorance invent objections that support my proof.

Herbert


>
>
>
> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -