~~Marsh tell us: Exactly what recording device was actually *ON* in DP?~~
eca...@tx.rr.com
"Sandy you are 100% correct. There was unfortunately
no recording device in operation in DP on 11-22-63.
A few like Marsh like to cling to that idea but
they make some ambiguous comment and head for the exit
when it comes time for show and tell. The top experts
on acoustics and I'm sure I'll leave out a few, all
agree there is no clear and convincing evidence of a
recording of any sort at DP. Todd Vaughan, Steve Barber,
Dale Myers, Michael O'Dell, and jwrush (See below) each
*specialized* in this important topic.. But Alas! Just
like the CTers decades long search for a "*CONSPIRACY*"..
No CT ever survived even after thousands of books and
tens of thousands of researchers including the FBI and
CIA.. Same goes for a DP recording. There wasn't one."
MARSH REBUTTAL:
"You call them experts only because they are WC defenders. The top
experts are BBN and Weiss and Aschkenazy."
Tony you claim things..(Then you split when challenged!)
For example you have recently claimed "Helms" was behind
the Kennedy assassination and "Frank Bender" was the
shooter.. (Paraphrased from memory) But when I ask you
to elaborate you used variations of "Learn to Google" 3
times in a row! Then hit the exit..
It would be *refreshing* if you could back up a claim..
So why not share in detail with us exactly what recording
device was actually *ON* in DP?
Ed Cage
1628Aug2007
Herbert Blenner
> ED CAGE ON:
> "Sandy you are 100% correct. There was unfortunately
> no recording device in operation in DP on 11-22-63.
In fact the FBI determined that a tape recorder did operate in DP but
not at the time of the shots. Likewise, the Audograph recorded
transmissions from DP, which were not synchronous with the shooting.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/locations/tracktwo0087.wav
> A few like Marsh like to cling to that idea but
> they make some ambiguous comment and head for the exit
> when it comes time for show and tell. The top experts
> on acoustics and I'm sure I'll leave out a few, all
> agree there is no clear and convincing evidence of a
> recording of any sort at DP. Todd Vaughan, Steve Barber,
> Dale Myers, Michael O'Dell, and jwrush (See below) each
> *specialized* in this important topic..
I certainly hope that the listed people know the difference a recorder
and a microphone.
> But Alas! Just
> like the CTers decades long search for a "*CONSPIRACY*"..
> No CT ever survived even after thousands of books and
> tens of thousands of researchers including the FBI and
> CIA.. Same goes for a DP recording. There wasn't one."
So after thirty years, nobody has produced any evidence to show that a
motorcycle or other engine was the source of the loud interference
recorded on the Dictabelt.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/trackone00670068.wav
In fact nobody has even tried. Instead they told us a incredible story
about a microphone getting stuck and recording sounds of gunfire.
Apparently this cover story worked wonders and nobody, except Herbert,
complains that they had
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/engine.htm
Herbert
Gerry Simone (O)
communiqués are highly technical and you'll loose the average CTer,
including me (maybe that's why the LNers on the opposite side have done a
good job at challenging the evidence of BBN, W & A, and D.B. Thomas).
I take it you agree with these latter-named experts?
"Herbert Blenner" <a1e...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1187674046....@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
eca...@tx.rr.com
> "Sandy you are 100% correct. There was unfortunately
> no recording device in operation in DP on 11-22-63.
HERBERT'S RESPONSE:
"In fact the FBI determined that a tape recorder did
operate in DP but not at the time of the shots.
Likewise, the Audograph recorded transmissions from
DP, which were not synchronous with the shooting."
OFF
So Herbert, is it fair to say that you too are unable
to offer any recording from DP? Don't feel bad Marsh
has the same problem: There is no known audio of the
assassination in DP.
` None.
` Zip.
` 0.
Ed
1439Aug2107
August 21, 2007 marks my wife and I's 36th wedding
anniversary.
> > 1628Aug2007- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Herbert Blenner
> > ED CAGE ON:
> > "Sandy you are 100% correct. There was unfortunately
> > no recording device in operation in DP on 11-22-63.
>
> "In fact the FBI determined that a tape recorder did
> operate in DP but not at the time of the shots.
> Likewise, the Audograph recorded transmissions from
> DP, which were not synchronous with the shooting."
> OFF
>
> So Herbert, is it fair to say that you too are unable
> to offer any recording from DP?
So Ed, is it fair to say that you "accidentally" missed the link to
the recording made from DP and purposefully sniped it.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/locations/tracktwo0087.wav
The DPD recorded transmissions from DP immediately before and after
the assassination, so you have wasted a month hopping from one thread
to another making a statement that shows your ignorance of the
acoustic evidence.
> Don't feel bad Marsh
> has the same problem: There is no known audio of the
> assassination in DP.
> ` None.
> ` Zip.
> ` 0.
>
Apparently so because you have now moved the goalpost from "no
recording device in DP" to "audio of the assassination in DP."
I guess you are more comfortable playing games than defending
reception of the alleged crosstalk by the Dictaphone at approximately
12:30 PM of November 22, 1963.
Herbert
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Herbert Blenner
wrote:
> Herbert, I think you are truly an expert in this field, although your
> communiqués are highly technical and you'll loose the average CTer,
> including me (maybe that's why the LNers on the opposite side have done a
> good job at challenging the evidence of BBN, W & A, and D.B. Thomas).
>
> I take it you agree with these latter-named experts?
I do not accept the conspiratorial conclusions of BBN and W&A since
the same evidence of tampering that discredits the alleged crosstalk
also taints the pulse patterns attributed to gunfire in DP.
As for the Lners, they have done nothing to challenge the evidence
presented by BBN showing that three proven tests failed to recognize
the loud interference as engine sounds. So in reality the Lners have
done nothing to counter the evidence of an intentional jamming of the
primary channel for police communications immediately before, during
and after the assassination of President Kennedy.
So the pivotal question becomes why did the critics of the acoustic
evidence shun an analysis of the loud interference on the Dictabelt?
If the Ramsey Panel showed that a buzz saw was the source then they
would have blown BBN and W &A out of the House. Likewise identifying
the source as a vacuum cleaner would have had the same effect. But if
they showed that the source of the interference was a motorcycle then
the engine could have been far removed from DP at the Trade Mart.
Apparently the panel had nothing to loose and everything to gain by
analyzing the loud interference, provided of course that the source
was not a wide band frequency modulation of audio, otherwise known as
a jammer.
Herbert
>
> "Herbert Blenner" <a1ea...@aol.com> wrote in message
Gerry Simone (H)
Can you give me a briefing on this and the conspiratorial conclusions?
"Herbert Blenner" <a1e...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1187757791.3...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
eca...@tx.rr.com
made the same claims with others.. Then I post a
solid rebuttal (which I don't mind doing AGAIN btw)
but could you at least:
` ****FIRST****
` POST THE SOURCE AND POSITION OF THE RECORDING
` DEVICE IN DP?
` Respectfully,
` Ed
` 1249Aug2207
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
John Fiorentino
> "You call them experts only because they are WC defenders. The top
> experts are BBN and Weiss and Aschkenazy."
I'm afraid these boys will have to answer some very hard questions about
their work.
For instance: How is it possible waveforms produced by the re-enactment
"matched" impulses on the tape at all?
The re-enactment recordings were the captured sounds of gunfire. The
"impulses" were static.
How could those "impulses" possibly be "synchronized" with the Z-film when
they weren't even generated contemporaneous to the assassination?
Just HOW did Blakey arrange for the convenient "synchronization"?
Why wasn't the ENTIRE tape analyzed for similar "impulses"?
Why did the original Barger analysis even continue when it FAILED one of
the initial criteria instituted by Barger himself?
Just HOW could W&A come up with a 95% probability of gunfire from the
knoll when there weren't even any contemporaneously recorded impulses on
the tape?
I could go on, but I think everyone gets the picture.
John F.
<eca...@tx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1187645930.3...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Herbert Blenner
> Herbert we've been over this before.. And you've
> made the same claims with others.. Then I post a
> solid rebuttal (which I don't mind doing AGAIN btw)
> but could you at least:
>
> ` ****FIRST****
> ` POST THE SOURCE AND POSITION OF THE RECORDING
> ` DEVICE IN DP?
>
> ` Respectfully,
> ` Ed
> ` 1249Aug2207
I have complied with the request to produce a recording made from DP
and you have ignored my response. Now you have the audacity to pretend
I failed to comply.
For the benefit of readers, I post repost.
> > ED CAGE ON:
> > "Sandy you are 100% correct. There was unfortunately
> > no recording device in operation in DP on 11-22-63.
> HERBERT'S RESPONSE:
> "In fact the FBI determined that a tape recorder did
> operate in DP but not at the time of the shots.
> Likewise, the Audograph recorded transmissions from
> DP, which were not synchronous with the shooting."
> OFF
> So Herbert, is it fair to say that you too are unable
> to offer any recording from DP?
So Ed, is it fair to say that you "accidentally" missed the link to
the recording made from DP and purposefully sniped it.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/locations/tracktwo0087.wav
The DPD recorded transmissions from DP immediately before and after
the assassination, so you have wasted a month hopping from one thread
to another making a statement that shows your ignorance of the
acoustic evidence.
End of repost.
Herbert
Anthony Marsh
> MARSH REBUTTAL:
>> "You call them experts only because they are WC defenders. The top
>> experts are BBN and Weiss and Aschkenazy."
>
> I'm afraid these boys will have to answer some very hard questions about
> their work.
>
> For instance: How is it possible waveforms produced by the re-enactment
> "matched" impulses on the tape at all?
>
The only reason you ask questions like that is because you do not
understand the science involved.
> The re-enactment recordings were the captured sounds of gunfire. The
> "impulses" were static.
>
Some of the impulses on the tape are static. But the matched occur where
there are loud impulsive sounds.
> How could those "impulses" possibly be "synchronized" with the Z-film
> when they weren't even generated contemporaneous to the assassination?
>
One can synchronize the impulses by deciding which impulse matches which
event on the film.
> Just HOW did Blakey arrange for the convenient "synchronization"?
>
Blakey was shocked when Barge found the shots on the tape.
> Why wasn't the ENTIRE tape analyzed for similar "impulses"?
>
Only the section where the microphone was stuck open was analyzed
because it would be highly unlikely that shots in Dealey Plaza would be
recorded when the microphone was not stuck open.
> Why did the original Barger analysis even continue when it FAILED one of
> the initial criteria instituted by Barger himself?
>
What are you mumbling about?
> Just HOW could W&A come up with a 95% probability of gunfire from the
> knoll when there weren't even any contemporaneously recorded impulses on
> the tape?
>
The 95% was based on their actually identifying the echo paths.
> I could go on, but I think everyone gets the picture.
>
We get the fact that you don't know what you are talking about.
Herbert Blenner
wrote:
> MARSH REBUTTAL:
>
> > "You call them experts only because they are WC defenders. The top
> > experts are BBN and Weiss and Aschkenazy."
>
> I'm afraid these boys will have to answer some very hard questions about
> their work.
>
> For instance: How is it possible waveforms produced by the re-enactment
> "matched" impulses on the tape at all?
Either the Dictaphone recorded gunshots from Dealey Plaza or a studio
added the suspect pulse patterns to the acoustic record. These choices
are physically necessary consequences of the special nature of the
limiting pulses on the Dictabelt.
Playing a wave file of these limiting pulses at progressively slower
speeds provides audible evidence of the special nature of these
pulses.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/limitingpulses.wav
Reducing playing speed dramatically lowers the pitch of the voice and
has a similar effect upon a brief heterodyne and the background noise.
However, the pitch of the limiting pulses initially resist lowering
and change slightly at greatly reduced playing speeds. This
demonstration shows that the high frequency contents of the limiting
pulses are widely dispersed and extremely rich. These uncommon
characteristics are further evidence that these special pulses are the
responses of the radio system to impulses generated by the limiting
circuit in audio stage of the transmitter.
BBN documented a level of 100 db re 2 X 10^-5 Newton per square meter
at the microphone as the threshold for activation of the limiting
circuit. This means that ears in the vicinity of that microphone would
have heard sounds reminiscent of moderately distant gunfire. At
approximately 12:30 PM of November 22, 1963, Dealey Plaza was the
only location in Dallas where people reported gunfire.
>
> The re-enactment recordings were the captured sounds of gunfire. The
> "impulses" were static.
Static afflicts AM systems and would not have been heard on the FM
receivers used by the DPD. Further the playing of the suspect patterns
at progressively slower speeds shows that the limiting pulses
attributed to gunfire have a far richer high frequency content than
the loud interference, a human voice and a receiver generated
heterodyne.
>
> How could those "impulses" possibly be "synchronized" with the Z-film when
> they weren't even generated contemporaneous to the assassination?
>
> Just HOW did Blakey arrange for the convenient "synchronization"?
>
> Why wasn't the ENTIRE tape analyzed for similar "impulses"?
Barger analyzed the entire tape for the presence of pulses above an
arbitrary threshold. This preliminary screening produced many false
alarms. The purpose of this screening was to include for further
analysis patterns without limiting pulses. I believe none were found.
>
> Why did the original Barger analysis even continue when it FAILED one of
> the initial criteria instituted by Barger himself?
I wonder if you tried hardier whether you could be more vague?
>
> Just HOW could W&A come up with a 95% probability of gunfire from the
> knoll when there weren't even any contemporaneously recorded impulses on
> the tape?
The analysis came up with a 95% probability that a source other than
random noise generated pulses within one millisecond of those recorded
on the Dictabelt. This analysis considered only the time of occurrence
and ignored the extreme rareness of limiting pulses found on the
Dictabelt.
>
> I could go on, but I think everyone gets the picture.
If you were prepared to criticize the 95% probability then you would
have noted that the finite bandwidth of the DPD radio system
invalidated the statistical assumption that the probability of a noise
pulse within a given interval is independent of the occurrence of a
noise pulse in another interval.
Herbert
>
> John F.
>
> <ecag...@tx.rr.com> wrote in message
Herbert Blenner
wrote:
> Tampering? Oh brother, another wrinkle in this complicated debate.
The Ramsey Panel considered whether an accidental or an intentional
playing of the Audograph disk during taping of the Dictabelt
introduced crosstalk. Sadly, they interpreted evidence of intentional
tampering as its exact opposite. The Watson Research Center argued
that heterodynes activated the AGC in the IF amplifier and reduced
amplitudes of simultaneously received signals. In order to effect this
reversal the critics of the acoustic evidence misrepresented the DPD
FM radio system as AM.
For example, the heterodyne accompanying the pulse pattern attributed
to the third shot shows strong shaping by AGC action.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/trackone0157.jpg
The heterodyne on the above oscillograph spans the region between 5.5
and 6.5 divisions from the left. AGC action halved the amplitude of
heterodyne and acted at a diminishing rate. This behavior is typical
of AGC.
However, filtering the heterodyne reveals underlying signals with
nearly constant amplitudes.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/notchedtrackone0157.jpg
So a simple notch filter impeaches the AGC argument of the acoustic
critics and provides evidence, not proof, of tampering. The proof of
the tampering can be found in the thread, "Do you still believe the
Ramsey Panel."
>
> Can you give me a briefing on this and the conspiratorial conclusions?
The conspiratorial conclusions of BB&N and W &A were that the
Dictablet showed three shots from the TSBD and one shot from the
Grassy Knoll. They ignored the question of whether the Dictaphone
recorded the pulse patterns attributed to gunfire at approximately
12:30 PM on November 22, 1963 or were later added to the acoustic
record by a studio.
Herbert
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
eca...@tx.rr.com
(REEeally good.) I know 5 star and 1 star
ratings are handed out like pop-corn in here..
But as per always, your points Mr Fiorentino,
are dead on challenges that cut to the heart
of this Oh-so-stale hunt for a completely
nonexistent DP recording.
` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
As for Herbert: I'm afraid you once again,
failed to answer my question on this just
as you have repeatedly SKIPPED OUT before..
Can it be you think nobody will notice? Can
it be (most likely imo) that you are unable
or unwilling to post the *source* and *position*<========
of your alleged DP (har-har) "recording?"
Pay careful attention Herbert:
1) Herbert, NG readers are not stewpit. They
can spot a duck-out/diversion routine.
2) What was the *source* of your alleged
DP recording?: _________________________
3) What was the *position* of your alleged
DP recording?: _________________________
MR >;~{ ED
Ed Cage
0901Aug2307
On Aug 23, 12:18 am, "John Fiorentino" <johnfiorent...@optonline.net>
wrote:
> MARSH REBUTTAL:
>
> > "You call them experts only because they are WC defenders. The top
> > experts are BBN and Weiss and Aschkenazy."
>
> I'm afraid these boys will have to answer some very hard questions about
> their work.
>
> For instance: How is it possible waveforms produced by the re-enactment
> "matched" impulses on the tape at all?
>
> The re-enactment recordings were the captured sounds of gunfire. The
> "impulses" were static.
>
> How could those "impulses" possibly be "synchronized" with the Z-film when
> they weren't even generated contemporaneous to the assassination?
>
> Just HOW did Blakey arrange for the convenient "synchronization"?
>
> Why wasn't the ENTIRE tape analyzed for similar "impulses"?
>
> Why did the original Barger analysis even continue when it FAILED one of
> the initial criteria instituted by Barger himself?
>
> Just HOW could W&A come up with a 95% probability of gunfire from the
> knoll when there weren't even any contemporaneously recorded impulses on
> the tape?
>
> I could go on, but I think everyone gets the picture.
>
> John F.
>
> <ecag...@tx.rr.com> wrote in message
eca...@tx.rr.com
"The conspiratorial conclusions of BB&N and W &A
from the TSBD and one shot from the Grassy Knoll."
Again, Herbert:
1) What was the *source* of your alleged
DP recording?: _________________________
2) What was the *position* of your alleged
DP recording?: _________________________
It's not enough to just say, "the Dictablet" (sic)
Herbert.. Is that the reason you are a little
shy about saying, "Officer HB McLain?" Well if
that's the reason you don't want to name your
*source* and *position* I can't blame you.. It
certainly appears you are reluctantly aware:
A) The *source* was not McLain's mike.
B) Even if it had been, McLain has been *PROVEN*
to be out of *position*
MR >;~{ ED
0921Aug2307
Anthony Marsh
> On Aug 22, 11:22 pm, "Gerry Simone \(H\)" <newdecent...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Tampering? Oh brother, another wrinkle in this complicated debate.
>
> The Ramsey Panel considered whether an accidental or an intentional
> playing of the Audograph disk during taping of the Dictabelt
> introduced crosstalk. Sadly, they interpreted evidence of intentional
> tampering as its exact opposite. The Watson Research Center argued
> that heterodynes activated the AGC in the IF amplifier and reduced
> amplitudes of simultaneously received signals. In order to effect this
> reversal the critics of the acoustic evidence misrepresented the DPD
> FM radio system as AM.
>
AM and FM are two entirely different systems. Please cite and quote
where they claim the DPD radio system was AM.
> For example, the heterodyne accompanying the pulse pattern attributed
> to the third shot shows strong shaping by AGC action.
>
> http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/trackone0157.jpg
>
> The heterodyne on the above oscillograph spans the region between 5.5
> and 6.5 divisions from the left. AGC action halved the amplitude of
> heterodyne and acted at a diminishing rate. This behavior is typical
> of AGC.
>
> However, filtering the heterodyne reveals underlying signals with
> nearly constant amplitudes.
>
> http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/notchedtrackone0157.jpg
>
> So a simple notch filter impeaches the AGC argument of the acoustic
> critics and provides evidence, not proof, of tampering. The proof of
> the tampering can be found in the thread, "Do you still believe the
> Ramsey Panel."
>
>> Can you give me a briefing on this and the conspiratorial conclusions?
>
> The conspiratorial conclusions of BB&N and W &A were that the
> Dictablet showed three shots from the TSBD and one shot from the
> Grassy Knoll. They ignored the question of whether the Dictaphone
> recorded the pulse patterns attributed to gunfire at approximately
> 12:30 PM on November 22, 1963 or were later added to the acoustic
> record by a studio.
>
So is that your theory? That conspirators later added real shots to the
tape? Why would they do that? And I remind you that the shots would have
to match the echo patterns in Dealey Plaza, so when did the conspirators
go back to Dealey Plaza and record test shots?
Anthony Marsh
> On Aug 23, 1:18 am, "John Fiorentino" <johnfiorent...@optonline.net>
> wrote:
>> MARSH REBUTTAL:
>>
>>> "You call them experts only because they are WC defenders. The top
>>> experts are BBN and Weiss and Aschkenazy."
>> I'm afraid these boys will have to answer some very hard questions about
>> their work.
>>
>> For instance: How is it possible waveforms produced by the re-enactment
>> "matched" impulses on the tape at all?
>
> Either the Dictaphone recorded gunshots from Dealey Plaza or a studio
> added the suspect pulse patterns to the acoustic record. These choices
But for your bizarre theory to work the conspirators would need to
duplicate ALL the conditions in Dealey Plaza from 11/22/63. As one of
the articles I posted noted, the acoustical scientists were even able to
detect the echoes off one of the Press buses rounding the corner. You
can't get that level of detail by recording tests shots.
http://the-puzzle-palace.com/BH12_22_78p10.jpg
That makes no sense. Static also affects FM signals.
> at progressively slower speeds shows that the limiting pulses
> attributed to gunfire have a far richer high frequency content than
> the loud interference, a human voice and a receiver generated
> heterodyne.
>
>> How could those "impulses" possibly be "synchronized" with the Z-film when
>> they weren't even generated contemporaneous to the assassination?
>>
>> Just HOW did Blakey arrange for the convenient "synchronization"?
>>
>> Why wasn't the ENTIRE tape analyzed for similar "impulses"?
>
> Barger analyzed the entire tape for the presence of pulses above an
> arbitrary threshold. This preliminary screening produced many false
> alarms. The purpose of this screening was to include for further
> analysis patterns without limiting pulses. I believe none were found.
>
The only portion of the tape which produced matches above the threshhold
were during the 10-second interval of the stuck open period. False
alarms were only found at the same times as real matches.
Gerry Simone (O)
What is the date of the thread 'do you believe in the Ramsey panel?'.
"Herbert Blenner" <a1e...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1187860039....@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Herbert Blenner
wrote:
> I said 'brief' :-)
Sorry.
>
> What is the date of the thread 'do you believe in the Ramsey panel?'.
July 7, 2007.
eca...@tx.rr.com
BUT THIS IS WORTH READING
Ger here's the audio site Herbert posted in lieu of
my repeated requests for the *location* and *source*
of his DP mike:
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/locations/tracktwo0087.wav
Herb the bottom line is that you are still trying
to hide the fact that the tape you analyzed was
never at DP. A fact you are well aware of or you
wouldn't be so hesitant to disclose it's *LOCATION*
or *SOURCE* However Herb, I am including a quote
from you which demonstrates your source was Officer
McLain's mike, a fact you are obviously reluctant to
disclose because your own isolated theory (You are
alone on this Herbert) is so easily discredited once
the *location* and *source* (Officer HB McLain)**
are finally known.
HERBERT ON:
"The conspiratorial conclusions of BB&N and W &A
were that the Dictablet (sic) showed three shots
from the TSBD and one shot from the Grassy Knoll."
I suspect the reason you are (at least lately) so
hesitant to divulge your source and position is that
you have been beaten down so many times on this issue
in the past..
Here's a brief excerpt from a letter by Dr. Ramsey WRT
Acoustics, posted by Russell Burr:
Ref:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/ea7ee952148fccb4
---------DR RAMSEY WRT ACOUSTICS ON:
"..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 committee 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."
--------- RAMSEY EXCERPT OFF
------- HERE'S AN EXCERPT FROM "CASE CLOSED" ON:
"..However even worse news was due the House Select
Committee's acoustics conclusion. In one of the most
unusual turns of the case, Steve Barber a rock drummer
living in a small Ohio town, purchased an adult magazine,
"Gallery" which included a plastic insert recording of
the dictabelt evidence. "I just played this thing to
death said Barber," said Barber, just trying to hear the
gunshots for myself and hear for myself what they said
was 95% evidence of a conspiracy." Barber heard something
all the highly paid experts missed. At the point on the
tape where the experts decided there were four shots over
a six second period, Barber heard the barely audible words,
"Hold everything secure..." That matched with "Hold
everything secure until the homicide and other investigators
can get there..." -words spoken by Sheriff Bill Decker in
the lead motorcycle car, on Police Channel Two. The Decker
transmission had crossed over to Channel One. But Decker
spoke those words nearly one minute after the assassination,
when he was instructing his officers what to do at Dealey
Plaza. If the cross-talk Barber had discovered was correct,
it meant the Select Committee's experts had picked up sound
impulses of "bullet shots" one minute after the actual
assassination.
The National Academy of Sciences appointed a
distinguished panel of twelve scientists to Study the Select
Committee's acoustic work. Dubbed the Ramsey Panel, after
its chairman Professor Norman Ramsey of Harvard, it concluded
that the committee's work was seriously flawed and that
analysis was correct. Moreover in a ninety-six page report
blasted the Select Committee's conclusions about a grassy-knoll
shooter and a fourth shot, saying there were serious errors in
its work and there "was no acoustic basis" for such a claim."
---------- OFF
And now Herbert, the reason you are so hesitant
to reveal your *source* and its *position* is
known: Whenever it comes out as it has many times
in the past you are left only with the options of
claiming something was <snipped> and sophomoric
efforts to "muddy the water."
* As a footnote even if McLain's mike had been the
one Dale Myers effectively and convincingly *PROVED*
beyond any doubt with film footage that McLain was
nowhere near the assumed BBN position anyway.
Unfortunately you are all alone with your unique
albeit stubborn position Herbert.
** Officer McLain emphatically emphasized that the
mike was not his and stated he would have told BBN
that fact if they had only asked him." (But instead
they rushed to file their hastily prepared and
greatly flawed report.)
Respectfully submitted by
Ed Cage
0456Aug2407
Gerry Simone (O)
"Herbert Blenner" <a1e...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1187915368.3...@l22g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
Herbert Blenner
> Herbert Blenner wrote:
> > On Aug 22, 11:22 pm, "Gerry Simone \(H\)" <newdecent...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> Tampering? Oh brother, another wrinkle in this complicated debate.
>
> > The Ramsey Panel considered whether an accidental or an intentional
> > playing of the Audograph disk during taping of the Dictabelt
> > introduced crosstalk. Sadly, they interpreted evidence of intentional
> > tampering as its exact opposite. The Watson Research Center argued
> > that heterodynes activated the AGC in the IF amplifier and reduced
> > amplitudes of simultaneously received signals. In order to effect this
> > reversal the critics of the acoustic evidence misrepresented the DPD
> > FM radio system as AM.
>
> AM and FM are two entirely different systems. Please cite and quote
> where they claim the DPD radio system was AM.
The Ramsey Panel went one step beyond claiming that the DPD radio system
was AM. They described operation that excludes a FM and fits only a AM
receiver.
Source: Ramsey Panel
The by-radio nature of channel II cross talk is demonstrated by its
detailed behavior in the presence of channel I heterodynes when another
channel I transmitter is keyed on with a more powerful carrier signal. The
frequency offset between the two carriers gives rise to a heterodyne tone
in the channel I recording. However, the channel I receiver was fitted AGC
to hold the output level approximately constant; as a result, the cross
talk signals decrease in intensity in a few tens of milliseconds (as does
any residual transmission from the original open microphone). At the end
of the channel I heterodyne, the AGC gradually increases the receiver
gain, and signals on the open- microphone transmission increase in
intensity in the recording.
End of source.
In a FM system a heterodyne arises when another transmitter keys on with a
carrier signal of nearly equal strength. The resulting heterodyne is a
tone only when both transmissions are silent. In other words a heterodyne
tone during the open microphone segment requires at least three
simultaneous transmissions in which the two silent and nearly equal
signals are sufficiently strong to suppress the radio signal from the
transmitter with the open microphone. Under these conditions filtering the
heterodyne tone would reveal practically no background signal but we do
not that.
A heterodyne accompanies the pulse pattern attributed to the third shot
and shows strong shaping by AGC action.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/trackone0157.jpg
The heterodyne on the above oscillograph spans the region between 5.5 and
6.5 divisions from the left. AGC action halved the amplitude of heterodyne
in about and acted at a diminishing rate. This behavior is typical of AGC.
However, filtering the heterodyne reveals underlying signals with nearly
constant amplitudes.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/notchedtrackone0157.jpg
So a simple notch filter shows that AGC did not act upon the heterodyne
tone when accompanied by the background signal. This analysis impeaches
the AGC argument of the acoustic critics and provides evidence of
tampering. You can find proof of tampering in the thread, "Do you still
believe the Ramsey Panel."
I said, "They (BB&N and W & A) ignored the question of whether the
Dictaphone recorded the pulse patterns attributed to gunfire at
approximately 12:30 PM on November 22, 1963 or were later added to the
acoustic record by a studio."
Now what part of the above statement do you dispute?
Herbert
Anthony Marsh
> On Aug 23, 8:02 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Herbert Blenner wrote:
>>> On Aug 22, 11:22 pm, "Gerry Simone \(H\)" <newdecent...@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Tampering? Oh brother, another wrinkle in this complicated debate.
>>> The Ramsey Panel considered whether an accidental or an intentional
>>> playing of the Audograph disk during taping of the Dictabelt
>>> introduced crosstalk. Sadly, they interpreted evidence of intentional
>>> tampering as its exact opposite. The Watson Research Center argued
>>> that heterodynes activated the AGC in the IF amplifier and reduced
>>> amplitudes of simultaneously received signals. In order to effect this
>>> reversal the critics of the acoustic evidence misrepresented the DPD
>>> FM radio system as AM.
>> AM and FM are two entirely different systems. Please cite and quote
>> where they claim the DPD radio system was AM.
>
> The Ramsey Panel went one step beyond claiming that the DPD radio system
> was AM. They described operation that excludes a FM and fits only a AM
> receiver.
>
You are only offering your interpretation which YOU think indicates AM.
That is not what I asked. I asked you to cite and quote where they said
it as AM.
The shots could not be added by an acoustical recording later in a
studio. The shots are unique to the geography of Dealey Plaza.
> Herbert
Herbert Blenner
> Herbert Blenner wrote:
> > On Aug 23, 8:02 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> Herbert Blenner wrote:
> >>> On Aug 22, 11:22 pm, "Gerry Simone \(H\)" <newdecent...@hotmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> Tampering? Oh brother, another wrinkle in this complicated debate.
> >>> The Ramsey Panel considered whether an accidental or an intentional
> >>> playing of the Audograph disk during taping of the Dictabelt
> >>> introduced crosstalk. Sadly, they interpreted evidence of intentional
> >>> tampering as its exact opposite. The Watson Research Center argued
> >>> that heterodynes activated the AGC in the IF amplifier and reduced
> >>> amplitudes of simultaneously received signals. In order to effect this
> >>> reversal the critics of the acoustic evidence misrepresented the DPD
> >>> FM radio system as AM.
> >> AM and FM are two entirely different systems. Please cite and quote
> >> where they claim the DPD radio system was AM.
>
> > The Ramsey Panel went one step beyond claiming that the DPD radio system
> > was AM. They described operation that excludes a FM and fits only a AM
> > receiver.
>
> You are only offering your interpretation which YOU think indicates AM.
> That is not what I asked. I asked you to cite and quote where they said
> it as AM.
You and I know that the Ramsey panel never named the mode of modulation
used by the DPD radio system. Is this the reason you asked me to cite and
quote where they said it was AM?
My interpretation of the modulation mode rests upon an advanced degree in
electronic engineering and thirty years of professional experience in the
field.
So are you prepared to post on technical message groups the descriptions
of DPD radio operation by the Ramsey Panel and whether the modulation mode
is AM or FM?
The acoustic environment is unique. They describe this uniqueness by a
Green function that relates the response at one location to an impulsive
source at another location. Analysts derive the Green function from test
shots and can calculate responses at slightly different locations from
bullets with different speeds under different weather conditions.
Essentially W&A used this analytic method to extend the work of BB&N.
So in principle forging an acoustic signature required placement of
recorders near the locations used by the HSCA analysts. Every reenactment
in which they fired shots from the TSBD and near the Grassy Knoll provided
an opportunity to make the necessary recordings.
Herbert
Anthony Marsh
Yes, obviously. To make it clear that you are citing only your
interpretation.
>
> My interpretation of the modulation mode rests upon an advanced degree in
> electronic engineering and thirty years of professional experience in the
> field.
>
Bunk.
> So are you prepared to post on technical message groups the descriptions
> of DPD radio operation by the Ramsey Panel and whether the modulation mode
> is AM or FM?
>
I do not need to play those games.
But they stated that the recorded shots could only be made in a
duplicate of Dealey Plaza and a couple of the echoes are unique to vehicles.
So in principle forging an acoustic signature required placement of
> recorders near the locations used by the HSCA analysts. Every reenactment
> in which they fired shots from the TSBD and near the Grassy Knoll provided
> an opportunity to make the necessary recordings.
>
There was only one reenactment and that was in 1978. By that time Dealey
Plaza had changed so that there were additional objects which
contributed additional echo paths that do not show up on the DPD tape.
You are way out of your depth here.
> Herbert
Herbert Blenner
I support my claim of holding an advance degree in electronic engineering
by the following transcript from the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences
of New York University that cites my B.E.E degree as basis for admission.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/transcript.jpg
As evidence of my professional experience, I post my note published in
Solid- State Electronics.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/note.jpg
Now it is your turn to show us your credentials on "Bunk."
Herbert