3 Shots

[Research]

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????

[John Blubaugh]

They did it to prevent WWIII.....

JB

[timstter]

It's obvious that you have done very little research, Research.

Concerned Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

[elpdr...@gmail.com]

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

The Dallas police dictabelt, as you should know by now, contains no
"gunshot evidence". It was been put to bed long ago.

[bigdog]

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

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.

[Anthony Marsh]

Steve, as usual you ignore the point I was making just to attack me.

[Anthony Marsh]

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.

>
>
>

[deke]

Forget about the dictabelt. What about the many people, including police
officers, who heard two shots very closely spaced together. Hard to do
with a manual bolt action rifle.

[Clubking01]

I agree with you about the Oswald evidence, but the SBT supported by
"evidence"? What precisely do you mean? The so-called "lapel flip"?

[Research]

"bigdog" <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:527548b1-9a66-45cb...@googlegroups.com...

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?

[Research]

<elpdr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3011a728-1043-47ca...@googlegroups.com...

By just saying Colunbus discovered America doesn't make it true. No more
than saying the world is flat makes it true. If you study history you'll
find the Chinese discovered America more than a thousand years before
Columbus. And many others after that and way before 1492. The Polynesians
for example.

The Europerians was just to scared to venture out. Even before Queen
Issibella commissioned the 3 ships, Columbus had to prove to her the world
was not flat. She commissioned 1 ship and Columbus had to sail out past
the point of no return then return.

So for YOU to say this dumb thing doesn't make it true.

[Anthony Marsh]

Forget about your witnesses. They are worthless. Not a single one of them
said the two shots were spaced less than a second apart. When the HSCA
said two shots were fired within 1.66 sec. the WC defenders said that was
impossible.

[elpdr...@gmail.com]

"As usual", you flatter yourself, Tony.

[Research]

"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:501dffe8$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

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...

[claviger]

On Aug 6, 11:36 am, "Research" <questio...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Anthony Marsh" <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote in message

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.

[bigdog]

The elongated entry wound on JBC's back is compelling evidence that he was
struck by a yawing bullet and a yawing bullet is indication the bullet
struck something else before hitting JBC. Since CE399 could only have been
fired by rifle found on the 6th floor and JFK's body was the only thing
between the shooter and JBC, his body was the only thing that could have
caused the bullet to yaw. In addition we have the conclusions of the
original medical team and the HSCA review panel that the bullet that
struck JFK in the back exited from his throat and recreations showed that
at the moment the bullet struck, JFK and JBC were in perfect allignment
with the shooter in the TSBD. A bullet exiting JFK's throat could not have
missed JBC. The clincher for the SBT is the simultaneous reactions by JFK
and JBC which began at Z226 when both men simultaneously flipped their
arms upward. That was two frames after the lapel bulge which is visual
indication of a bullet strike. All these factors taken together present a
clear and compelling case for the SBT. Doubters have had 48 years to come
up with a viable alternative and none have been able to do so.

[bigdog]

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.

[Anthony Marsh]

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

[Anthony Marsh]

I didn't try to make a mountain out of a mole hill. And no one can make a
mountain out of a "mold" hill. Just pointing out your sloppiness.


It wasn't just that shots were close together. They had the first two
shots separated by only 1.66 sec. The WC defenders said that proved they
both could not be real because the rifle could not be reloaded that
quickly. The major difference was that one of the shots came from the
sniper's nest and the other came from the grassy knoll. It was the match
to the grassy knoll which they said was 95%. Team McAdams says it must be
100% or else it's not really a real shot. I showed that it's actually
99.9%, but he says that's not good enough.

> This is one of the points the HSCA could not just explain away. So in

What's to explain away? Something that's only in your imagination?

> 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

Maybe you're not smart enough to figure it out, but most of us can
figure out that two rifles equals conspiracy.

> 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?
>

Hopefully you don't really think that Buell Frazier was the shooter.

> 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

Well, where was Michael Paine on 11/22/63? Maybe you can make him the
shooter.

> 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.
>

Did you address this to me? I never said that Castro was behind it. I
was the person who revealed the hoaxes which tried pin it on Castro.
I am not ready to name the people who created the hoaxes.

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/cubahoax.htm

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

I am one of the few to reexamine the acoustical analysis. I am the only
person to write a computer program which simulates the echo study and
allows you to run through billions of calculations.

[Sandy McCroskey]

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

[Anthony Marsh]

You're one to talk. You can't even name your frame. You guys have as
many drawings as there are defenders of the SBT. Remember Free Frank
with his bullet going through Connally's thumb?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 8/6/2012 3:45 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Sunday, August 5, 2012 2:46:05 PM UTC-4, Clubking01 wrote:
>> On Sunday, August 5, 2012 9:26:13 AM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> I agree with you about the Oswald evidence, but the SBT supported by
>>
>> "evidence"? What precisely do you mean? The so-called "lapel flip"?
>
> The elongated entry wound on JBC's back is compelling evidence that he was
> struck by a yawing bullet and a yawing bullet is indication the bullet

You think the wound on Kennedy's head was elongated exactly to the same
length and yet you don't claim that was caused by a yawing bullet. What is
that called in English? Oh yeah. Hypocrisy. What did your head shot bullet
hit before it hit Kennedy? Cat got your tongue?

> struck something else before hitting JBC. Since CE399 could only have been

Yeah, struck something else. Like a tree maybe?
Specter demonstrated that there was plenty of room for a bullet to go
above Kennedy's right shoulder and then hit Connally's armpit. Are you
calling Specter a liar?

> fired by rifle found on the 6th floor and JFK's body was the only thing
> between the shooter and JBC, his body was the only thing that could have
> caused the bullet to yaw. In addition we have the conclusions of the

What about the damn oak tree? Are you forgetting about that?

> original medical team and the HSCA review panel that the bullet that
> struck JFK in the back exited from his throat and recreations showed that
> at the moment the bullet struck, JFK and JBC were in perfect allignment
> with the shooter in the TSBD. A bullet exiting JFK's throat could not have
> missed JBC. The clincher for the SBT is the simultaneous reactions by JFK

Which of the many competing drawings do you agree with?
Do you even know that the HSCA's SBT is at Z-190? Is that when you think
the SBT happened? Why are you not brave enough to answer my questions?

> and JBC which began at Z226 when both men simultaneously flipped their
> arms upward. That was two frames after the lapel bulge which is visual

So your SBT is at Z-226? Then you don't believe in the HSCA's SBT or the
WC's SBT. You have your own little pet theory.

> indication of a bullet strike. All these factors taken together present a
> clear and compelling case for the SBT. Doubters have had 48 years to come
> up with a viable alternative and none have been able to do so.
>

You've had 49 years come up with facts and you don't have any. But you
have a pet theory.

[Anthony Marsh]

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

[John McAdams]

On 6 Aug 2012 18:07:44 -0400, Anthony Marsh

<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:

>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.

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

>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.

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

.John

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

[claviger]

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.

[Sandy McCroskey]

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

> If they were looking for 8 shots why didn't they find 8 shots on the
> tape if you think it is so easy?

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.

/sm

[Anthony Marsh]

You know nothing about science and nothing about the acoustical evidence.
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.

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

No, they couldn't. There were only 5 specific times when they had
matches. That is a maximum of 5 possible shots.

>
>> 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.
>

The point is that you evaluate evidence based on your bias. If it says
what you WANT to hear you accept it. Like the NAA. Which is junk science.

> /sm

[Anthony Marsh]

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

[Anthony Marsh]

On 8/6/2012 6:10 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 6 Aug 2012 18:07:44 -0400, Anthony Marsh
> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> 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.
What evidence did you have in mind? Wanna talk about the NAA? Nah, I
didn't think so.

[Sandy McCroskey]

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 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.

> and nothing about the acoustical
> evidence.

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.

/sm

[Sandy McCroskey]

What's next, you gonna prove we landed on the moon?

You gonna prove said moon isn't made of green cheese?

Anybody who ever doubted the Z film was authentic should have a
psychiatric examination.

Of course, you didn't prove anything at all to the kooks who want to
believe the Z film has been altered. And everybody else already knew that.

/sandy

[claviger]

And you still don't get it. The "acoustic evidence" is junk science with
no corroboration.

[bigdog]

And no peer review. The HSCA was intellectually lazy in accepting it at
face value. They were getting ready to close shop when this was dumped on
them at the eleventh hour. Rather than keep the store open and give this
"evidence" the scrutiny it required, they found it easier to just say,
"Ya, ya, fourth shot, probable conspiracy".

[Anthony Marsh]

On 8/7/2012 10:31 AM, bigdog wrote:
> On Monday, August 6, 2012 11:04:43 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
>> On Aug 6, 8:44 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On 8/6/2012 7:49 PM, claviger wrote:
>
>>>> 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

Since when is there peer review in legal testimony? The HSCA asked W&A to
review BBN's work and they said it was valid. There aren't too many other
peers left at those upper levels of the science. Certainly not an FBI
agent or a nuclear physicist.

> face value. They were getting ready to close shop when this was dumped on
> them at the eleventh hour. Rather than keep the store open and give this

Yes, that's the nature of a cover-up. Watergate was being wrapped up as a
third-rate burglary when someone leaked information which reopened it.
Remember that BBN was the company which proved that the Watergate tape was
intentionally erased. Was their work for the Senate committee peer
reviewed? Was their acoustical analysis in the Kent State Massacre case
peer reviewed? You don't even know what peer review is.

> "evidence" the scrutiny it required, they found it easier to just say,
> "Ya, ya, fourth shot, probable conspiracy".
>
>

It has been further scrutinized and found accurate.

[Anthony Marsh]

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.

>> 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.

>
>> 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.

> /sm

[John McAdams]

On 7 Aug 2012 16:47:24 -0400, Anthony Marsh

OK, so they got a lot of matches, many of which were *known* to be
false positives.

And they eliminated as "false positives" matches that didn't fit their
theory.

And you don't see a problem there?

[Sandy McCroskey]

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. "

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.

He has never, nor has anyone from his team, defended the original findings
at any point in the intervening eleven years. Now, if that statement is
wrong, I'm sure you have the citation to prove me wrong at the tip of your
fingers. Let's have it.

>>> 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.
End of story.
/sm

[Anthony Marsh]

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.
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.

>
>
>>>> 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.

> End of story.
> /sm

[Research]

"claviger" <histori...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d92eda5b-53ad-482f...@w14g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...

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!

[bigdog]

Uh, Research, we are anxiously awaiting for you to demonstrate to the LNs
how CTs deal with issues. Not trying to rush you. Take your time. Do it
right. Whenever you are ready.

[Sandy McCroskey]

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

[claviger]

On Aug 8, 11:22 am, "Research" <questio...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "claviger" <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote in message

Snide comments?! These are basic facts on the record. SSA Clint Hill
only heard two shots, the last two.
____________________________________________________________

Testimony Of Clinton J. Hill, Special Agent, Secret Service

Mr. SPECTER. How far back of the President's automobile was the
Presidential followup car when the President's followup car had just
straightened out on Elm Street?
Mr. HILL. Approximately 5 feet.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, as the motorcade proceeded at that point, tell us
what happened.
Mr. HILL. Well, as we came out of the curve, and began to straighten
up, I was viewing the area which looked to be a park. There were
people scattered throughout the entire park. And I heard a noise from
my right rear, which to me seemed to be a firecracker. I immediately
looked to my right and, in so doing, my eyes had to cross the
Presidential limousine and I saw President Kennedy grab at himself and
lurch forward and to the left.
Mr. SPECTER. Why don't you just proceed, in narrative form, to tell
us?
Representative BOGGS. This was the first shot?
Mr. HILL. This is the first sound that I heard; yes, sir. I jumped
from the car, realizing that something was wrong, ran to the
Presidential limousine. Just about as I reached it, there was another
sound, which was different than the first sound. I think I described
it in my statement as though someone was shooting a revolver into a
hard object--it seemed to have some type of an echo. I put my right
foot, I believe it was, on the left rear step of the automobile, and I
had a hold of the handgrip with my hand, when the car lurched forward.
I lost my footing and I had to run about three or four more steps
before I could get back up in the car.
____________________________________________________________
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/hill_c.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

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

[Anthony Marsh]

Hill started his run before the head shot and was running when he heard
the head shot.

[Sandy McCroskey]

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

[Anthony Marsh]

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

[Sandy McCroskey]

"Admit"? Anybody who reads what he actually wrote, *which I posted*, will
come to the same conclusion.

He says "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." (Which has been *shown*, in fact.)

He doesn't say that is not within the realm of possibility and he doesn't
even say that it is wildly improbable that there was no police radio where
he thought there must be. He says maybe somebody will be able to prove
that he was wrong.

Nor has he said anything stronger in defense of his findings since this
e-mail in 2001. Eleven years ago.

/sm

[Anthony Marsh]

If. Hypothetical. Not admitting that it was shown.

> He doesn't say that is not within the realm of possibility and he
> doesn't even say that it is wildly improbable that there was no police
> radio where he thought there must be. He says maybe somebody will be
> able to prove that he was wrong.
>

No, he doesn't. He is saying that so far no one has.

> Nor has he said anything stronger in defense of his findings since this
> e-mail in 2001. Eleven years ago.
>

So what?
Has the WC said anything since 2001?
Has Ramsey defended his panel?

> /sm

[Sandy McCroskey]

OK, so they're clear on that now.

> Has the WC said anything since 2001?

WC hasn't existed for a long time.

> Has Ramsey defended his panel?

No one of any standing has contested it.

/sm

[Research]

"claviger" <histori...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:bbf6ae4d-6e38-4713...@e5g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...

What Hill calls the first shot must have been the second shot. Why didn't he
hear the first rifle shot? He would have been closer to the Dep and the
sound would have to be louder. The shot as he described as the first shot
had to be what the WC the SB. Hill described the second shot (as he
described it-the headshot) as a revolver shot, not a rifle shot from the
depository. But he had to be mistaken cause all three shots came from the
dep. And we know how unrelyable eyewitnesses are. So we can through out his
testimony too.

[Research]

"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:50201e3e$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> On 8/6/2012 12:36 PM, Research wrote:
>> "Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message

> I didn't try to make a mountain out of a mole hill. And no one can make a
> mountain out of a "mold" hill. Just pointing out your sloppiness.
>
>
> It wasn't just that shots were close together. They had the first two
> shots separated by only 1.66 sec. The WC defenders said that proved they
> both could not be real because the rifle could not be reloaded that
> quickly. The major difference was that one of the shots came from the
> sniper's nest and the other came from the grassy knoll.
That's all I was saying. Duh.

>It was the match to the grassy knoll which they said was 95%. Team McAdams
>says it must be 100% or else it's not really a real shot. I showed that
>it's actually 99.9%, but he says that's not good enough.
>
I do agree with you here. But I didn't mean anything except that the HSCA
was about to shore up the WC conclusions when (someone, Steve Barber, I
think) announced finding the Dallas tape. Then the HSCA added a one line 95%
conclusion of a conspiracy.

>> This is one of the points the HSCA could not just explain away. So in
>

> What's to explain away? Something that's only in your imagination?

>
>> 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

> Maybe you're not smart enough to figure it out, but most of us can figure
> out that two rifles equals conspiracy.

I addmitt that I'm not as learnerd as many of researcher and authors here at
THIS forum. If I was and had all the facts, well... Besides I did not read
any articles in the paper saying Anthony Marsh had solved the Kennedy
Assassination? And knowing something and proving something is TWO DIFFERENT
SOMETHINGS.

>

>> 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?
>>
>

> Hopefully you don't really think that Buell Frazier was the shooter.

Here again somebody trying to twist words. But just prove he didn't. There
had to be two depository shooters, just like some unreliable eye witnesses
told the FVI but the evidence didn't make it past JEH.

>
>> 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
>

> Well, where was Michael Paine on 11/22/63? Maybe you can make him the
> shooter.

>
>> 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.
>>
>

> Did you address this to me? I never said that Castro was behind it. I was
> the person who revealed the hoaxes which tried pin it on Castro.
> I am not ready to name the people who created the hoaxes.

It must have been an Oswald hoax. Imagine that Oswald tring to lay the blame
on his supposed idol.

>
> http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/cubahoax.htm

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

> I am one of the few to reexamine the acoustical analysis. I am the only
> person to write a computer program which simulates the echo study and
> allows you to run through billions of calculations.
>
And what was the results of this miracle software?
>

[Sandy McCroskey]

Oops, I mean to say:

OK, so we're clear on this now.

/sm

[Anthony Marsh]

You are only slightly confused. Steve Barber didn't do anything in this
case to help the HSCA. It was Gary Mack who told the HSCA that there were
shots in the DPD tape. The HSCA sent down an investigator who found the
tape tucked away in a safe. After the HSCA found the shots on the tape
then Steve Barber said no they were recorded at the wrong time to be the
real shots.

>>> This is one of the points the HSCA could not just explain away. So in
>>
>> What's to explain away? Something that's only in your imagination?
>>
>>> 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
>
>> Maybe you're not smart enough to figure it out, but most of us can figure
>> out that two rifles equals conspiracy.
>
> I addmitt that I'm not as learnerd as many of researcher and authors here at
> THIS forum. If I was and had all the facts, well... Besides I did not read
> any articles in the paper saying Anthony Marsh had solved the Kennedy
> Assassination? And knowing something and proving something is TWO DIFFERENT
> SOMETHINGS.
>

You missed that Headline in the New York Times?

Gee, you hurt my feelings. If it's not in the NYT it doesn't exist. During
the HSCA all my efforts were behind the scenes. Only after the HSCA report
and volumes were released and I bought and read them was I ready to go
public. I was the only person to confront Steve Barber in person. I was
one of the first people to write to the HSCA and point out their errors. I
have filed several FOIA requests for the DPD tapes which have all been
ignored. When I visited the National Archives and asked to see the HSCA
exhibit copy of the DPD tape I was told it was locked up in a vault and I
would never be allowed to see it.

>>
>
>>> 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?
>>>
>>
>> Hopefully you don't really think that Buell Frazier was the shooter.
>
> Here again somebody trying to twist words. But just prove he didn't. There
> had to be two depository shooters, just like some unreliable eye witnesses
> told the FVI but the evidence didn't make it past JEH.
>

I do not believe it is absolutely necessary, but I tend to think there
were two shooters from behind. I want to analyze that fifth shot that
the HSCA rejected, but the government refuses to release the data.

>>
>>> 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
>>
>> Well, where was Michael Paine on 11/22/63? Maybe you can make him the
>> shooter.
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> Did you address this to me? I never said that Castro was behind it. I was
>> the person who revealed the hoaxes which tried pin it on Castro.
>> I am not ready to name the people who created the hoaxes.
>
> It must have been an Oswald hoax. Imagine that Oswald tring to lay the blame
> on his supposed idol.
>

I'm not sure that anyone has ever proposed that theory that Oswald pulled
a hoax to blame the assassination on Castro. But if you feel up to it and
have a little time on your vacation, go for it. Maybe you could claim that
he pretended to be Pedro Charles.

>>
>> http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/cubahoax.htm
>>
>>> This whole package deal stinks. Go ahead and rely on this bogus evidence
>>> if you want to...
>>>
>>
>>
>> I am one of the few to reexamine the acoustical analysis. I am the only
>> person to write a computer program which simulates the echo study and
>> allows you to run through billions of calculations.
>>
> And what was the results of this miracle software?

The rifle in the sniper's nest was pulled back from the window by about
1.5 from the window and it fired the three shots that the HSCA said came
from the TSBD. Both Don Thomas and I are uncertain about the fifth shot,
but he may think it came from the sniper's nest while I suspect it came
from the next open window, #10.
I think it came too fast after the second shot to be fired from Oswald's
rifle.
It uses the W&A method to confirm the 3 BBN shots.

>>
>
>
>
>

[bigdog]

Well, Research, it looks like this is one issue YOU have chosen to avoid.

[Research]

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

news:5024...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

O.K. Thanks. But that doesn't relinquish the fact the HSCA only recognized
the 95% "probablity" of a conspiracy and did very little to investigate
it.

A lot of people think there was more than the lone nut. Not everybody buys
it. That is what I'm saying. If the dictablt is wrong. Then who did the
math using Zapruder timeline? What was the results? Cause I don't believe
I've heard of such a study? But there may be one.

There we are. That was the whole point.

[Anthony Marsh]

Wrong. The HSCA called in a second team of experts to analyze the grassy
knoll shot.

When they tried to pursue the conspiracy they were shut down by the WC
defenders.

Excuse me? I just said that I did my own analysis. Confirming the three
shots from the sniper's nest.

[Research]

>>>>>>> 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.

Write me a 10,000 word essay explaining why. If you are as smart as you
protest. You are a genius in yo own mind.

>>>> I do agree with you here. But I didn't mean anything except that the
>>>> HSCA
>>>> was about to shore up the WC conclusions when (someone, Steve Barber, I
>>>> think) announced finding the Dallas tape. Then the HSCA added a one
>>>> line
>>>> 95%
>>>> conclusion of a conspiracy.
>>>>
>>> You are only slightly confused. Steve Barber didn't do anything in this
>>> case to help the HSCA. It was Gary Mack who told the HSCA that there
>>> were
>>> shots in the DPD tape. The HSCA sent down an investigator who found the
>>> tape tucked away in a safe. After the HSCA found the shots on the tape
>>> then Steve Barber said no they were recorded at the wrong time to be the
>>> real shots.

That is not what Steve Barber said. I was waiting to see if somebody was
going to call you on this but maybe their asleep again? Steve Barber said
the dictabelt was not reliable. Not because the shots were at the wrong
time. You are wrong about that. He said the Decker's voiceover was at the
wrong time. When Decker ordered his deputies to go up to the knoll. The
Decker voice over was recorded at the wrong time not the rifle shots.

> The HSCA called in a second team of experts to analyze the grassy knoll
> shot.
>When they tried to pursue the conspiracy they were shut down by the WC
>defenders.

How could and outside group shut down a Senate investigation? I don't buy
that.

>>>
>>>>>> This is one of the points the HSCA could not just explain away. So in
>>>>>
>>>>> What's to explain away? Something that's only in your imagination?
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>> Maybe you're not smart enough to figure it out, but most of us can
>>>>> figure
>>>>> out that two rifles equals conspiracy.
>>>>
>>>> I addmitt that I'm not as learnerd as many of researcher and authors
>>>> here
>>>> at
>>>> THIS forum. If I was and had all the facts, well... Besides I did not
>>>> read
>>>> any articles in the paper saying Anthony Marsh had solved the Kennedy
>>>> Assassination? And knowing something and proving something is TWO
>>>> DIFFERENT
>>>> SOMETHINGS.

>>> Gee, you hurt my feelings. If it's not in the NYT it doesn't exist.
>>> During
>>> the HSCA all my efforts were behind the scenes. Only after the HSCA
>>> report
>>> and volumes were released and I bought and read them was I ready to go
>>> public. I was the only person to confront Steve Barber in person. I was
>>> one of the first people to write to the HSCA and point out their errors.
>>> I
>>> have filed several FOIA requests for the DPD tapes which have all been
>>> ignored. When I visited the National Archives and asked to see the HSCA
>>> exhibit copy of the DPD tape I was told it was locked up in a vault and
>>> I
>>> would never be allowed to see it.
>>>
>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hopefully you don't really think that Buell Frazier was the shooter.
>>>>

Here again somebody trying to twist words. BUT JUST PROVE HE DIDN'T. It is
confirmed. Depository witnesses saw Frazier with a high powered rifle in
the dep. the day before the murder.

But there had to be two rear shooters, just like some eyewitnesses and
earwitnesses (marked as "unreliable") told the FBI, but the evidence
didn't make it past JEH. Who was the original lone nut theoriser.

Inches, feet, yards, or what?

>>>from the window and it fired the three shots that the HSCA said came
>>> from the TSBD. Both Don Thomas and I are uncertain about the fifth shot,
>>> but he may think it came from the sniper's nest while I suspect it came
>>> from the next open window, #10.

You just said you did your own study of the accoustical evidence with your
homemade computer software. And that YOU were the only one in the whole
world who proved the three shots came from the depository. Now YOU
claiming there was a fifth shot. (I don't doubt there was a forth and
fifth and maybe a sixth shot like the panel originally reported) I just
don't know how reiable your program is. Never heard of such a study.

[Anthony Marsh]

You haven't even had the common decency to read Steve's research. He says
the Decker cross talk proves that the "shots" on the tape are one minute
after the shooting.

>
>
>> The HSCA called in a second team of experts to analyze the grassy knoll
>> shot.
>> When they tried to pursue the conspiracy they were shut down by the WC
>> defenders.
>
> How could and outside group shut down a Senate investigation? I don't buy
> that.
>

What outside group? The WC defenders in the House.

Silly. Caster was seen with TWO rifles. So what. Doesn't mean he shot
anybody.

> But there had to be two rear shooters, just like some eyewitnesses and
> earwitnesses (marked as "unreliable") told the FBI, but the evidence
> didn't make it past JEH. Who was the original lone nut theoriser.
>

MAYBE. I can't be sure until I analyze the fifth shot.

Not what I said. I said I was the only one in the whole world smart
enough to write a computer simulation of the W&A method of echo correlation.

> claiming there was a fifth shot. (I don't doubt there was a forth and
> fifth and maybe a sixth shot like the panel originally reported) I just
> don't know how reiable your program is. Never heard of such a study.
>

The panel did not originally report 5 or 6 shots.

[Research]

>> Uh, Research, we are anxiously awaiting for you to demonstrate to the LNs
>>
>> how CTs deal with issues. Not trying to rush you. Take your time. Do it
>>
>> right. Whenever you are ready.
>
> Well, Research, it looks like this is one issue YOU have chosen to avoid.
>

Well Dog, It's like this. I'm not a defender of the CTers. Some of their
opinions I don't agree with. Like the nutters, I don't agree with them
either. I DON'T follow anyone blindly. Unlike the WC defenders. They won't
admit there are many discrepancies in the WC conclusions. There are so
many CTer books because of these discrepancies. But you can't write a
nutter book without repeating the WC.

Just like some nutters heavily depended on the Times article claiming
there was only one casket. At the time I was interested in the issue. So I
looked up the article to see what the controversy was. And to see what the
conservative view was. But it wasn't this big-time article. It was a
little bitty paragraph buried in the back of the issue. And really said
nothing at all.

The point here was that the article was uninforming and relied on hearsay,
but the defenders quoted it like it was a holy grail of research. Much
like some of the CTer's claims. When you look up their footnotes, their
big outstanding evidence turns into mush. They either leave out critical
information or downright misquote as to serve their own purposes. AS DO
the nutters. I personally can't put much into either side of the issue.
Except what I have found for myself. And I am doing my own research to my
satisfaction. And NOT Your's or anybody else's. And when I AM READY I
might have something to say. I'm just not going to let you chew me up
until then, if ever. Cause I already see how you are.

Until then I am just researching for the RIGHT true facts. Not opinions.

[bigdog]

Your reply seems like a verbose way of saying you choose not to deal with
the issue at hand, which has nothing to do with the caskets and everything
to do with a viable alternative to the SBT which to date you have yet to
present. Not surprising since in 48 years, no one else has either.

If your search for the truth leads you anywbere except to the conclusions
reached by the WC, you can be sure you have taken a wrong turn somewhere.

[Michael O'Dell]

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

news:50215302$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

> On 8/6/2012 11:03 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
>> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>> On 8/6/2012 7:49 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
>>>> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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...
>>>>>>>>

We've been over this. The basic science of how sound propagates is not at
issue. Yes, Kent State was a very different problem. At Kent State they
knew they had a recording of the event. They knew what the environment was.
They knew where the microphone was. They only had to solve for where the
gunshots came from. Not so with the dictabelt.

Try this. Here's an equation:

A * B + C = D

Now I tell you that A = 5, B = 6, D = 100. Solve for C.

No problem, C = 70.

Now I tell you that A = 8, that's all. Solve for C.

You can't. The principals of math are the same. Nobody is raising a
question about the validity of mathematics, or of acoustics. There are just
too many unknowns to answer the question.

>> 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.
>

He has done very little to defend his work. He hasn't conceded. that's
about all you can say.

He could have done more if he chose. Unlike the rest of us, he's had the
data to work with. Yes, the HSCA was gone and nobody was paying him to do
it, but nobody paid me either. I'd say he didn't have much interest in
clarifying the results for some reason.

>>> 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.
>

Not just like fingerprints.

>>
>>> 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.
>

No. We've been over this too. Show me the *prior expectation* that half
the matches would be false.

Michael


>> /sm
>
>

[Michael O'Dell]

"Research" <quest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:501e...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
> <elpdr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3011a728-1043-47ca...@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 Dallas police dictabelt, as you should know by now, contains no
>> "gunshot evidence". It was been put to bed long ago.
>>
>
> By just saying Colunbus discovered America doesn't make it true. No more
> than saying the world is flat makes it true. If you study history you'll
> find the Chinese discovered America more than a thousand years before
> Columbus. And many others after that and way before 1492. The Polynesians
> for example.
>
> The Europerians was just to scared to venture out. Even before Queen
> Issibella commissioned the 3 ships, Columbus had to prove to her the world
> was not flat. She commissioned 1 ship and Columbus had to sail out past
> the point of no return then return.
>
> So for YOU to say this dumb thing doesn't make it true.
>

He didn't say it was true because he said so. He was just informing you of
it.

Michael

[Michael O'Dell]

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

news:502149d8$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> On 8/7/2012 10:31 AM, bigdog wrote:
>> On Monday, August 6, 2012 11:04:43 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
>>> On Aug 6, 8:44 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> On 8/6/2012 7:49 PM, claviger wrote:
>>
>>>>> 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
>
> Since when is there peer review in legal testimony? The HSCA asked W&A to
> review BBN's work and they said it was valid.

Yes, but W&A's wasn't.

> There aren't too many other peers left at those upper levels of the
> science. Certainly not an FBI agent or a nuclear physicist.
>

We are talking about basic science you could learn in a textbook. Not some
obscure specialization. Yes, a nuclear physicist or even an FBI agent is
capable of handling it.

>
>> face value. They were getting ready to close shop when this was dumped on
>> them at the eleventh hour. Rather than keep the store open and give this
>
>
> Yes, that's the nature of a cover-up. Watergate was being wrapped up as a
> third-rate burglary when someone leaked information which reopened it.
> Remember that BBN was the company which proved that the Watergate tape was
> intentionally erased. Was their work for the Senate committee peer
> reviewed? Was their acoustical analysis in the Kent State Massacre case
> peer reviewed? You don't even know what peer review is.
>
>> "evidence" the scrutiny it required, they found it easier to just say,
>> "Ya, ya, fourth shot, probable conspiracy".
>>
>>
>
> It has been further scrutinized and found accurate.
>
>
>

No, it has been found inaccurate.

Michael

[Michael O'Dell]

"Research" <quest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:5026...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

No that's not right.

Steve observed that the Decker crosstalk happened at the same time the
gunshots were supposed to happen, but the Decker speech happened about a
minute after the assassination. This suggests pretty strongly that those
"gunshots" might not really be gunshots.

Michael

[Michael O'Dell]

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

news:5024...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

What data? The dictabelt is not available to anyone, sure. It's too
fragile. But the recordings are already available. So what exactly is the
government refusing to release that stops you?

Michael

[Anthony Marsh]

How did they know that? Just because a student told them he had recorded
it? The dispatcher in Dallas said that one of the cycles had his
microphone stuck open.
They did not yet know for sure what the temperature or wind speed was at
the time of the shooting.

> They knew where the microphone was. They only had to solve for where the
> gunshots came from. Not so with the dictabelt.
>

They did not know precisely where the microphone was. Only generally
based on what the student told them.

> Try this. Here's an equation:
>
> A * B + C = D
>
> Now I tell you that A = 5, B = 6, D = 100. Solve for C.
>
> No problem, C = 70.
>

You flunked algebra in grade school, didn't you?
Why should we believe you are telling the truth about A and B?

> Now I tell you that A = 8, that's all. Solve for C.
>
> You can't. The principals of math are the same. Nobody is raising a
> question about the validity of mathematics, or of acoustics. There are just
> too many unknowns to answer the question.
>

BBN were the best acoustical scientists in the country, recommended to
the HSCA by the Acoustical Society of America. They realize the
uncertainties and designed a test to reduce them.

>>> 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.
>>
>
> He has done very little to defend his work. He hasn't conceded. that's
> about all you can say.
>

I can say more than that. I can say that he stands by his original work
and you are trying to misrepresent him to push a political agenda.

> He could have done more if he chose. Unlike the rest of us, he's had the

You could have done more. Barger wrote a letter outlining what
additional studies the DOJ could do to resolve the issue. And of course
the DOJ ignore it. And you ignored it. Again, who was the only person on
this planet to write a computer program to recreate the W&A method for
the other shots? Was that you? I didn't think so.

> data to work with. Yes, the HSCA was gone and nobody was paying him to do
> it, but nobody paid me either. I'd say he didn't have much interest in
> clarifying the results for some reason.
>

The DOJ couldn't pay for it, because they were spending all their money
defending the government spies who were accused of torturing babies.

>>>> 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.
>>
>
> Not just like fingerprints.
>

Mr. Weiss: �The principles we used are basically the fundamental
principles in acoustics, namely that sound moves out in all directions,
it is reflected, and the speed of the sound is constant in whatever
direction it may go, so that the farther you are from the source of the
sound, the longer it will take for that sound to reach you, whether or
not it is the original sound or the reflecting echo.�

�In a situation such as an echo generated in Dealey Plaza, you have
reflecting surfaces in the walls of buildings, fences, etc., so if you
have a very short, sharp sound, such as a rifle firing, you would hear
something like � bang, bang, bang, and diminishing in amplitude as you
get echoes over a larger period. If the buildings are the same 15 years
later, as they are in Dealey Plaza, and a rifle is shot form exactly the
same spot, you would have exactly the same sequence of echoes.�

�These acoustical principles have been established a very long time,
they have been known for several hundred years. These are fundamental
things in acoustics, the things taught in high school or undergraduate
level college physics.�

�Bascially we used a large survey map of Dealey Plaza, on a scale of one
inch corresponding to ten feet, a ruler that could be extended, a hand
calculator for computing some very simple things, and an oscilloscope
for observing the wave shapes of the sounds that we get when we played
back the tape recordings, and a device that enabled us to plot these
patterns on paper to examine them in very fine detail.�

�The basic idea is that if a sound heard on the police tape was the
sound of gunfire, then I ought to be able to find a position for that
microphone and a position for that gun such that I could predict a
pattern of echoes that would match the sounds to a high degree of
accuracy. The graph made by the sound of the shot, and the echoes that
were received by the microphone on Dealey Plaza can be likened to
fingerprints. The pattern of sounds is unique and that pattern is as
much a fingerprint that identifies two things � the location of the
sound � the rifle, and the location of the receiver � the microphone.�

�Although they were smudged by noise, we sought to match the
fingerprints we had that had been recorded in 1963. We did that match in
a numerical way that allowed us to score each match. I could then say
that the match of a predicted pattern with the observed pattern is so
close that the probability that the sound is something other than a
gunshot becomes very small.�


Upload your credentials and we'll compare them to Weiss.
Are you a member of the Acoustical Society of America?

>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>
> No. We've been over this too. Show me the *prior expectation* that half
> the matches would be false.
>

Show what? The numbers or the matches? I am only reminding you of what
Dr. Barger said he expected from the test.

Dr. BARGER - Therefore, it would not be unreasonable to expect that
approximately 5 of the remaining 10 correlations were also false alarms.
That would indicate that about one-half of the detections that I did not
previously indicate to be false alarms, about one-half the remaining 10,
are false alarms. This would indicate that the probability that each one
is a correct detection is about one-half.

That was a judgment, and so I said it is close enough to be 50-50 that I
will judge that the false alarm rate in this experiment is 50 percent.

Now, my question. Why are you even here discussing this topic if you
were not even aware of Dr. Barger's testimony?

> Michael
>
>
>>> /sm
>>
>>
>
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

So you say, only because you are a WC defender like Steve Barber. What
is your degree in?

>> There aren't too many other peers left at those upper levels of the
>> science. Certainly not an FBI agent or a nuclear physicist.
>>
>
> We are talking about basic science you could learn in a textbook. Not some
> obscure specialization. Yes, a nuclear physicist or even an FBI agent is
> capable of handling it.
>

No. The FBI embarrassed themselves with their attempt at attacking the
acoustical evidence.

[Anthony Marsh]

The original dictabelt.
The HSCA copy of the DPD tape.
The BBN digitization of the dictabelt.
The BBN printouts of the channel one output which includes the shots.
The laser copy of the dictabelt.

[John Fiorentino]

Anthony says...........

"When the HSCA said two shots were fired within 1.66 sec. the WC defenders
said that was impossible."

I say..........

And just how DID Blakey get that accomplished? And WHY did he NEED that
timing?

Come on Anthony, tells us about those rifle tests for the HSCA.

You know ALL of the details..........

John F.

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

news:501f2f98$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> On 8/5/2012 2:45 PM, deke wrote:
>> Forget about the dictabelt. What about the many people, including police
>> officers, who heard two shots very closely spaced together. Hard to do
>> with a manual bolt action rifle.
>>
>
>
> Forget about your witnesses. They are worthless. Not a single one of them
> said the two shots were spaced less than a second apart. When the HSCA
> said two shots were fired within 1.66 sec. the WC defenders said that was
> impossible.
>
>

[John Fiorentino]

Michael:

Mr. O'Dell is STILL trying to defend the indefensible.

The acoustic "evidence" was, is and forever shall be a sham.

John F.


"Michael O'Dell" <ml...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:502bfc7b$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

[Michael O'Dell]

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

news:502c...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

I see. So saying the acoustic evidence doesn't prove any shots makes one
a "WC defender"? Then there are a lot of CTs that are "WC defenders",
aren't there?

>>> There aren't too many other peers left at those upper levels of the
>>> science. Certainly not an FBI agent or a nuclear physicist.
>>>
>>
>> We are talking about basic science you could learn in a textbook. Not
>> some
>> obscure specialization. Yes, a nuclear physicist or even an FBI agent is
>> capable of handling it.
>>
>
> No. The FBI embarrassed themselves with their attempt at attacking the
> acoustical evidence.
>

Which is not the same as no FBI agent being capable of it.

This is not a subject that requires a high degree of specialization.
Your constant citation of the qualifications of BBN and W&A is just an
appeal to authority.

Apparently you don't mind logical fallicies when they suit your purpose,
eh?

[Michael O'Dell]

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

news:502c37bd$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

The acoustic reconstruction was not based on unknown values. Nice try at
obfuscating though.

>> Try this. Here's an equation:
>>
>> A * B + C = D
>>
>> Now I tell you that A = 5, B = 6, D = 100. Solve for C.
>>
>> No problem, C = 70.
>>
>
> You flunked algebra in grade school, didn't you?
> Why should we believe you are telling the truth about A and B?
>

I did fine thank you. Maxed out the class so hard that I didn't even have
to take the final, in fact, because it wouldn't have affected my grade.
I'm worried about your algebra though. You seem to think the particular
values of A and B are the point here.

>> Now I tell you that A = 8, that's all. Solve for C.
>>
>> You can't. The principals of math are the same. Nobody is raising a
>> question about the validity of mathematics, or of acoustics. There are
>> just
>> too many unknowns to answer the question.
>>
>
> BBN were the best acoustical scientists in the country, recommended to the
> HSCA by the Acoustical Society of America.

We know who they are. It's not a question of authority, it's a question
of mathematics.

> They realize the uncertainties and designed a test to reduce them.
>

But their test didn't reduce them. That's just something you say. There
were too many unknowns in the process.

>>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> He has done very little to defend his work. He hasn't conceded. that's
>> about all you can say.
>>
>
> I can say more than that. I can say that he stands by his original work
> and you are trying to misrepresent him to push a political agenda.
>

He stands by it by not conceding. That's about it.

There is no political agenda connected with the acoustics. Even if there
were, I don't force my analysis to fit a predetermined outcome. The
evidence is what it is.

>> He could have done more if he chose. Unlike the rest of us, he's had the
>
> You could have done more.

I'm not the issue.

> Barger wrote a letter outlining what additional studies the DOJ could do
> to resolve the issue. And of course the DOJ ignore it. And you ignored it.
> Again, who was the only person on this planet to write a computer program
> to recreate the W&A method for the other shots? Was that you? I didn't
> think so.

You aren't the issue either. You know what I did.

>
>> data to work with. Yes, the HSCA was gone and nobody was paying him to
>> do
>> it, but nobody paid me either. I'd say he didn't have much interest in
>> clarifying the results for some reason.
>>
>
> The DOJ couldn't pay for it, because they were spending all their money
> defending the government spies who were accused of torturing babies.
>

Again, not the issue.

>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> Not just like fingerprints.
>>
>

> Mr. Weiss: ?The principles we used are basically the fundamental

> principles in acoustics, namely that sound moves out in all directions, it
> is reflected, and the speed of the sound is constant in whatever direction
> it may go, so that the farther you are from the source of the sound, the
> longer it will take for that sound to reach you, whether or not it is the

> original sound or the reflecting echo.?
>
> ?In a situation such as an echo generated in Dealey Plaza, you have

> reflecting surfaces in the walls of buildings, fences, etc., so if you
> have a very short, sharp sound, such as a rifle firing, you would hear

> something like ? bang, bang, bang, and diminishing in amplitude as you get

> echoes over a larger period. If the buildings are the same 15 years later,
> as they are in Dealey Plaza, and a rifle is shot form exactly the same

> spot, you would have exactly the same sequence of echoes.?
>
> ?These acoustical principles have been established a very long time, they

> have been known for several hundred years. These are fundamental things in
> acoustics, the things taught in high school or undergraduate level college

> physics.?
>
> ?Bascially we used a large survey map of Dealey Plaza, on a scale of one

> inch corresponding to ten feet, a ruler that could be extended, a hand
> calculator for computing some very simple things, and an oscilloscope for
> observing the wave shapes of the sounds that we get when we played back
> the tape recordings, and a device that enabled us to plot these patterns

> on paper to examine them in very fine detail.?
>
> ?The basic idea is that if a sound heard on the police tape was the sound

> of gunfire, then I ought to be able to find a position for that microphone
> and a position for that gun such that I could predict a pattern of echoes
> that would match the sounds to a high degree of accuracy. The graph made
> by the sound of the shot, and the echoes that were received by the
> microphone on Dealey Plaza can be likened to fingerprints. The pattern of
> sounds is unique and that pattern is as much a fingerprint that identifies

> two things ? the location of the sound ? the rifle, and the location of
> the receiver ? the microphone.?
>
> ?Although they were smudged by noise, we sought to match the fingerprints

> we had that had been recorded in 1963. We did that match in a numerical
> way that allowed us to score each match. I could then say that the match
> of a predicted pattern with the observed pattern is so close that the
> probability that the sound is something other than a gunshot becomes very

> small.?
>

Blah, blah, blah. Yes, I know what they said. I also know that it's
wrong. It was not like a fingerprint.

>
> Upload your credentials and we'll compare them to Weiss.
> Are you a member of the Acoustical Society of America?
>

Argument from authority.

>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> No. We've been over this too. Show me the *prior expectation* that half
>> the matches would be false.
>>
>
> Show what? The numbers or the matches? I am only reminding you of what Dr.
> Barger said he expected from the test.
>

Blah, blah some more.

I said, show me the PRIOR EXPECTATION. You keep saying they expected half
the matches to be false alarms. But the only discussion about that, and
the passage you quote, is all about what they said *after the fact*.
There was no expectation in advance that half would be false alarms. You
are wrong.

> Dr. BARGER - Therefore, it would not be unreasonable to expect that
> approximately 5 of the remaining 10 correlations were also false alarms.
> That would indicate that about one-half of the detections that I did not
> previously indicate to be false alarms, about one-half the remaining 10,
> are false alarms. This would indicate that the probability that each one
> is a correct detection is about one-half.
>
> That was a judgment, and so I said it is close enough to be 50-50 that I
> will judge that the false alarm rate in this experiment is 50 percent.
>
> Now, my question. Why are you even here discussing this topic if you were
> not even aware of Dr. Barger's testimony?
>

Why are you discussing it if you don't understand it?


>> Michael
>>
>>
>>>> /sm
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Michael O'Dell]

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

news:502c6cef$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

Is in the archives and is not playable. They are not "refusing to
release" it. They can't make copies. Which doesn't matter because we
already have them.

> The HSCA copy of the DPD tape.

The HSCA had the original media, which is in the archives. BBN made tape
copies, as did the Ramsey panel, and Bowles before them. We have those.

> The BBN digitization of the dictabelt.
> The BBN printouts of the channel one output which includes the shots.

BBN has that material, if it still exists. Not the government.

> The laser copy of the dictabelt.
>

There isn't one.

[Michael O'Dell]

John, that's bizarre. How exactly I am defending the acoustic evidence?

Michael

"John Fiorentino" <jefior...@optimum.net> wrote in message
news:502cf2dc$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

[John Fiorentino]

Oh, then you admit it was a sham?

John F.


"Michael O'Dell" <ml...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:502d7473$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

[Anthony Marsh]

They can make copies. The technology uses a laser instead of a needle.
Want me to send you a copy of the Reader's Digest which published the
article about the method?

http://the-puzzle-palace.com/rdigestmar2005.gif
http://the-puzzle-palace.com/RD1.jpg
http://the-puzzle-palace.com/RD2.jpg
http://the-puzzle-palace.com/RD3.jpg
http://the-puzzle-palace.com/RD4.jpg

>> The HSCA copy of the DPD tape.
>
> The HSCA had the original media, which is in the archives. BBN made tape

I said COPY.

> copies, as did the Ramsey panel, and Bowles before them. We have those.

YOU have those. Because the NAS leaked them to the WC defender while
violating the FOIA to deny they had the tape.

>
>> The BBN digitization of the dictabelt.
>> The BBN printouts of the channel one output which includes the shots.
>
> BBN has that material, if it still exists. Not the government.
>

I suggested to the ARRB that they obtain EVERYTHING that BBN used in its
analysis.

>> The laser copy of the dictabelt.
>>
>
> There isn't one.
>

You don't know that for sure.

[Anthony Marsh]

Before they began their analysis they did not know which weapon fired
which shot or even if there were shots on the tape.

>>> Try this. Here's an equation:
>>>
>>> A * B + C = D
>>>
>>> Now I tell you that A = 5, B = 6, D = 100. Solve for C.
>>>
>>> No problem, C = 70.
>>>
>>
>> You flunked algebra in grade school, didn't you?
>> Why should we believe you are telling the truth about A and B?
>>
>
> I did fine thank you. Maxed out the class so hard that I didn't even have
> to take the final, in fact, because it wouldn't have affected my grade.
> I'm worried about your algebra though. You seem to think the particular
> values of A and B are the point here.
>

That is not what is at issue here.

>
>>> Now I tell you that A = 8, that's all. Solve for C.
>>>
>>> You can't. The principals of math are the same. Nobody is raising a
>>> question about the validity of mathematics, or of acoustics. There are
>>> just
>>> too many unknowns to answer the question.
>>>
>>
>> BBN were the best acoustical scientists in the country, recommended to the
>> HSCA by the Acoustical Society of America.
>
> We know who they are. It's not a question of authority, it's a question
> of mathematics.
>

It's a question of expertise.

>> They realize the uncertainties and designed a test to reduce them.
>>
>
> But their test didn't reduce them. That's just something you say. There
> were too many unknowns in the process.
>

Their test allowed a correlation study.

>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> He has done very little to defend his work. He hasn't conceded. that's
>>> about all you can say.
>>>
>>
>> I can say more than that. I can say that he stands by his original work
>> and you are trying to misrepresent him to push a political agenda.
>>
>
> He stands by it by not conceding. That's about it.
>

As always you refuse to read the evidence in this case.

> There is no political agenda connected with the acoustics. Even if there

Yes, there is. Conservatives argue against the acoustical evidence ONLY
because it indicates conspiracy. If BBN had said exactly three shots
from the TSBD and no more, both YOU and McAdams would have been the
first here to tout the evidence as ruling out conspiracy.

> were, I don't force my analysis to fit a predetermined outcome. The
> evidence is what it is.
>
>>> He could have done more if he chose. Unlike the rest of us, he's had the
>>
>> You could have done more.
>
> I'm not the issue.
>

Yes, you are.

>> Barger wrote a letter outlining what additional studies the DOJ could do
>> to resolve the issue. And of course the DOJ ignore it. And you ignored it.
>> Again, who was the only person on this planet to write a computer program
>> to recreate the W&A method for the other shots? Was that you? I didn't
>> think so.
>
> You aren't the issue either. You know what I did.

Anything to deny conspiracy.

>
>>
>>> data to work with. Yes, the HSCA was gone and nobody was paying him to
>>> do
>>> it, but nobody paid me either. I'd say he didn't have much interest in
>>> clarifying the results for some reason.
>>>
>>
>> The DOJ couldn't pay for it, because they were spending all their money
>> defending the government spies who were accused of torturing babies.
>>
>
> Again, not the issue.

How lame does the DOJ excuse have to be for you to catch on that they
had no intentions of studying the tape?

I am not citing my authority. I am pointing out YOUR lack of qualifications.

>
>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No. We've been over this too. Show me the *prior expectation* that half
>>> the matches would be false.
>>>
>>
>> Show what? The numbers or the matches? I am only reminding you of what Dr.
>> Barger said he expected from the test.
>>
>
> Blah, blah some more.
>
> I said, show me the PRIOR EXPECTATION. You keep saying they expected half

I just did. "Dr. BARGER - Therefore, it would not be unreasonable to
expect . . ."

> the matches to be false alarms. But the only discussion about that, and
> the passage you quote, is all about what they said *after the fact*.
> There was no expectation in advance that half would be false alarms. You
> are wrong.
>
>
>> Dr. BARGER - Therefore, it would not be unreasonable to expect that
>> approximately 5 of the remaining 10 correlations were also false alarms.
>> That would indicate that about one-half of the detections that I did not
>> previously indicate to be false alarms, about one-half the remaining 10,
>> are false alarms. This would indicate that the probability that each one
>> is a correct detection is about one-half.
>>
>> That was a judgment, and so I said it is close enough to be 50-50 that I
>> will judge that the false alarm rate in this experiment is 50 percent.
>>
>> Now, my question. Why are you even here discussing this topic if you were
>> not even aware of Dr. Barger's testimony?
>>
>
> Why are you discussing it if you don't understand it?
>

Why am I the only one here who does understand it?

>
>>> Michael
>>>
>>>
>>>>> /sm
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

No. There are a lot of kooks whose pet theories are disproved by the
acoustical evidence.

>
>>>> There aren't too many other peers left at those upper levels of the
>>>> science. Certainly not an FBI agent or a nuclear physicist.
>>>>
>>>
>>> We are talking about basic science you could learn in a textbook. Not
>>> some
>>> obscure specialization. Yes, a nuclear physicist or even an FBI agent is
>>> capable of handling it.
>>>
>>
>> No. The FBI embarrassed themselves with their attempt at attacking the
>> acoustical evidence.
>>
>
> Which is not the same as no FBI agent being capable of it.

The didn't have any FBI agendt capable of it or they would have used him.

>
> This is not a subject that requires a high degree of specialization.
> Your constant citation of the qualifications of BBN and W&A is just an
> appeal to authority.
>

Then why didn't you do the study?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 8/16/2012 6:18 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
> Anthony says...........
>
> "When the HSCA said two shots were fired within 1.66 sec. the WC
> defenders said that was impossible."
>
> I say..........
>
> And just how DID Blakey get that accomplished? And WHY did he NEED that
> timing?
>

By NOT using Oswald's rifle, but rather a similar rifle which had been
kept in excellent condition. By not aiming.

Others have done the same thing. The Ayoob tests. The nut in the desert
shooting 7 shots in 6 seconds.

[Mitch Todd]

"John Fiorentino" <jefior...@optimum.net> wrote:
> Oh, then you admit it was a sham?

As far as I can remember, Michael O'Dell has always said
that the BBN/WA analyses were wrong. He's really solid
work along that line over the years. Why do you think
otherwise?

[John McAdams]

On 16 Aug 2012 22:14:22 -0400, "Mitch Todd" <recip...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>"John Fiorentino" <jefior...@optimum.net> wrote:
>> Oh, then you admit it was a sham?
>
>As far as I can remember, Michael O'Dell has always said
>that the BBN/WA analyses were wrong. He's really solid
>work along that line over the years. Why do you think
>otherwise?
>
>

An essay of his on my website I would call a classic:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/odell/

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[John Fiorentino]

"By NOT using Oswald's rifle, but rather a similar rifle which had been
kept in excellent condition. By not aiming."

So what are you saying here Anthony?

Are you saying the 1.66 secs was contrived?

If so, then that kind of of blows your "WC defenders" statement.

You know and I know 1.66 is crap. But if you admit that, then your acoustic
"evidence" is crap right?

John F.


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

news:502d93f6$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

[John Fiorentino]

Perhaps I am letting a personal issue interfere with my thinking.

If that is the case, then I apologize.

John F.



"Mitch Todd" <recip...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:502d9767$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

[John Fiorentino]

.John:

Yes, an excellent piece of work.

It raises lots of questions also.

I guess my gripe with all of this is that nobody seems willing to ask them.

John F.




"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:c1br28lgrtussnu0r...@4ax.com...

[Michael O'Dell]

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

news:502d92c0$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

Which, according to your reasoning, makes them "WC defenders". Either
that's what they are, or something is wrong with your labeling scheme.

>>
>>>>> There aren't too many other peers left at those upper levels of the
>>>>> science. Certainly not an FBI agent or a nuclear physicist.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We are talking about basic science you could learn in a textbook. Not
>>>> some
>>>> obscure specialization. Yes, a nuclear physicist or even an FBI agent
>>>> is
>>>> capable of handling it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No. The FBI embarrassed themselves with their attempt at attacking the
>>> acoustical evidence.
>>>
>>
>> Which is not the same as no FBI agent being capable of it.
>
> The didn't have any FBI agendt capable of it or they would have used him.
>

Perhaps. But in principle there's nothing about it that would preclude a
competent FBI analyst from understanding the acoustics. It's not that hard.

>>
>> This is not a subject that requires a high degree of specialization.
>> Your constant citation of the qualifications of BBN and W&A is just an
>> appeal to authority.
>>
>
> Then why didn't you do the study?
>

In 1978? Well, seeing as how I was only a teenager I guess they chose not
to hire me. :-)

But I'm sure you've seen: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/odell

[Anthony Marsh]

On 8/17/2012 9:08 AM, John Fiorentino wrote:
> "By NOT using Oswald's rifle, but rather a similar rifle which had been
> kept in excellent condition. By not aiming."
>
>
> So what are you saying here Anthony?
>
> Are you saying the 1.66 secs was contrived?
>

Yes, are you clever enough to read between the lines?
The HSCA contrived the tests to salvage their acoustical study which
found two shots separated by only 1.66 seconds. Because the professional
naysayers said that proved their "shots" were bogus because Oswald's
rifle could not fire that quickly.
Of course they relied on the highly inaccurate WC tests which were
contrived because they did not yet know the running speed of the
Zapruder film.

> If so, then that kind of of blows your "WC defenders" statement.
>

Well, the WC defenders blow, but is that what you mean? My point was
that the professional naysayers, the WC defenders on the HSCA said the
noises could not really be shots because of the close spacing.

> You know and I know 1.66 is crap. But if you admit that, then your
> acoustic "evidence" is crap right?
>

You don't know because you've never studied the acoustical evidence.
I know the shots are genuine because I studied the TSBD shots using the
method that W&A used for the grassy knoll shot.

[Herbert Blenner]

On Aug 16, 10:30 pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> On 16 Aug 2012 22:14:22 -0400, "Mitch Todd" <recipien...@gmail.com>
> wrote:

>
> >"John Fiorentino" <jefiorent...@optimum.net> wrote:
> >> Oh, then you admit it was a sham?
>
> >As far as I can remember, Michael O'Dell has always said
> >that the BBN/WA analyses were wrong. He's really solid
> >work along that line over the years. Why do you think
> >otherwise?
>
> An essay of his on my website I would call a classic:
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/odell/
>

Michael, your figure two is mislabeled as “Background Power Hum of DPD
Channel 2.” Actually you have fitted the hum from the FBI phonograph
playing of the Audograph disk and should label your figure to properly
indicate the source of the fitted data.

Herbert

> .John
> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[John Fiorentino]

Anthony:

What does the speed of the Zapruder film have to do with how fast you can
operate the rifle?

And sorry, I have studied the acoustics.

John F.



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

news:502e4db1$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

[Anthony Marsh]

No. Unlike you I readily admit that there are kooks on my side of the
debate. As long as someone simply CLAIMS to be a WC defender you will
never dare to criticize him or her.

>>>
>>>>>> There aren't too many other peers left at those upper levels of the
>>>>>> science. Certainly not an FBI agent or a nuclear physicist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We are talking about basic science you could learn in a textbook. Not
>>>>> some
>>>>> obscure specialization. Yes, a nuclear physicist or even an FBI agent
>>>>> is
>>>>> capable of handling it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No. The FBI embarrassed themselves with their attempt at attacking the
>>>> acoustical evidence.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Which is not the same as no FBI agent being capable of it.
>>
>> The didn't have any FBI agendt capable of it or they would have used him.
>>
>
> Perhaps. But in principle there's nothing about it that would preclude a
> competent FBI analyst from understanding the acoustics. It's not that hard.

Too hard for you to do.
How can you duplicate the W&A method when you don't even have an
accurate map of Dealey Plaza. And you have no idea what the speed of
sound was for each shot in the Dealey Plaza tests. You don't even know
what the actual shooting sequence was versus the planned shooting
sequence. You don't even know where each microphone was placed.

>
>>>
>>> This is not a subject that requires a high degree of specialization.
>>> Your constant citation of the qualifications of BBN and W&A is just an
>>> appeal to authority.
>>>
>>
>> Then why didn't you do the study?
>>
>
> In 1978? Well, seeing as how I was only a teenager I guess they chose not
> to hire me. :-)

So, when did you do it? Never. When will you do it? Never.

[John Fiorentino]

Sandy:

Well, it appears Sandy certainly has the guts to voice (his) her opinions.
(Sorry Sandy, I'm not sure if you are male or female)

If one goes back and reads Barger's testimony, it certainly appears that
this "study" failed at the early screening level and perhaps should never
even have been undertaken in the first place.

Coincidence? with the matches, I doubt it. Blakey maneuvered this rather
well.

John F.



"Sandy McCroskey" <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:50204ee5$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

>> If they were looking for 8 shots why didn't they find 8 shots on the tape
>> if you think it is so easy?
>
> 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.
>
> /sm

[John Fiorentino]

Michael says........

"At Kent State they
knew they had a recording of the event."

I say......

This should not be an issue if the science is up to snuff.

John F.




"Michael O'Dell" <ml...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:502bfc7b$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>

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

> news:50215302$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

>> On 8/6/2012 11:03 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
>>> Anthony Marsh wrote:

[Michael O'Dell]

>
>"Herbert Blenner" <a1e...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>news:a5b60007-5cc0-47cd...@c19g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

>On Aug 16, 10:30 pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>> On 16 Aug 2012 22:14:22 -0400, "Mitch Todd" <recipien...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >"John Fiorentino" <jefiorent...@optimum.net> wrote:
>> >> Oh, then you admit it was a sham?
>>
>> >As far as I can remember, Michael O'Dell has always said
>> >that the BBN/WA analyses were wrong. He's really solid
>> >work along that line over the years. Why do you think
>> >otherwise?
>>
>> An essay of his on my website I would call a classic:
>>
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/odell/
>>
>

>Michael, your figure two is mislabeled as ?Background Power Hum of DPD
>Channel 2.? Actually you have fitted the hum from the FBI phonograph

>playing of the Audograph disk and should label your figure to properly
>indicate the source of the fitted data.
>
>Herbert
>

The Audograph contained the channel 2 recording. The FBI phonograph is
what played it back. But the hum being plotted is not from the
phonograph, it is the original hum deposited by the Audograph when it was
recorded.

Michael

[Mitch Todd]

"Herbert Blenner" <a1e...@verizon.net> wrote:
>On Aug 16, 10:30 pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:

>> On 16 Aug 2012 22:14:22 -0400, "Mitch Todd" wrote:
>> >"John Fiorentino" <jefiorent...@optimum.net> wrote:

>> >> Oh, then you admit it was a sham?
>>
>> >As far as I can remember, Michael O'Dell has always said
>> >that the BBN/WA analyses were wrong. He's really solid
>> >work along that line over the years. Why do you think
>> >otherwise?
>>
>> An essay of his on my website I would call a classic:
>>
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/odell/
>>
>

>Michael, your figure two is mislabeled as ?Background Power Hum of DPD
>Channel 2.? Actually you have fitted the hum from the FBI phonograph

>playing of the Audograph disk and should label your figure to properly
>indicate the source of the fitted data.

Herb, the graph shows that the frequency AC hum increases linearly as a
function of time. Had it been the FBI phonograph, it would have been
constant, either at 60 or 120 Hz, depending on the rectifier. Unless you
have some infallable proof that the FBI used some pretty unorthodox AC
systems. ;-)

[Anthony Marsh]

On 8/17/2012 2:31 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
> Michael says........
>
>
> "At Kent State they
> knew they had a recording of the event."
>
> I say......
>
> This should not be an issue if the science is up to snuff.
>

The defense stipulated to the accuracy of the BBN study.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 8/17/2012 2:31 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:

> Sandy:
>
> Well, it appears Sandy certainly has the guts to voice (his) her
> opinions. (Sorry Sandy, I'm not sure if you are male or female)
>
> If one goes back and reads Barger's testimony, it certainly appears that
> this "study" failed at the early screening level and perhaps should
> never even have been undertaken in the first place.
>

In what way did it fail at the early screening? The sequence of messages
on the tape indicates that the place where they found the shot was after
the announcement of approaching the triple underpass and before the order
to go to the hospital. The did not pick a specific time on the tape and
only look there for the shots. They tested matches over a RANGE.

> Coincidence? with the matches, I doubt it. Blakey maneuvered this rather
> well.
>

You don't know the inside story because you were not involved with the
HSCA investigation. Blakey did not want to find shots on the tape and he
was horrified with they found a fourth shot. He was specifically hired to
endorse the WC conclusions.

Finding the grassy knoll shot became known as "Blakey's Problem."

[Anthony Marsh]

On 8/17/2012 2:29 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
> Anthony:
>
> What does the speed of the Zapruder film have to do with how fast you
> can operate the rifle?
>

The CIA and LIFE were trying to figure out the spacing of the shots, but
they were not sure if the Zapruder film was shot at the old standard 16
frames per second or the new standard 18 frames per second. No one had yet
had time to test the speed of the camera. They they drew up charts with
possible shots at different spacings, first with assuming 16 frames per
second and then at 18 frames per second.

They thought the second shot was at frame 264 and the third shot was
obviously at frame 312. That gives a spacing of 48 frames. At 18 frames
per second that gives the shooter only 2.7 seconds to get off two shots.
At 16 frames per second it would give him 3 seconds to get off two shots.
Could the rifle be fired that fast? Didn't know, so they needed to test
it.

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/CIA-NPIC.pdf

[Michael O'Dell]

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

news:502e8292$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

You obviously have not been paying attention. But you still miss the
point. Fine, there are kooks. But according to the logic with which use
the "WC defender" label, any kook who also doesn't believe the acoustics
is one. Try to focus Tony.

>>>>
>>>>>>> There aren't too many other peers left at those upper levels of the
>>>>>>> science. Certainly not an FBI agent or a nuclear physicist.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We are talking about basic science you could learn in a textbook.
>>>>>> Not
>>>>>> some
>>>>>> obscure specialization. Yes, a nuclear physicist or even an FBI
>>>>>> agent
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> capable of handling it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No. The FBI embarrassed themselves with their attempt at attacking the
>>>>> acoustical evidence.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which is not the same as no FBI agent being capable of it.
>>>
>>> The didn't have any FBI agendt capable of it or they would have used
>>> him.
>>>
>>
>> Perhaps. But in principle there's nothing about it that would preclude a
>> competent FBI analyst from understanding the acoustics. It's not that
>> hard.
>
> Too hard for you to do.

So you wish. :-)

> How can you duplicate the W&A method when you don't even have an accurate
> map of Dealey Plaza. And you have no idea what the speed of sound was for
> each shot in the Dealey Plaza tests. You don't even know what the actual
> shooting sequence was versus the planned shooting sequence. You don't even
> know where each microphone was placed.
>

Wow, you are behind. Or are you going for humor here?

>>
>>>>
>>>> This is not a subject that requires a high degree of specialization.
>>>> Your constant citation of the qualifications of BBN and W&A is just an
>>>> appeal to authority.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Then why didn't you do the study?
>>>
>>
>> In 1978? Well, seeing as how I was only a teenager I guess they chose
>> not
>> to hire me. :-)
>
> So, when did you do it? Never. When will you do it? Never.
>

When am I going to go out and shoot rifles in Dealey Plaza? No, never.
But why are you being so absurd? Afraid to talk about the evidence?

[John Fiorentino]

I'm not talking about Kent State Tony.

John F.

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

news:502ed8a8$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

[John Fiorentino]

You've been "had" my good man.

As for Barger, why don't you go back and read his testimony?

I'll paraphrase because I don't have it in front of me.

He was asked about finding *other* similar impulses on the
recording.........his answer...YES............The only difference being in
their DURATION.

John F.



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

news:502eda67$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

[John Fiorentino]

You didn't answer my question.

John F.


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

news:502ee0b0$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...