A Letter From Dr. Ramsey WRT Acoustics
Russell Burr
Barber are writing a book. Dr. Ramsey gave Tim permission to for me to
post this to any interested parties.
Russ
*********************************************************
Dear Mr. Smith:
Thank you for your e-mail
I am glad to hear that you are working on a book with Steve
Barber.
Unfortunately I had only single copies of the Dictabelt and
Audograpph photos and I lent them to Steve Barber, who lent them in turn
to someone who did not return them. I do not know where I got them or
where I could obtain replacement copies.
Most of your questions are answered in our committee report.
Unfortunately I no longer have a spare copy, but I believe Steve Barber
has a copy and would probably be willing to share it with you. The
National Academy of Sciences at 2101 Constitution Avenue,n.w., Washington,
DC may still have additional copies, but I doubt it. If Steve does not
have a copy, please let me know.
If you will send me your mail address I will be glad to send you a
copy of a publication in "Science" which gives a very br1ef but excellent
summary of our report.
As concerns your remark "...I am simply amazed that it [the BBN
interpretation] is actually acknowledged as legitimate. In scientific
circles and among those who have studied our report with care, the BBN
interpretation is not acknowledged as legitimate. As you correctly state,
the crosstalk nullifies their claim. Steve Barber originally called our
attention to the crosstalk and our committe in several different ways
conclusively showed that the crosstalk was legitimate Barger of BBN for a
long time refused to recognize the validity of the cross talk data, but
after a year or more and an independent study by an outside contractor
fully confirmed our results he reluctantly agreed that the cross talk was
valid. He then sought refuge in the possibility that the original
Dictabelt on which all copies were based was itself a later copy and the
cross talk was accidentally picked up while the copy was being made. In
our report we show this hypothesis was not only extremely unlikely but
contrary to evidence on the recording itself. In a much later letter to
the former Chief of Staff of the House Select Committee Barger changed his
defense to one that can always be used: he said that there should be
further studies. Our Committee concluded that the evidence against the
BBN interpretation was already so overwhelming that further studies of the
accoustic evidence would be a waste of money. Although we always sent
Barger copies of our reports and invited his comments he did not send us a
copy of that letter and I first heard of it may years later. If he had
sent it to me I would have agreed that in any scientific project one can
always spend more money on additional studies but that in this case the
evidence was already so overwhelming that it would be a bad investment.
As concerns your last question, Bargers 50% probability was based
on a totally erroneous statistical calculation as shown in our report.
W&A analyzed the noise impulses for only the set attributed to a single
shot and they in fact selected a different set of pulses for it than had
BBN. Furthermore W&A emphasize that there is nothing on the recording
that sounds like shots. Their analysis is based on a theoretical attempt
to relate the pulses to possible building echoes. As shown in our report
their analysis also contains serious statistical errors.
These questions are further discussed in some correspondence I
have had subsequent to our report, I would be glad to send you copies of
this correspondence, Since Steve Barber has not yet seen much of this
correspondence, I would appreciate your sharing it with him or giving him
copies.
Sincerely,
Norman Ramsey
On Sat, 5 Aug 2000, Tim Smith wrote:
> Prof. Ramsey,
>
>
> I thought I would introduce myself and let you know just a little bit
> about what Steve Barber and I are working on as far as the acoustical
> studies are concerned. He told me that he contacted you about the
> pictures of the dictabelt and audograph. They would be great for the
> book we are constructing. No one, to my knowledge, has ever published
> them. It would be good for people to see exactly what they looked like.
>
> I presently teach at a Junior College in SW Lower Michigan (Southwestern
> Michigan College). I teach Philosophy, History, Literature, and World
> Religions. I've been here about 13 years. My wife and I have 5
> children, so we are busy, as you can imagine. She is an accountant for
> one of the local public schools.
>
> Steve and I are formulating a guide to the 52 witnesses that gave public
> testimony during the stay of the HSCA. The acoustical studies are
> obviously quite important, since it directed the committee toward a
> conspiracy. It is probably where most of our emphasis will be going.
>
> The more I study the acoustics I am simply amazed that it is actually
> acknowledged as legitimate. (1) The crosstalk seems to nullify any
> shots taking place where BBN say they were, especially when there is
> crossstalk in at least three other places that I am aware of. This
> alone would negate any possibility of dubbing or conspiracy. (2) We
> know McLain didn't reach down and turn a mike on because the mike was
> located on the handlebars, not down by his foot! I am sure you are
> aware of all this, but just wanted to show that a layman can see the
> holes in their arguments.
>
> Question:
>
> (1) Why did Barger say 50% probability, and then W & A come along and
> say 95% probability? Then the NAS comes along and says 0%. In other
> words, how could Barger, Weiss, & A. say any % probability at all when
> there are no gun shots there, and the NAS then confirms there were no
> gunshots there either? Why such a mixup? This is the kind of question
> I get asked all of the time when the acoustics business comes up. Any
> help will be greatly appreciated.
>
> Thank you for your time Dr. Ramsey. I appreciate you taking the time to
> try and locate the pictures of the dictabelt and the audograph. They
> will be a nice bonus to the book. Let me know if I can send a question
> or two to you occasionally for clarification.
>
> Take care and be well,
>
> Tim Smith
>