The Truth About the JFK Assassination. Signal Processing Tells The
Writing
1982 Committee on Ballistic Acoustics study of the science of signal
processing. View @ bit.ly/1O8aYJ
The Dutchman
They (the Committee on Ballistic Acoustics) sent their results to BBN/
WA, instead of having a press conference first. I never knew that.
John McAdams
Herbert Blenner
What is your opinion of the quip, "Stale news is better than no news?"
Herbert
Michael O'Dell
> "The Dutchman" <kks44...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:51f47cdb-5afd-48b1-87af-> 43b049...@o9g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...
Yes. They also sent their rebuttal to Don Thomas to him when they submitted
it for publication. Pretty standard behavior for scientists.
Michael
Anthony Marsh
And they originally forgot to acknowledge Steve Barber and had to be
reminded. Pretty standard behavior for government stooges. And of course
refused to answer questions or defend their work. Pretty standard behavior
for scientists.
Michael O'Dell
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4b071e6d$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
I don't know what you are talking about. In my experience, they've never
shown reluctance to acknowledge Steve. In fact, the video in the link
that started this thread does so very explicitly.
As for answering questions, they've answered mine. Maybe it's something
about your approach. :-)
Michael
Anthony Marsh
Of course you don't know what I'm talking about. The first printing of the
NCR report failed to acknowledge Steve Barber. I asked Ramsey why and he
said it was an oversight which they corrected in later printings.
> As for answering questions, they've answered mine. Maybe it's something
> about your approach. :-)
>
Maybe it's called bias.
Pretty standard for scientists.
> Michael
Michael O'Dell
So tell me. What were these questions you wanted answered?
Michael
Anthony Marsh
What criteria did they use for saying that there were 7 degrees of freedom
in the BBN Chi-Square test of the 15 matches and exactly what were those
degrees and how did they justify selecting them?
Even a brief glance at Fig. 22 shows that the microphone locations that
correspond to correlations at the three times after the first impulse tend
to progress uniformly forward along the motorcade route. This conclusion
can be quantified statistically by the chi-square test. If the motorcycle
were not moving through Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination, the
distance along the motorcade route would be a meaningless coordinate, and
the microphone locations for the correlations that exceed the detection
threshold would occur at random. When the chart in Fig. 22 is partitioned
into a 2 x 2 table by separating time at 5 sec and distance at 250 ft, we
find l, 6, 8, and 0 correlations in the four sections reading from left to
right, top to bottom. But the expected number of correlations to be found
in these four sections, if the correlations occurred at random, are 4.2,
2.8, 4.8, 3.2. The value of chi-square for the observed and expected
values is equal to 11.4. There is only 1 degree of freedom in this 2 x 2
table, and the probability that this large value of chi-square could occur
at random is less than 1%. Therefore, there is little doubt that the
distance coordinate is meaningful, and we conclude that the motorcycle was
moving through Dealey Plaza and did, in fact, detect the sounds of
gunfire.
Why did the NAS panel ignore the fact that some of the messages they used
for their timing were actually repeats?
Why didn't the NAS panel use KNOWN simultaneous messages on both channels
to compare the two channel timings?
Why didn't the NAS panel compare the frequencies of the recorded
simultaneous messages on both channels to compare the relative recording
speeds of the two channels?
Why didn't the NAS panel attempt to determine which car horn was honking
on the tape and what its actual pitch was and then compare that to the
tape to determine the recording speed of the tape?
Why did the NAS panel seek the assistance of Bowles and fall for his lies?
Why did the NAS panel not properly analyze the whistling and determine
that it was done by the dispatcher, identify the tune and identify the
actual pitches of the tune and then compare that to the apparent recording
speed?
Why didn't the NAS panel identify the sounds of the tires squealing and
identify them as a two-wheel motorcycle rounding a corner rather than a
parked three-wheel motorcycle?
How can a parked motorcycle at the Trade Mart with the open microphone
produce sounds of changing gears, tire squeals, slowing down and speeding
up consistent with one of the escort cycles in the motorcade?
Why does the NAS panel refuse to rebut Don Thomas's analysis? Why do YOU
refuse to rebut Don Thomas's analysis?
> Michael
>
>
>
Michael O'Dell
You forgot to put quotes around the following:
> Even a brief glance at Fig. 22 shows that the microphone locations that
> correspond to correlations at the three times after the first impulse tend
> to progress uniformly forward along the motorcade route. This conclusion
> can be quantified statistically by the chi-square test. If the motorcycle
> were not moving through Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination, the
> distance along the motorcade route would be a meaningless coordinate, and
> the microphone locations for the correlations that exceed the detection
> threshold would occur at random. When the chart in Fig. 22 is partitioned
> into a 2 x 2 table by separating time at 5 sec and distance at 250 ft, we
> find l, 6, 8, and 0 correlations in the four sections reading from left to
> right, top to bottom. But the expected number of correlations to be found
> in these four sections, if the correlations occurred at random, are 4.2,
> 2.8, 4.8, 3.2. The value of chi-square for the observed and expected
> values is equal to 11.4. There is only 1 degree of freedom in this 2 x 2
> table, and the probability that this large value of chi-square could occur
> at random is less than 1%. Therefore, there is little doubt that the
> distance coordinate is meaningful, and we conclude that the motorcycle was
> moving through Dealey Plaza and did, in fact, detect the sounds of
> gunfire.
>
The 7 degrees of freedom applied to the WA test, not this.
> Why did the NAS panel ignore the fact that some of the messages they used
> for their timing were actually repeats?
>
They didn't ignore it.
> Why didn't the NAS panel use KNOWN simultaneous messages on both channels
> to compare the two channel timings?
>
They did.
> Why didn't the NAS panel compare the frequencies of the recorded
> simultaneous messages on both channels to compare the relative recording
> speeds of the two channels?
>
They did that too.
>
> Why didn't the NAS panel attempt to determine which car horn was honking
> on the tape and what its actual pitch was and then compare that to the
> tape to determine the recording speed of the tape?
>
They did determine the tape speed.
How would they know which car was honking? Why would this test be better
than the tests they did? This is a point I've tried to make with Herbert.
Just because you can think up some test doesn't mean someone else had a
prior obligation to do that specific test.
> Why did the NAS panel seek the assistance of Bowles and fall for his lies?
Asking Bowles certain questions is logical. They didn't fall for any lies,
if there were any. Bowles made some mistakes. I don't know about any lies.
> Why did the NAS panel not properly analyze the whistling and determine
> that it was done by the dispatcher, identify the tune and identify the
> actual pitches of the tune and then compare that to the apparent recording
> speed?
>
Because that's a pointless excercise.
> Why didn't the NAS panel identify the sounds of the tires squealing and
> identify them as a two-wheel motorcycle rounding a corner rather than a
> parked three-wheel motorcycle?
>
Another pointless excercise, even if that's possible to do.
> How can a parked motorcycle at the Trade Mart with the open microphone
> produce sounds of changing gears, tire squeals, slowing down and speeding
> up consistent with one of the escort cycles in the motorcade?
>
Irrelevant. The NAS panel didn't try to prove the mic was at the Trade
Mart.
>
> Why does the NAS panel refuse to rebut Don Thomas's analysis? Why do YOU
> refuse to rebut Don Thomas's analysis?
>
Huh? This makes no sense. You know about what I did. You know about the
NAS panel's response to Thomas.
Michael
Herbert Blenner
> "Anthony Marsh" <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:4b071e6d$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 11/20/2009 1:25 PM, Michael O'Dell wrote:
> >>> news:51f47cdb-5afd-48b1-87af->
> >>> 43b049227...@o9g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...
> >>> On Nov 12, 12:15 am, Writing<leon...@excite.com> wrote:
> >>>> Video produced for IEEE.tv dispels conspiracy theories based on the
> >>>> 1982 Committee on Ballistic Acoustics study of the science of signal
> >>>> processing. View @ bit.ly/1O8aYJ
>
> >>> They (the Committee on Ballistic Acoustics) sent their results to BBN/
> >>> WA, instead of having a press conference first. I never knew that.
>
> >> Yes. They also sent their rebuttal to Don Thomas to him when they
> >> submitted
> >> it for publication. Pretty standard behavior for scientists.
>
> >> Michael
>
> > And they originally forgot to acknowledge Steve Barber and had to be
> > reminded. Pretty standard behavior for government stooges. And of course
> > refused to answer questions or defend their work. Pretty standard behavior
> > for scientists.
>
> I don't know what you are talking about. In my experience, they've never
> shown reluctance to acknowledge Steve. In fact, the video in the link
> that started this thread does so very explicitly.
>
> As for answering questions, they've answered mine. Maybe it's something
> about your approach. :-)
>
> Michael
I wonder whether former members of the Committee on Ballistic
Acoustics would post their answers to questions asked by a former
electronics professional on a digital signal processing discussion
group?
1. A brieftone being an oscillation of the entire radio system due to
a transmitting microphone being too close to an active receiver has
half-wave asymmetry symbolically expressed as f ( t ) = -f ( t + T/2 )
where T is the period. So how does the committee explain their
labeling of signals with prominent second harmonics as brieftones?
2. The committee identified narrow-band sinusoids as heterodynes
arising from the beating of two radio frequency signals in the IF
section of the receiver. Since the frequency of this heterodyne equals
half the difference of the two radio signal frequencies, the
heterodyne frequency would be narrow-band only when the two radio
frequency signals are unmodulated or have precisely the same frequency
modulation. So how does the committee explain the commonness of the
narrow- band tones that they labeled as heterodynes when the
interference broadcasted by the open microphone frequency modulated
one radio frequency signal?
3. How does the committee account for the itinerant AGC action upon
the IF stage of a frequency modulation receiver that begin on Channel-
I a few seconds before the pulse patterns attributed to gunfire and
the relevant crosstalk?
Herbert
- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Michael O'Dell
>"Herbert Blenner" <a1e...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>news:05774b94-b8a3-40c8-9c86->e68681...@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
I'm betting, no.
>1. A brieftone being an oscillation of the entire radio system due to
>a transmitting microphone being too close to an active receiver has
>half-wave asymmetry symbolically expressed as f ( t ) = -f ( t + T/2 )
>where T is the period. So how does the committee explain their
>labeling of signals with prominent second harmonics as brieftones?
>
So you're saying they used the wrong term. So what?
>2. The committee identified narrow-band sinusoids as heterodynes
>arising from the beating of two radio frequency signals in the IF
>section of the receiver. Since the frequency of this heterodyne equals
>half the difference of the two radio signal frequencies, the
>heterodyne frequency would be narrow-band only when the two radio
>frequency signals are unmodulated or have precisely the same frequency
>modulation. So how does the committee explain the commonness of the
>narrow- band tones that they labeled as heterodynes when the
>interference broadcasted by the open microphone frequency modulated
>one radio frequency signal?
>
>3. How does the committee account for the itinerant AGC action upon
>the IF stage of a frequency modulation receiver that begin on Channel-
>I a few seconds before the pulse patterns attributed to gunfire and
>the relevant crosstalk?
>
>Herbert
>
It wasn't a study about the electronics. It was about the sounds on the
recording. You are trying to force everything to be about your expertise,
and therefore misunderstanding what they are actually saying.
Michael
Anthony Marsh
The how can they (you) reject the Chi-Square test?
>> Why did the NAS panel ignore the fact that some of the messages they used
>> for their timing were actually repeats?
>>
>
> They didn't ignore it.
>
They ignored the ones I pointed out.
>> Why didn't the NAS panel use KNOWN simultaneous messages on both channels
>> to compare the two channel timings?
>>
>
> They did.
>
>> Why didn't the NAS panel compare the frequencies of the recorded
>> simultaneous messages on both channels to compare the relative recording
>> speeds of the two channels?
>>
>
> They did that too.
>
I did not see that. Show me.
>>
>> Why didn't the NAS panel attempt to determine which car horn was honking
>> on the tape and what its actual pitch was and then compare that to the
>> tape to determine the recording speed of the tape?
>>
>
> They did determine the tape speed.
>
> How would they know which car was honking? Why would this test be better
Well, it would be like actually researching something.
> than the tests they did? This is a point I've tried to make with Herbert.
> Just because you can think up some test doesn't mean someone else had a
> prior obligation to do that specific test.
>
It means exactly that.
>> Why did the NAS panel seek the assistance of Bowles and fall for his lies?
>
> Asking Bowles certain questions is logical. They didn't fall for any lies,
> if there were any. Bowles made some mistakes. I don't know about any lies.
>
Like his lie that they call one of their officers "the whistler."
>> Why did the NAS panel not properly analyze the whistling and determine
>> that it was done by the dispatcher, identify the tune and identify the
>> actual pitches of the tune and then compare that to the apparent recording
>> speed?
>>
>
> Because that's a pointless excercise.
>
>> Why didn't the NAS panel identify the sounds of the tires squealing and
>> identify them as a two-wheel motorcycle rounding a corner rather than a
>> parked three-wheel motorcycle?
>>
>
> Another pointless excercise, even if that's possible to do.
>
Not pointless at all if an independent researcher can think of it and do it.
>> How can a parked motorcycle at the Trade Mart with the open microphone
>> produce sounds of changing gears, tire squeals, slowing down and speeding
>> up consistent with one of the escort cycles in the motorcade?
>>
>
> Irrelevant. The NAS panel didn't try to prove the mic was at the Trade
> Mart.
>
YOU and Barber do. So, where do they claim it was if not McLain's?
>>
>> Why does the NAS panel refuse to rebut Don Thomas's analysis? Why do YOU
>> refuse to rebut Don Thomas's analysis?
>>
>
> Huh? This makes no sense. You know about what I did. You know about the
> NAS panel's response to Thomas.
>
Weak.
> Michael
>
>
>
Herbert Blenner
> >"Herbert Blenner" <a1ea...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> >news:05774b94-b8a3-40c8-9c86->e68681fde__BEGIN_MASK_n#9g02mG7!__...__END_MASK_i?a63jfAD$z...@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
During the early eighties, the Ramsey Panel and the Watson Research
Center set the tone by introducing elements of signal processing into
the acoustics debate. Now that people who are prepared to discuss
signal processing belong to the assassination research community, the
former members of these panels are silent while others boldly proclaim
the debate is about sounds. These methods are unworthy of scientists
or other professionals and are reminiscent of the tactics of the
confidence men.
So Michael O'Dell, I asked do You Still Believe the Ramsey Panel?
For the web version of this article click the following link.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/believe.htm
The loud brieftone that accompanied the Channel-II broadcast by
Sergeant Bellah and its crosstalk onto Channel-I provides an unique
opportunity to test the hypothesis of frequency compression that
underlies the crosstalk analysis.
The acoustic records contain several events, which enable testing how
Channel-I would record a brieftone generated on Channel-II. In
particular a loud annoying brieftone accompanied the Channel-II
broadcast by Sgt. Bellah.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/believe_files/trackthree0022.wav
On Channel-I the brieftone, though slightly attenuated by about three
db relative to the voice, is still a conspicuous annoyance.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/believe_files/trackone0275.wav
The Bowles tape of the Dictabelt is the source of these wave files.
The significance of this event goes beyond showing that a loud
brieftone would have accompanied true Decker crosstalk. Spectrographs
of the initial portions Bellah's Channel-II broadcast and his message
on Channel-I show brieftones with exactly the same 1.68 kHz
frequencies.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/believe_files/trackthree0022.jpg
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/believe_files/trackone0275.jpg
The acoustic research community acknowledges that James Bowles slowed
the playback of the Dictabelt and produced a tape with a frequency
compression of about 5 percent. As a result the frequency of the 60
Hertz power line hum measures about 57 Hz on his tape. Correspondingly
a 1.68 kHz brieftone recorded onto the Dictabelt would have been
recorded on the tape as a 1.60 kHz tone. So finding a 1.68 kHz
brieftone on the our copy of the Bowles tape proves that it is an
untrue record of the Channel-I receptions by the DPD at approximately
12:30 PM of November 22, 1963.
Now suppose that James Bowles did not slow the Dictaphone during
taping. This alternative would allow true Bellah crosstalk and does
more than invalidate the matching of pulse patterns from test shots
with the Bowles tape of the Dictabelt. Under these conditions the
finding of matches that required an unnecessary, and therefore an
improper, adjustment for frequency compression would be overwhelmingly
strong evidence that a studio amateurishly added the pulse patterns to
the acoustic record. Hence the earlier conclusion that the Bowles tape
is an untrue record of the Channel-I receptions would still stand.
Glossary
Brieftone
When a transmitter operates too close to an active receiver on the
same channel the resultant feedback produces a high-pitched
oscillation of the entire radio channel. This oscillation is a narrow-
band signal and is an excellent marker to measure frequency
compression due to a difference between playing and recording speeds
of the tapes.
Crosstalk
When a transmitter operates near an active receiver on a different
channel the acoustic coupling permits messages from one channel to
cross over to the other channel. Of course this crosstalk mechanism
does not distinguish voiced messages
from other signals. So crosstalk includes heterodynes, brieftones,
noise and all other signals.
Frequency Compression
A recording device stores a frequency as a density. For example,
suppose the device records a frequency of f cycle per second at a
speed of r inch per second. The medium stores f / r cycles per inch.
Playing the medium at a speed of p inch per second yields a frequency
of f / r cycles per inch multiplied by p inch per second or f p / r
cycles per second. In other words the device transforms the frequency
of the signal by the ratio of the playing to the recording speeds.
They call this ratio a compression.
Herbert
- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Michael O'Dell
You need to acknowledge your own error here first.
>>> Why did the NAS panel ignore the fact that some of the messages they
>>> used
>>> for their timing were actually repeats?
>>>
>>
>> They didn't ignore it.
>>
>
> They ignored the ones I pointed out.
>
Not the same thing. And what's your point anyway? In reality, they'd have
been better of if they did ignore the repeats. It screwed up their timing.
>>> Why didn't the NAS panel use KNOWN simultaneous messages on both
>>> channels
>>> to compare the two channel timings?
>>>
>>
>> They did.
>>
>>> Why didn't the NAS panel compare the frequencies of the recorded
>>> simultaneous messages on both channels to compare the relative recording
>>> speeds of the two channels?
>>>
>>
>> They did that too.
>>
>
> I did not see that. Show me.
>
>>>
>>> Why didn't the NAS panel attempt to determine which car horn was honking
>>> on the tape and what its actual pitch was and then compare that to the
>>> tape to determine the recording speed of the tape?
>>>
>>
>> They did determine the tape speed.
>>
>> How would they know which car was honking? Why would this test be better
>
> Well, it would be like actually researching something.
>
They did research things. This is just some arbitrary test you thought up.
There's no reason they should have done this specific thing when they did
better ones.
>> than the tests they did? This is a point I've tried to make with
>> Herbert.
>> Just because you can think up some test doesn't mean someone else had a
>> prior obligation to do that specific test.
>>
>
> It means exactly that.
>
Nonsense.
>>> Why did the NAS panel seek the assistance of Bowles and fall for his
>>> lies?
>>
>> Asking Bowles certain questions is logical. They didn't fall for any
>> lies,
>> if there were any. Bowles made some mistakes. I don't know about any
>> lies.
>>
>
> Like his lie that they call one of their officers "the whistler."
>
And that affected the NAS results how exactly?
>>> Why did the NAS panel not properly analyze the whistling and determine
>>> that it was done by the dispatcher, identify the tune and identify the
>>> actual pitches of the tune and then compare that to the apparent
>>> recording
>>> speed?
>>>
>>
>> Because that's a pointless excercise.
>>
>>> Why didn't the NAS panel identify the sounds of the tires squealing and
>>> identify them as a two-wheel motorcycle rounding a corner rather than a
>>> parked three-wheel motorcycle?
>>>
>>
>> Another pointless excercise, even if that's possible to do.
>>
>
> Not pointless at all if an independent researcher can think of it and do
> it.
>
No, someone can think up all kinds of things. There can be many different
tests to reveal the same information. There's no obligation to have done
the one's you think up. All that matters is the ones that were actually
done.
>>> How can a parked motorcycle at the Trade Mart with the open microphone
>>> produce sounds of changing gears, tire squeals, slowing down and
>>> speeding
>>> up consistent with one of the escort cycles in the motorcade?
>>>
>>
>> Irrelevant. The NAS panel didn't try to prove the mic was at the Trade
>> Mart.
>>
>
> YOU and Barber do. So, where do they claim it was if not McLain's?
>
Wrong again Tony. I've never taken a position about where the mic really
was.
>>>
>>> Why does the NAS panel refuse to rebut Don Thomas's analysis? Why do YOU
>>> refuse to rebut Don Thomas's analysis?
>>>
>>
>> Huh? This makes no sense. You know about what I did. You know about
>> the
>> NAS panel's response to Thomas.
>>
>
> Weak.
>
Nonsense. Is your memory failing? Just in case, let me provide a couple of
links. One of them is on your own site.
Anthony Marsh
Just answer the damn question. Where do they get their degrees of freedom?
To test whether there was any relationship between the time and
distance coordinates, BB&N partitioned the matches into a 2 x 2
contingency table and used a generalized c? test with the null hypothesis
that matches were independent so that the distribution in the cells should
be random. Using the data 1,6,8,0 produced a c? = 11.4. For 1 degree of
freedom, BB&N stated that the probability that this large a value could
occur at random is less than 1%. Ramsey failed to criticize 2 important
aspects of this calculation. First, the 1% level may be too high, because
BB&N did not use a table extensive enough to give an accurate percentage
level for such a large value. The c? value for the 1% level is 6.635. More
extensive tables, such as the Biometrika, show the value for the 0.5%
level is 7.879. A Fisher and Yates' table shows the value for the 0.1%
level is 10.827. Thus BB&N's stated significance would seem, to the casual
reader or layperson, to be not as significant as the value really is.
Second, the c? distribution for such a low total (N=15) tends to be
skewed. It might have been better to use an exact test. As Langley points
out, the recommended test for N<50 is Fisher's Test(1934), which makes use
of the hypergeometric formula: (n1!?n2!?n3!?n4!)?(N!?a!?b!?c!?d!), to
derive the exact probability. Although the computations can be more
complex, because of the factorials, the fact that N is moderate and the
importance of accuracy necessitates using Fisher's Test. For the data
1,6,8,0 the exact probability computed by this test is .0013986.
Ramsey attempts to criticize BB&N's highly significant result by
arbitrarily and informally deducting 7 matches, saying that some of the
alarms are dependent,because some of the microphone and rifle locations
were similar. Why should independence be a criterion for inclusion when
that is what is being tested? Ramsey cites no standard reference or test
that advocates such a reduction in the individual cells. Even if that were
a valid approach, he'd have to go through the table match by match and
justify each deduction. Then we could challenge or debate each one. Due to
the design of the test, we would expect patterns from neighboring mikes to
be similar, but that does not mean they are dependent on each other. How
close or how far away from each other do the mikes have to be for Ramsey
to consider them "independent"? He cites no estimates for that. Ramsey's
criticism that rifle locations were similar seems to have more validity
and should be studied more carefully. BB&N designed the test so that
rifles would fire at different targets, with the muzzle first in the plane
of the window of the TSBD and then pulled back 2 feet inside to see if
there was any significant difference in the patterns, and therefore the
correlations. Perhaps the pattern would be different if the shockwave
trajectory were different. Or perhaps the inside wall and window
significantly reduced the decibel levels of the echoes if the gun were
fired from well within the TSBD. If a DPD impulse matched one set of
conditions rather than the other, that might provide vital clues to the
real conditions of the assassination.
Evidence from other fields contradicts the assumptions that Ramsey
used to calculate the probabilities of the other shots. Even Ramsey
himself conceeds that his calculations may be too conservative, but fails
to fully explain what assumptions he made. He deducted 6 false alarms as
BB&N had from the 15 matches to get the 9 remaining. But one of those
matches was incorrectly identified as a false match. BB&N stated that the
one at 140.32 came too close after another more likely match to have been
fired from the same rifle. Although that is a proper attempt to eliminate
a false match based on corroborating evidence, the logic is flawed and the
acceptance of the veracity of that evidence is biased. Perhaps an
automatic weapon was used for those two shots, or one man was firing two
weapons, or one shot came from the TSBD and the other came from the grassy
knoll. The case that I believe most likely is that another man fired the
second shot from a few windows down. There is some evidence and eyewitness
testimony that there was a second man on the same floor of the TSBD and a
different weapon from Oswald's Mamlicher-Carcano. Ramsey's value of 7 is
based on the assumption that only 2 shots were fired in Dealey Plaza,
accounting for 9 wounds, 3 points of damage to the limo, and 4 scars in
the street. That's how he came up with 1-(7?9)?. If he had stuck to the
old Warren Commission 3 shots, then 1-(6?9)? = 0.7037037. The trajectories
of the wounds compared to the timing suggested by the tape make 4 shots
the minimum, even without a miss, so 1-(5?9)? = 0.8285323. I have found
corroboration in all the other evidence for 5 sbots, which includes BB&N
false alarm 140.32, so the equation should be 1-(5?10)? = 0.875. Notice
that for these calculations, Ramsey doesn't complain that the mikes were
too close as he did for the chi-square. He wants to have it both ways. If
he did, he'd have to deduct 5 of the matches as duplicates, then 5 more
false alarms, leaving only 5 matches for 5 possible shots, so the equation
would be 1-(0?5)? = 1.0.
>
>>>> Why did the NAS panel ignore the fact that some of the messages they
>>>> used
>>>> for their timing were actually repeats?
>>>>
>>>
>>> They didn't ignore it.
>>>
>>
>> They ignored the ones I pointed out.
>>
>
> Not the same thing. And what's your point anyway? In reality, they'd have
> been better of if they did ignore the repeats. It screwed up their timing.
>
SO finally you admit that the NAS panel did make several errors. But that
doesn't matter to you are long as they agree with the non conspiracy
conclusion. It doesn't bother you that they published false data to
support their position. Did you enumerate all their errors in your own
rebuttal?
>>>> Why didn't the NAS panel use KNOWN simultaneous messages on both
>>>> channels
>>>> to compare the two channel timings?
>>>>
>>>
>>> They did.
>>>
>>>> Why didn't the NAS panel compare the frequencies of the recorded
>>>> simultaneous messages on both channels to compare the relative recording
>>>> speeds of the two channels?
>>>>
>>>
>>> They did that too.
>>>
>>
>> I did not see that. Show me.
>>
>>>>
>>>> Why didn't the NAS panel attempt to determine which car horn was honking
>>>> on the tape and what its actual pitch was and then compare that to the
>>>> tape to determine the recording speed of the tape?
>>>>
>>>
>>> They did determine the tape speed.
>>>
>>> How would they know which car was honking? Why would this test be better
>>
>> Well, it would be like actually researching something.
>>
>
> They did research things. This is just some arbitrary test you thought up.
> There's no reason they should have done this specific thing when they did
> better ones.
>
Better ones? Biased ones. What I suggested would confirm several
important points.
>>> than the tests they did? This is a point I've tried to make with
>>> Herbert.
>>> Just because you can think up some test doesn't mean someone else had a
>>> prior obligation to do that specific test.
>>>
>>
>> It means exactly that.
>>
>
> Nonsense.
>
>>>> Why did the NAS panel seek the assistance of Bowles and fall for his
>>>> lies?
>>>
>>> Asking Bowles certain questions is logical. They didn't fall for any
>>> lies,
>>> if there were any. Bowles made some mistakes. I don't know about any
>>> lies.
>>>
>>
>> Like his lie that they call one of their officers "the whistler."
>>
>
> And that affected the NAS results how exactly?
>
Simple lying. It influenced the panel to not bother analyzing the whistle.
>>>> Why did the NAS panel not properly analyze the whistling and determine
>>>> that it was done by the dispatcher, identify the tune and identify the
>>>> actual pitches of the tune and then compare that to the apparent
>>>> recording
>>>> speed?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Because that's a pointless excercise.
>>>
>>>> Why didn't the NAS panel identify the sounds of the tires squealing and
>>>> identify them as a two-wheel motorcycle rounding a corner rather than a
>>>> parked three-wheel motorcycle?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Another pointless excercise, even if that's possible to do.
>>>
>>
>> Not pointless at all if an independent researcher can think of it and do
>> it.
>>
>
> No, someone can think up all kinds of things. There can be many different
> tests to reveal the same information. There's no obligation to have done
> the one's you think up. All that matters is the ones that were actually
> done.
>
I guess you don't understand the scientific process. One test can tell
you what you THINK the data is. But related tests can confirm or
overturn that result. To refuse to do the related tests reveals the
weakness of their results.
>
>>>> How can a parked motorcycle at the Trade Mart with the open microphone
>>>> produce sounds of changing gears, tire squeals, slowing down and
>>>> speeding
>>>> up consistent with one of the escort cycles in the motorcade?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Irrelevant. The NAS panel didn't try to prove the mic was at the Trade
>>> Mart.
>>>
>>
>> YOU and Barber do. So, where do they claim it was if not McLain's?
>>
>
> Wrong again Tony. I've never taken a position about where the mic really
> was.
>
So, you are an agnostic? Doubtful when you argued so strenuously against
Don Thomas's confirmation that the cycle was McLain's. You're like Ken
Rahn pretending to be open minded when we all know he is a WC defender.
>>>>
>>>> Why does the NAS panel refuse to rebut Don Thomas's analysis? Why do YOU
>>>> refuse to rebut Don Thomas's analysis?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Huh? This makes no sense. You know about what I did. You know about
>>> the
>>> NAS panel's response to Thomas.
>>>
>>
>> Weak.
>>
>
> Nonsense. Is your memory failing? Just in case, let me provide a couple of
> links. One of them is on your own site.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/odell/
>
The needle assembly on the Audograph doesn't move at all. The disc is
mounted on a spindle and moves horizontally under the needle as recording
progresses. The horizontal motion of the spindle is a result of being
mechanically geared to a worm gear, such that, as the spindle rotates, the
center of the disc moves away from the needle assembly. There is no
freedom of motion in this mechanical system, except for the tip of the
needle. The repeats happen because the needle tip has some flexibility and
may get stuck for an additional rotation or two, but the horizontal
movement of the disc never stops and the needle must eventually catch up
to where it should be. When the needle does catch up it will skip over
sections of the recording. In the long run any repeats will be roughly
matched by forward skips where the needle jumps over grooves.
You falsely assume, without proof, that every time the needle skips it
will go back to exactly where it should have been had it not skipped.
> http://the-puzzle-palace.com/contents45-4.pdf
>
That's just the Table of Contents.
>
>
The Dutchman
> On 11/29/2009 2:23 PM, Michael O'Dell wrote:
>
> >news:4b0dced9$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> >> On 11/25/2009 12:27 AM, Michael O'Dell wrote:
> >>>news:4b0b1d7d$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> >>>> On 11/23/2009 5:33 PM, Michael O'Dell wrote:
> >>>>>news:4b09...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> >>>>>> On 11/21/2009 11:43 PM, Michael O'Dell wrote:
> >>>>>>>news:4b071e6d$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> >>>>>>>> On 11/20/2009 1:25 PM, Michael O'Dell wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> news:51f47cdb-5afd-48b1-87af->
> >>>>>>>>>> 43b049227...@o9g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...
Is this conversation necessary?
Anthony Marsh
I know, I know. It's actually discussion the evidence, something
anathema to the WC defenders. They'd rather discuss BALOGNA.
The Dutchman
On Nov 29, 10:50 pm, The Dutchman said, "Is this conversation
necessary?"
On Nov 30, 4:16 pm, Anthony Marsh said, " I know, I know. It's actually
discussion the evidence, something anathema to the WC defenders. They'd
rather discuss BALOGNA."
It was a rhetorical question. Anyway, BBN's thrown in the towel; Thomas is
hanging by a thread. In your heart of hearts, do you really think there
was any stuck microphone anywhere near where it would have to have been?
Michael O'Dell
Is this conversation necessary?
=============
Are any of the conversations here "necessary"? What's your point?
Michael
Michael O'Dell
On Nov 29, 6:15 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >news:4b0dced9$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> >> On 11/25/2009 12:27 AM, Michael O'Dell wrote:
> >>>news:4b0b1d7d$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> >>>> On 11/23/2009 5:33 PM, Michael O'Dell wrote:
> >>>>>news:4b09...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> >>>>>> On 11/21/2009 11:43 PM, Michael O'Dell wrote:
> >>>>>>>news:4b071e6d$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> >>>>>>>> On 11/20/2009 1:25 PM, Michael O'Dell wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> news:51f47cdb-5afd-48b1-87af->
> >>>>>>>>>> 43b049227...@o9g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...
Tony, you are a victim of your preconceptions.
As is blatantly obvious, if you both to read it, my article proves the NAS
timeline wrong. Of course I say they made errors! You really make
yourself look foolish with this stuff.
> doesn't matter to you are long as they agree with the non conspiracy
> conclusion. It doesn't bother you that they published false data to
> support their position. Did you enumerate all their errors in your own
> rebuttal?
Try reading it.
You have the bias.
> >>> than the tests they did? This is a point I've tried to make with
> >>> Herbert.
> >>> Just because you can think up some test doesn't mean someone else had
> >>> a
> >>> prior obligation to do that specific test.
>
> >> It means exactly that.
>
> > Nonsense.
>
> >>>> Why did the NAS panel seek the assistance of Bowles and fall for his
> >>>> lies?
>
> >>> Asking Bowles certain questions is logical. They didn't fall for any
> >>> lies,
> >>> if there were any. Bowles made some mistakes. I don't know about any
> >>> lies.
>
> >> Like his lie that they call one of their officers "the whistler."
>
> > And that affected the NAS results how exactly?
>
> Simple lying. It influenced the panel to not bother analyzing the whistle.
>
No it didn't. They never planned to analyze the whistle. That's a silly
waste of time.
I guess you don't understand the scientific process. One can endlessly
come up with tests and variations on tests. Even beyond tests to confirm
or refute.
There is no obligation to do every test that every person might someday
think up. All that matters is whether the ones you do, are correct and
discover useful data.
>
>
> >>>> How can a parked motorcycle at the Trade Mart with the open
> >>>> microphone
> >>>> produce sounds of changing gears, tire squeals, slowing down and
> >>>> speeding
> >>>> up consistent with one of the escort cycles in the motorcade?
>
> >>> Irrelevant. The NAS panel didn't try to prove the mic was at the Trade
> >>> Mart.
>
> >> YOU and Barber do. So, where do they claim it was if not McLain's?
>
> > Wrong again Tony. I've never taken a position about where the mic really
> > was.
>
> So, you are an agnostic? Doubtful when you argued so strenuously against
> Don Thomas's confirmation that the cycle was McLain's. You're like Ken
You've really got to stop making stuff up. Show me where I, "argued so
strenuously against Don Thomas's confirmation that the cycle was
McLain's".
> Rahn pretending to be open minded when we all know he is a WC defender.
>
>
>
> >>>> Why does the NAS panel refuse to rebut Don Thomas's analysis? Why do
> >>>> YOU
> >>>> refuse to rebut Don Thomas's analysis?
>
> >>> Huh? This makes no sense. You know about what I did. You know about
> >>> the
> >>> NAS panel's response to Thomas.
>
> >> Weak.
>
> > Nonsense. Is your memory failing? Just in case, let me provide a couple
> > of
> > links. One of them is on your own site.
>
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/odell/
>
> The needle assembly on the Audograph doesn't move at all. The disc is
> mounted on a spindle and moves horizontally under the needle as recording
> progresses. The horizontal motion of the spindle is a result of being
> mechanically geared to a worm gear, such that, as the spindle rotates, the
> center of the disc moves away from the needle assembly. There is no
> freedom of motion in this mechanical system, except for the tip of the
> needle. The repeats happen because the needle tip has some flexibility and
> may get stuck for an additional rotation or two, but the horizontal
> movement of the disc never stops and the needle must eventually catch up
> to where it should be. When the needle does catch up it will skip over
> sections of the recording. In the long run any repeats will be roughly
> matched by forward skips where the needle jumps over grooves.
>
OK, what are you doing here? You ask why I refuse to rebut Don Thomas's
analysis. So I point you to a link (which you already know about) of an
article that does just that. Then you respond with this? What does it
have to do with anything?
> You falsely assume, without proof, that every time the needle skips it
> will go back to exactly where it should have been had it not skipped.
>
Wrong on both points. What I said above is not "without proof". I'm
describing the machine. Which I have.
And nothing I said above translates to, "every time the needle skips it
will go back to exactly where it should have been had it not skipped."
I'm happy to "discuss the evidence" with you, as you constantly claim to
want. But you need to start doing it and stop playing these silly games.
> >http://the-puzzle-palace.com/contents45-4.pdf
>
> That's just the Table of Contents.
The Table of Contents of a document that you just implied did not exist.
Yes.
Michael
The Dutchman
On Nov 30, 10:22 pm, "Michael O'Dell" <ml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Are any of the conversations here "necessary"? What's your point?
>
> Michael
I apologize. I should have made my post clearer. I was basically
responding to Anthony's part of the conversation between you and him. In
my opinion, his intelligent contributions to the group are undercut by the
style of mean spirited verbiage he seems to have cultivated during his
time here. This is my subjective opinion.
Also, I was trying to make the point, that since the photographic record
shows that no vehicle with a potentially stuck microphone was anywhere
near any of the 18 foot circles at the points in time when BBN said they
would have to have been, in order for their conclusions to be correct--I
was trying to make the point that for this reason-- the audio evidence is
null.
As I considered the issue more, I realized that a scientist such as
yourself would persue a more objective approach, as you describe in your
paper, "The Acoustic Evidence in the Kennedy Assassination"
Again, I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.
Anthony Marsh
> I wrote, "Is this conversation necessary?"
>
> On Nov 30, 10:22 pm, "Michael O'Dell"<ml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Are any of the conversations here "necessary"? What's your point?
>>
>> Michael
>
> I apologize. I should have made my post clearer. I was basically
> responding to Anthony's part of the conversation between you and him. In
> my opinion, his intelligent contributions to the group are undercut by the
> style of mean spirited verbiage he seems to have cultivated during his
> time here. This is my subjective opinion.
>
> Also, I was trying to make the point, that since the photographic record
> shows that no vehicle with a potentially stuck microphone was anywhere
> near any of the 18 foot circles at the points in time when BBN said they
> would have to have been, in order for their conclusions to be correct--I
> was trying to make the point that for this reason-- the audio evidence is
> null.
>
Obviously you have not studied the acoustical evidence in depth. The cycle
with the open mike does not have to be within any particular circle at the
time BBN said it had to be there. I have covered this numerous times. The
cycle only needs to go close to that location during the duration of the
echo pattern which lasts for almost 1 second. The last loudest echo comes
back from the Post Office annex at about 900 milliseconds. 1123 fps. And
BBN sequence is based on HSCA bias which places the head shot as the last
shot from the TSBD. When you consider that the head shot came from the
grassy knoll, that moves forward the timing of the shots by about 20
Zapruder frames. So instead of the first shot being at about Z-160 it
would then be at about Z-180. There is also a minor shift of frames
depending on the speed of the recording.
> As I considered the issue more, I realized that a scientist such as
> yourself would persue a more objective approach, as you describe in your
> paper, "The Acoustic Evidence in the Kennedy Assassination"
>
> Again, I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.
>
>
For the record, the main reason why I am mean spirited is not because
people are ignorant. I expect that. What is annoying is when they know
better, but intentionally lie or refuse to learn anything.
>
>
Anthony Marsh
But those errors don't matter to you even when they based their
conclusions on those errors, as long as they agreed on the pre-determined
conclusion which you espouse. That's doesn't sound like science.
>> doesn't matter to you are long as they agree with the non conspiracy
>> conclusion. It doesn't bother you that they published false data to
>> support their position. Did you enumerate all their errors in your own
>> rebuttal?
>
> Try reading it.
>
I quoted it.
That's my point. They were pre-determined.
There is a great danger in relying on one test which may be incorrect.
Such as the NAA.
One criticism of BBN was that they relied on one test only and did not
consider other factors which were brought out by amateurs.
I am pointing out a fundamental mistake that you made.
>> You falsely assume, without proof, that every time the needle skips it
>> will go back to exactly where it should have been had it not skipped.
>>
>
> Wrong on both points. What I said above is not "without proof". I'm
> describing the machine. Which I have.
>
You said the needle will return to exactly where it should have been had
the needle not skipped.
> And nothing I said above translates to, "every time the needle skips it
> will go back to exactly where it should have been had it not skipped."
>
> I'm happy to "discuss the evidence" with you, as you constantly claim to
> want. But you need to start doing it and stop playing these silly games.
>
Then tell me the places where the needle did return to the place where
it should have if it had not skipped and where it did not. Upload a chart.
>>> http://the-puzzle-palace.com/contents45-4.pdf
>>
>> That's just the Table of Contents.
>
>
> The Table of Contents of a document that you just implied did not exist.
> Yes.
>
Never said that.
> Michael
>
>
>
Anthony Marsh
>
> On Nov 29, 10:50 pm, The Dutchman said, "Is this conversation
> necessary?"
>
> On Nov 30, 4:16 pm, Anthony Marsh said, " I know, I know. It's actually
> discussion the evidence, something anathema to the WC defenders. They'd
> rather discuss BALOGNA."
>
> It was a rhetorical question. Anyway, BBN's thrown in the towel; Thomas is
> hanging by a thread. In your heart of hearts, do you really think there
Typical disinformation from a propaganda expert. BBN has not thrown in
the towel. They stand by their work.
> was any stuck microphone anywhere near where it would have to have been?
>
>
Don Thomas shows how it could be possible and so do I. You misrepresent
facts to make it appear impossible.
The Dutchman
> For the record, the main reason why I am mean spirited is not because
> people are ignorant. I expect that. What is annoying is when they know
> better, but intentionally lie or refuse to learn anything.
Well, we're getting somewhere. You admit you're mean spirited, but with
qualifications.
On Dec 1, 8:03 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>What is annoying is when they know
>better, but intentionally lie or refuse to learn anything.
I'm a layman with respect to the acoustic evidence. You're saying that I
intentionally lie or refuse to learn anything--just because I don't rubber
stamp your opinions? Are you an expert in the science of acoustics? If so,
what are your qualifications?
Since I'm not an expert, I listen to them, not you. Since BBN/WA's
conclusions came out in the late 70's, the consensus of the experts
investigating their work is that BBN/WA got it wrong. A similar scenario
exists with regard to Guinn's work. Everybody meets their Waterloo.
Where was the stuck microphone?
Sandy McCroskey
I am sure that is very infuriating to you.
Anthony Marsh
Regarding your article which you say I never bothered to read, the W2
looks nothing like your W3. W3 looks like a speech pattern with a
fricative. And there is a mid range with regular soft peaks unlike the DPD
tape. And you falsely depict W3 as if the loudest peak is similar to W2's
loudest peek. And you don't say that your sound was recorded with AGC when
you know the DPD used AGC. And your graph does not have a likely shock
wave peak just before the main peak like W2. And FYI a N-wave is not only
associated with a shock wave. You also see one on the muzzle blast. Your
W3 is not printed in large enough detail that we can see if it has any
N-wave. I seriously doubt that your saying "k" produced an N-wave or 140
decibels. In short, apples and oranges. Yet you say similar.
And the appearances of the wave forms or the presence of the shock wave do
not necessary identify it as a grassy knoll shot. Now, just for fun
perform the same type of echo pattern analysis that W&A did, this time on
your WC impulses. Can you beat their match-up for a grassy knoll shot?
That would falsify their result.
The Dutchman
> On 11/30/2009 8:06 PM, The Dutchman wrote:
> > It was a rhetorical question. Anyway, BBN's thrown in the towel; Thomas is
> > hanging by a thread. In your heart of hearts, do you really think there
> Typical disinformation from a propaganda expert.
Geez, Tony, that sounds like something on youtube.
>BBN has not thrown in
> the towel. They stand by their work.
Well, it seems like Barger is either hanging on grimly with a real
stiff upper lip, or he's all but conceding defeat, depending on what
conversation he's quoted in. Also, does he stand by his original
belief that the stuck mic would have to be in a certain place and
time?
> > was any stuck microphone anywhere near where it would have to have been?
> Don Thomas shows how it could be possible and so do I.
How it "could" be. To me that's hanging on by a thread, or to
paraphrase your buddy VB, embracing improbabilities and rejecting
probabilities.
>You misrepresent facts to make it appear impossible.
I just thought that if the first investigation said that some mic had
to be in a certain place/time, or the results are invalid, and that if
the mic wasn't there--then it would be one hell of a coincidence, or
some kind of Divine Providence deal for them to turn out to be right
after all. I'm not dogmatic. The acoustic evidence could be proven
some day after all. I just think for now it's dead in the water. I
think you know it too.
Anthony Marsh
> On Dec 1, 8:03 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> For the record, the main reason why I am mean spirited is not because
>> people are ignorant. I expect that. What is annoying is when they know
>> better, but intentionally lie or refuse to learn anything.
>
>
> Well, we're getting somewhere. You admit you're mean spirited, but with
> qualifications.
>
>
> On Dec 1, 8:03 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> What is annoying is when they know
>> better, but intentionally lie or refuse to learn anything.
>
> I'm a layman with respect to the acoustic evidence. You're saying that I
> intentionally lie or refuse to learn anything--just because I don't rubber
> stamp your opinions? Are you an expert in the science of acoustics? If so,
> what are your qualifications?
>
It's kinda hard for you to lie about it if you don't know anything
about. You can speculate. That's fine. It gives us a chance to figure
out what you do know and what you don't know.
> Since I'm not an expert, I listen to them, not you. Since BBN/WA's
> conclusions came out in the late 70's, the consensus of the experts
> investigating their work is that BBN/WA got it wrong. A similar scenario
> exists with regard to Guinn's work. Everybody meets their Waterloo.
>
They were not any more expert than the best acoustical scientists in the
world who stick by their work. So if you only listen to the best experts
you MUST accept the acoustical evidence.
> Where was the stuck microphone?
On Houston Street.
Are you interested in its starting location at the exact moment of the
first shot?
bigdog
>
> Obviously you have not studied the acoustical evidence in depth. The cycle
> with the open mike does not have to be within any particular circle at the
> time BBN said it had to be there. I have covered this numerous times. The
> cycle only needs to go close to that location during the duration of the
> echo pattern which lasts for almost 1 second. The last loudest echo comes
> back from the Post Office annex at about 900 milliseconds. 1123 fps. And
> BBN sequence is based on HSCA bias which places the head shot as the last
> shot from the TSBD. When you consider that the head shot came from the
> grassy knoll, that moves forward the timing of the shots by about 20
> Zapruder frames. So instead of the first shot being at about Z-160 it
> would then be at about Z-180. There is also a minor shift of frames
> depending on the speed of the recording.
>
Close enough for a CT.
The Dutchman
> It's kinda hard for you to lie about it if you don't know anything
> about. You can speculate. That's fine. It gives us a chance to figure out what you do know and what you don't know.
You can breath easy. I know almost nothing about the science of acoustics.
That's why I go with expert consensus w/regard to the acoustic issues;
ditto for Tobin, Spiegelman, et al. I think they've done to Guinn's work,
in a roughly equivalent way, what numerous researchers have done to
BBN/WA's work. Let's move on.
> They were not any more expert than the best acoustical scientists in the
> world who stick by their work. So if you only listen to the best experts
> you MUST accept the acoustical evidence.
Does that mean we should also go with Barger when he says that if the mic
wasn't in a certain place at a certain time, his results are invalid?
"...who stick by their work...."
Yeah, in a "deer-in-the-headlights", "That's my story and I'm stickin'
to it."--kind of way.
> > Where was the stuck microphone?
>
> On Houston Street.
Whose MC/vehicle was it? Don't prove it, that would be too hard. Just, you
know, give some good INDICATIONS that it was whoever's. If it was
Mclain's, convince me that on the day this motorcycle officer was to
escort the President of the United States, he would not only be on the
wrong channel, but have a stuck mic to boot. I know some of his testimony
is ambiguous, but it doesn't seem to add up to much as far an impeachment
of his credibility.
Still waiting for your bona fides.
Anthony Marsh
> On Dec 2, 5:15 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> It's kinda hard for you to lie about it if you don't know anything
>> about. You can speculate. That's fine. It gives us a chance to figure out what you do know and what you don't know.
>
> You can breath easy. I know almost nothing about the science of acoustics.
> That's why I go with expert consensus w/regard to the acoustic issues;
> ditto for Tobin, Spiegelman, et al. I think they've done to Guinn's work,
> in a roughly equivalent way, what numerous researchers have done to
> BBN/WA's work. Let's move on.
>
>
>
>> They were not any more expert than the best acoustical scientists in the
>> world who stick by their work. So if you only listen to the best experts
>> you MUST accept the acoustical evidence.
>
> Does that mean we should also go with Barger when he says that if the mic
> wasn't in a certain place at a certain time, his results are invalid?
>
No. Neither did the grassy knoll shooter not being in the same location
as their DPD marksman invalidate their analysis.
>
> "...who stick by their work...."
>
> Yeah, in a "deer-in-the-headlights", "That's my story and I'm stickin'
> to it."--kind of way.
>
>
>>> Where was the stuck microphone?
>>
>> On Houston Street.
>
> Whose MC/vehicle was it? Don't prove it, that would be too hard. Just, you
> know, give some good INDICATIONS that it was whoever's. If it was
McLain's. As Don Thomas pointed out in his excellent article McLain was
the only cycle which could have been in that position at that time. All
the other cycles are accounted for.
> Mclain's, convince me that on the day this motorcycle officer was to
> escort the President of the United States, he would not only be on the
> wrong channel, but have a stuck mic to boot. I know some of his testimony
He testified that his mic often stuck and that he and other officers
were sometimes on the wrong channel that day.
> is ambiguous, but it doesn't seem to add up to much as far an impeachment
> of his credibility.
>
>
>
Maybe if the DOJ had done their work properly they would have identified
McLain's actual voice on channel one.
drummist1965
You are confusing me (Steve Barber) with Todd Vaughan. I am
mentioned in several places in the first printing. I have an advance
copy, released May 14, 1982, and copies of those that followed. Todd
Vaughan was not. They added Todd's name by the time the second
printing was made public.
>
> > As for answering questions, they've answered mine. Maybe it's something
> > about your approach. :-)
>
> Maybe it's called bias.
> Pretty standard for scientists.
>
> > Michael
Michael O'Dell
>news:87ec65a7-f56d-4b24-80eb->9e5f2b...@g1g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
Hi Steve,
I wonder what the odds are that Tony will admit his error.
Michael
drummist1965
> >"drummist1965" <elpdrum...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:87ec65a7-f56d-4b24-80eb->9e5f2b810__BEGIN_MASK_n#9g02mG7!__...__END_MASK_i?a63jfAD$z...@g1g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
Hi Michael,
So do I. He'll come up with some sort of an excuse, or claim that
there was a conspiracy in the printing.
Anthony Marsh
I am only telling you what Ramsey told me.
Ramsey said it was a simple mistake. He didn't say it was a conspiracy.
drummist1965
> On 12/4/2009 4:27 PM, drummist1965 wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 4, 12:52 am, "Michael O'Dell"<ml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> "drummist1965"<elpdrum...@gmail.com> wrote in message
This is so false.
A year before the Ramsey report was even released to the public, On
April 9, 1981, Paul Horowitz, a member of the Ramsey panel, who was the
first to contact me, read to me, over the telephone, exactly what was
being written into the report, regarding myself, to see if if it was
accurate. I was asked whether or not I wanted them to state that I was
from Shelby, Ohio, or Mansfield, Ohio, since I had moved from Shelby to
Mansfield between the time he first contacted me via U.S. postal and
telephone, and when he contacted me to read the section of the report
introducing me. I know for a fact that you are presenting untruth here,
Tony. This topic came up once before in here, when you brought this up,
and you were arguing at that time that your copy of the report didn't
contain my name. My name has never been "accidentally" or otherwise, left
out of the report. I plan to contact Professor Ramsey, and send him what
you have stated here, and I can guarantee everyone, Ramsey never said any
such thing.
drummist1965
> Video produced for IEEE.tv dispels conspiracy theories based on the
> 1982 Committee on Ballistic Acoustics study of the science of signal
> processing. View @ bit.ly/1O8aYJ
How does one access this video?
Thanks.
The Dutchman
The URL is there but easy to miss:
By the way, thanks for all your work you've shared with the public on
the acoustic issue over the years.
drummist1965
> On Dec 5, 3:41 pm, drummist1965 <elpdrum...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 12, 12:15 am, Writing <leon...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> > > Video produced for IEEE.tv dispels conspiracy theories based on the
> > > 1982 Committee on Ballistic Acoustics study of the science of signal
> > > processing. View @ bit.ly/1O8aYJ
>
> > How does one access this video?
>
> > Thanks.
>
> The URL is there but easy to miss:
>
> bit.ly/1O8aYJ
Thanks very much for the advice, Dutchman.
>
> By the way, thanks for all your work you've shared with the public on
> the acoustic issue over the years.
You're welcome, and thank you. It has been my pleasure to share
whatever I can, with the public.
Michael O'Dell
Or just ignore it and pretend he didn't say anything.
Michael
drummist1965
> "drummist1965" <elpdrum...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:5059e6fc-cb84-4c5f...@h10g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 5, 1:16 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 12/4/2009 4:27 PM, drummist1965 wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 4, 12:52 am, "Michael O'Dell"<ml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >>> "drummist1965"<elpdrum...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Obviously. ;^)
Michael O'Dell
>>>>>>> Why did the NAS panel ignore the fact that some of the messages they
>>>>>>> used
>>>>>>> for their timing were actually repeats?
>>>
>>>>>> They didn't ignore it.
>>>
>>>>> They ignored the ones I pointed out.
>>>
>>>> Not the same thing. And what's your point anyway? In reality, they'd
>>>> have
>>>> been better of if they did ignore the repeats. It screwed up their
>>>> timing.
>>>
>>> SO finally you admit that the NAS panel did make several errors. But
>>> that
>>
>> Tony, you are a victim of your preconceptions.
>>
>> As is blatantly obvious, if you both to read it, my article proves the
>> NAS
>> timeline wrong. Of course I say they made errors! You really make
>> yourself look foolish with this stuff.
>>
>
> But those errors don't matter to you even when they based their
> conclusions on those errors, as long as they agreed on the pre-determined
> conclusion which you espouse. That's doesn't sound like science.
>
I didn't and don't espouse any "pre-determined conclusion". You do. I
followed the evidence where it led. You should try it.
>>> doesn't matter to you are long as they agree with the non conspiracy
>>> conclusion. It doesn't bother you that they published false data to
>>> support their position. Did you enumerate all their errors in your own
>>> rebuttal?
>>
>> Try reading it.
>>
>
> I quoted it.
> That's my point. They were pre-determined.
>
Nonsense. There's no point there. Not doing a silly test, but doing a
lot of other very useful ones, only makes it "predetermined" in your mind.
> There is a great danger in relying on one test which may be incorrect.
> Such as the NAA.
Who said anything about relying on one test? Once again, not the issue.
> One criticism of BBN was that they relied on one test only and did not
> consider other factors which were brought out by amateurs.
>
>>>
>>>
> I am pointing out a fundamental mistake that you made.
>
No you aren't, and that wasn't the subject. The subject was your
assertion that I refuse to rebut Don Thomas. Come on Tony, admit your
error.
>>> You falsely assume, without proof, that every time the needle skips it
>>> will go back to exactly where it should have been had it not skipped.
>>>
>>
>> Wrong on both points. What I said above is not "without proof". I'm
>> describing the machine. Which I have.
>>
>
> You said the needle will return to exactly where it should have been had
> the needle not skipped.
>
I notice you didn't bother to quote. Stop making up nits.
>> And nothing I said above translates to, "every time the needle skips it
>> will go back to exactly where it should have been had it not skipped."
>>
>> I'm happy to "discuss the evidence" with you, as you constantly claim to
>> want. But you need to start doing it and stop playing these silly games.
>>
>
> Then tell me the places where the needle did return to the place where it
> should have if it had not skipped and where it did not. Upload a chart.
>
No, I don't do work to order for you. Again you try to deflect from being
wrong.
>>>> http://the-puzzle-palace.com/contents45-4.pdf
>>>
>>> That's just the Table of Contents.
>>
>>
>> The Table of Contents of a document that you just implied did not exist.
>> Yes.
>>
>
> Never said that.
>
Which is why I said you "implied" it. You acted as if it didn't exist,
when you know otherwise.
BTW, the entire document can be found here: http://www.jfk-records.com.
My old site where I kept acoustics stuff was zapped along with Geocities,
so I'm working on putting it all back up.
Michael