It's a grand sham
Herbert Blenner
They are now hopping from one thread to another reassuring themselves that
they hear what the Ramsey Panel called highly garbled speech. I refer to
the alleged Decker crosstalk.
http://www.members.aol.com/a1eah71/longmessage.wav
Recognizing key words in the garbled message would be easy compared with
explaining the absence of the loud brieftone, which accompanied the Decker
"hold everything" message.
http://www.members.aol.com/a1eah71/deckertracktwo.wav
Ouch! That not-so-brief tone sounded throughout the relevant portion of
Decker's broadcast. Yet we hear no trace of the loud tone on the alleged
crosstalk. Instead we hear three heterodynes at about one octave above the
missing brieftone. So how does this observation consistent a sham?
The crosstalk mechanism produces intelligible speech. Although the volume
maybe diminutive, barely audible words are clear.
http://www.members.aol.com/hdblenner/cardinal.htg/trackone157.wav
By contrast the much louder words of the alleged crosstalk are garbled
because they were produced by a simultaneous Channel-I transmission. The
interaction between the two FM signals destroyed existing and introduced
extraneous frequencies in the alleged crosstalk.
Of course, these considerations allow an active Channel-II receiver to
have been the source of this irreversibly distorted signal. In this case
the alleged signal would be true crosstalk. So where is the grand sham?
The grand sham is found in the paragraphs following the description of the
alleged crosstalk by the Ramsey Panel as highly garbled speech. They claim
to have matched the frequency content of Decker's hold everything
broadcast with the alleged Decker crosstalk whose frequency content was
irreversibly changed by the simultaneous transmissions.
Steve
What Herbert is basically doing now, posting one thread after another
on this when the heat is on him, is, Herbert is now calling voice
spectrograms a "sham" .
Voice spectograms are something law enforcement people have been using
for years and years in proving/disproving a case. Anyone can take a
peek at the voice spectrograms printed within the pages of the Ramsey
report and see that the transmission on channel 1 matches the
transmission on channel two.
Steve
jwrush
"Herbert Blenner" <a1e...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1122253003.8...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> They are now hopping from one thread to another reassuring themselves that
> they hear what the Ramsey Panel called highly garbled speech. I refer to
> the alleged Decker crosstalk.
>
> http://www.members.aol.com/a1eah71/longmessage.wav
>
> Recognizing key words in the garbled message would be easy compared with
> explaining the absence of the loud brieftone, which accompanied the Decker
> "hold everything" message.
>
> http://www.members.aol.com/a1eah71/deckertracktwo.wav
>
> Ouch! That not-so-brief tone sounded throughout the relevant portion of
> Decker's broadcast.
Herb, on your Channel 2 recording you are playing back a lot of squeals and
the full sentence that Decker made that was recorded on Channel 2. Then on
your Channel 1 recording, you are playing back only the "hold everything
secure" words of Decker's statement, so of course all the Channel 2 squeals
were not recorded on Channel 1, since the crosstalk on Channel 1 lasted for
only about 3 words.
Herbert Blenner
The heat is indeed on, Steve. The failure of the alleged Decker
crosstalk to contain the loud brieftone, which accompanied the Decker
broadcast has increased the temperature. Personally, I find your
reference to the spectrographs of the Ramsey Panel amusing.
http://books.nap.edu/books/NI000372/html/104.html
The Channel-II spectrum does not show the loud brieftone that we hear
on our copies of the Audograph disk. On the spectrograph of Channel-II
the loud brieftone should appear as a long and narrow line at 1.1 kHz
without a second harmonic at 2.2 kHz and a third harmonic at 3.3 kHz.
Do you think the Ramsey Panel analyzed a different signal? My
spectrographs of the loud brieftone, which accompanied Decker's long
hold everything message on Channel-II show a strong peak at 1.1 kHz and
the third harmonic.
I invite readers to view the following spectra from the Ramsey report.
They explicitly label Channel-II signals with prominent second
harmonics as brieftones.
http://books.nap.edu/books/NI000372/html/105.html
The Watson Research Center defined a brieftone, noted its prominent
second harmonic and occurrence when no other stations were present.
They wrote.
Quote on.
On Channel-II spectra (Figs. [3, 4 and 5]) we note that during voice
transmissions there are no silence gaps between words. The signal level of
Channel II is fairly constant. This could result from the presence of
nearby motorcycle radios tuned to Channel II, while someone is
transmitting on Channel II. A radio receiver close to a transmitting mike
could form a closed loop having greater than unity gain. This will excite
a natural frequency of the loop and it will act as an oscillator. The
resulting oscillations will be recorded on the Channel-II recorder. We
notice this phenomenon on Channel-II recording. During these periods, the
spectra consist of a strong sinusoid (in the frequency range 1300-1800 Hz)
and its harmonics. There is virtually no other signal present during these
periods. We call these "Brieftones." Being high energy and very
narrow-band, these are extremely valuable in determining the cross-talk
level. On Channel II spectra (in Figures 4(b) and 5(b)) second harmonics
of brieftones are quite prominent, while on Channel I spectra, all the
Channel-II brieftones are present but their harmonics are not visible,
indicating the limited frequency range of Channel I (even in the normal
recording of Channel-I communications, the Channel-I recording has a
similar roll-off at high frequencies.).
Quote off.
The Watson Research Center described the feedback mechanism, which creates
a brieftone. For this reason there can be no doubt what they are talking
about. The oscillation increases in amplitude until saturation limits
further increase. This produces a symmetrically clipped waveform whose
spectra has prominent odd harmonics. Hence the signals with prominent
second harmonics shown on the spectrographs of the Ramsey report cannot be
brieftones.
By contrast, a heterodyne in a FM receiver has a prominent second harmonic
and is a strong sinusoid when two simultaneous transmissions are silent.
This later characteristic arises since the frequency of the heterodyne is
one-half the difference of the two carrier frequencies. If either
transmission contained audio then its carrier frequency would vary with
the amplitude of the audio. This is how FM works. The reader should note
that the Watson Research Center observed the mislabeled brieftones with
prominent second harmonics when virtually no other station was present. In
reality the observed heterodynes.
These technical considerations are my solid foundation for describing the
works of the Ramsey Panel and the Watson Research Center as shams.
Herbert
Herbert Blenner
The bottom line is the loud brieftones were present on Channel-II
before, during and after Decker said hold everything secure and absent
from the entire garbled Channel-I reception, which supposedly contains
the Decker crosstalk.
I suppose one can say that the brieftones squealed on the sham of the
Decker crosstalk matching.
Herbert
Anthony Marsh
It is not clear what you are claiming that Herb did and what YOU can hear.
Is it YOUR claim that only about 3 words can be heard on channel 1
starting with "hold everything secure"? This is a point of contention,
because Steve Barber was never very precise about exactly how many words
he could hear. But he thinks he can hear several. Not just "hold
everything secure."
--
Anthony Marsh
The Puzzle Palace http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh
Anthony Marsh
So what? That does not prove that they are always right. And even if you
think that they are usually right, that does not mean that they were
done correctly in this case. It could be bias.
> Steve
Herbert Blenner
Herbert Blenner wrote:
> They are now hopping from one thread to another reassuring themselves that
> they hear what the Ramsey Panel called highly garbled speech. I refer to
> the alleged Decker crosstalk.
>
> http://www.members.aol.com/a1eah71/longmessage.wav
>
> Recognizing key words in the garbled message would be easy compared with
> explaining the absence of the loud brieftone, which accompanied the Decker
> "hold everything" message.
>
> http://www.members.aol.com/a1eah71/deckertracktwo.wav
>
> Ouch! That not-so-brief tone sounded throughout the relevant portion of
> Decker's broadcast. Yet we hear no trace of the loud tone on the alleged
> crosstalk. Instead we hear three heterodynes at about one octave above the
> missing brieftone. So how does this observation consistent a sham?
>
> The crosstalk mechanism produces intelligible speech. Although the volume
> maybe diminutive, barely audible words are clear.
>
> http://www.members.aol.com/hdblenner/cardinal.htg/trackone157.wav
The correct link is
http://www.members.aol.com/hdblenner/cardinal.htg/trackone0157.wav
Herbert
jwrush
Herb, your Ch 1 copy has been filtered too much through an equalizer. I hear
the background squeals in my copy during the "hold everything secure"
segment. Also, I hear "Signal 5", rather than what you claim is "Channel 5".
There was no "Channel 5" in Dallas and no one said "Channel 5" on the
recordings that day. You need to get yourself copies of the tapes that are
closer to the originals and stop playing around with altering the various
frequencies of the recordings.
jwrush
"Anthony Marsh" <ama...@quik.com> wrote in message
news:7JgFe.713$x32.193@trndny09...
It depends on which copy one listens to. Like Steve, I hear a few more words
in copies other than the one Herb presented here. The "hold everything
secure" portion are the loudest and clearest words but they fade in and out,
and a couple of more words ahead and behind that phrase can be heard in some
copies of the recording.
In making copies, some people run their "original copies" through filters,
equalizers, etc., so in some dubs more or fewer words can be heard. Seems
that Herb's dub of Channel 1 was run through an equalizer so as to minimize
the frequencies of the squeals on the copy he links us too. I don't know if
he did that or someone else did it. Herb tries to imply that his copies are
originals made right from the disk and belt.
jwrush
> Steve wrote:
>
>>
>> What Herbert is basically doing now, posting one thread after another
>> on this when the heat is on him, is, Herbert is now calling voice
>> spectrograms a "sham" .
>>
>> Voice spectograms are something law enforcement people have been using
>> for years and years in proving/disproving a case. Anyone can take a
>> peek at the voice spectrograms printed within the pages of the Ramsey
>> report and see that the transmission on channel 1 matches the
>> transmission on channel two.
> So what? That does not prove that they are always right. And even if you
> think that they are usually right, that does not mean that they were done
> correctly in this case. It could be bias.
Are you not putting yourself forward now as an "acoustics" expert? As you
have claimed to be a "curtain rod" expert?
Steve
>> What Herbert is basically doing now, posting one thread after another
>> on this when the heat is on him, is, Herbert is now calling voice
>> spectrograms a "sham" .
>> Voice spectograms are something law enforcement people have been using
>> for years and years in proving/disproving a case. Anyone can take a
>> peek at the voice spectrograms printed within the pages of the Ramsey
>> report and see that the transmission on channel 1 matches the
>> transmission on channel two.
Marsh said:
> So what? That does not prove that they are always right. And even if you
> think that they are usually right, that does not mean that they were done
> correctly in this case. It could be bias.
Tony wrote:
Are you not putting yourself forward now as an "acoustics" expert? As
you
have claimed to be a "curtain rod" expert?
Steve writes:
Absolutely not. And I have never, EVER claimed to be But, since you
bring it up, what makes you think that *you* are an expert on these
issues to where you feel the need to insult me with this type of
question?
Anthony Marsh
>
> You call the police and detectives in your area up Tony, and say
> these exact words that you just said to me, and see what type of
> response you get after you have said this.
>
> This is truly Unbelievable. ABSOLUTELY UN-BELIEVABLE!!!!!!!!!
>
>
This is truly unbelievable that you are not aware of the many mistakes
that the police have made. Look at the Innocence Project. There was a
controversy over some supposed expert on dental impressions lying under
oath to convict innocent people. Even DNA has come under scrutiny. And
recently there have been questions raised about NAA. If you think that
we are going to match in lockstep in agreement with whatever you post,
you are in the wrong place.
Steve
> What Herbert is basically doing now, posting one thread after another
> on this when the heat is on him, is, Herbert is now calling voice
> spectrograms a "sham" .
> Voice spectograms are something law enforcement people have been using
> for years and years in proving/disproving a case. Anyone can take a
> peek at the voice spectrograms printed within the pages of the Ramsey
> report and see that the transmission on channel 1 matches the
> transmission on channel two.
Tony wrote:
So what? That does not prove that they are always right. And even if
you
think that they are usually right, that does not mean that they were
done correctly in this case. It could be bias.
Steve writes:
Anthony Marsh
Interesting. I never knew that there was something like a "curtain rod"
expert. I just happened to have experience with exactly the same type
of problem with flimsy curtain rods.
Steve
jwrush
You are confusing your traumatic "curtain rod" experience with the JFK
case. It was YOU to changed curtain rods. It was OSWALD who took his rifle
to work in a large, heavy-duty, home-made sack.
jwrush
"Steve" <drumr...@wmconnect.com> wrote in message
news:1122405210.3...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Yeah, Tony, and tell them your "curtain rod" story too.
Herbert Blenner
Tony, remember to tell the police and detectives one voice is nearly
buried in the noise and garbled by a two-way radio. The second voice is
ungarbed but is higher compressed by another radio.
The police may explain spectrographic matching requires nearly noise
free and undistorted samples.
>
> This is truly Unbelievable. ABSOLUTELY UN-BELIEVABLE!!!!!!!!!
The Ramsey Panel and the Watson Research Center examined each frequency
range in Decker's Channel-II broadcast and called it a correlation if they
found that range in the alleged crosstalk. This standard ignored testing
for commonality of a frequency range being absent in both signals.
Understanding noise as the presence of every frequency range shows the
fallacy of the crosstalk matching. No matter which frequency range they
picked the noise from the Dictabelt would guarantee a correlation! Now all
they had to do was vary the wrap speed of one sample and observe the sharp
peak when the reached equal durations of samples.
Herbert
Steve
Tony, remember to tell the police and detectives one voice is nearly
buried in the noise and garbled by a two-way radio. The second voice is
ungarbed but is higher compressed by another radio.
The police may explain spectrographic matching requires nearly noise
free and undistorted samples.
> This is truly Unbelievable. ABSOLUTELY UN-BELIEVABLE!!!!!!!!!
The Ramsey Panel and the Watson Research Center examined each frequency
range in Decker's Channel-II broadcast and called it a correlation if
they
found that range in the alleged crosstalk. This standard ignored
testing
for commonality of a frequency range being absent in both signals.
Understanding noise as the presence of every frequency range shows the
fallacy of the crosstalk matching. No matter which frequency range they
picked the noise from the Dictabelt would guarantee a correlation! Now
all
they had to do was vary the wrap speed of one sample and observe the
sharp
peak when the reached equal durations of samples.
Herbert
Steve writesin reponse to this, these 3 words:
Blah, Blah Blah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Steve
This is truly unbelievable that you are not aware of the many mistakes
that the police have made. Look at the Innocence Project. There was a
controversy over some supposed expert on dental impressions lying under
oath to convict innocent people. Even DNA has come under scrutiny. And
recently there have been questions raised about NAA. If you think that
we are going to match in lockstep in agreement with whatever you post,
you are in the wrong place.
Well again, Tony, I suggest you take this up with the law enforcement
officers. Voice spectrograms are just like fingerprints. It is an
undeniable fact. And whomever is saying that DNA is questionable have
rocks in their head.
Steve
Tony, remember to tell the police and detectives one voice is nearly
buried in the noise and garbled by a two-way radio. The second voice is
ungarbed but is higher compressed by another radio.
The police may explain spectrographic matching requires nearly noise
free and undistorted samples.
> This is truly Unbelievable. ABSOLUTELY UN-BELIEVABLE!!!!!!!!!
The Ramsey Panel and the Watson Research Center examined each frequency
range in Decker's Channel-II broadcast and called it a correlation if
they
found that range in the alleged crosstalk. This standard ignored
testing
for commonality of a frequency range being absent in both signals.
Understanding noise as the presence of every frequency range shows the
fallacy of the crosstalk matching. No matter which frequency range they
picked the noise from the Dictabelt would guarantee a correlation! Now
all
they had to do was vary the wrap speed of one sample and observe the
sharp
peak when the reached equal durations of samples.
Herbert
Steve writes in reponse to this, these 3 words:
Blah, Blah Blah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Anthony Marsh
>
> Steve wrote:
>
>>Steve wrote:
>>
>>
>>> What Herbert is basically doing now, posting one thread after another
>>>on this when the heat is on him, is, Herbert is now calling voice
>>>spectrograms a "sham" .
>>
>>
>>> Voice spectograms are something law enforcement people have been using
>>>for years and years in proving/disproving a case. Anyone can take a
>>>peek at the voice spectrograms printed within the pages of the Ramsey
>>>report and see that the transmission on channel 1 matches the
>>>transmission on channel two.
>>
>>
>>Tony wrote:
>>
>>So what? That does not prove that they are always right. And even if
>>you
>>think that they are usually right, that does not mean that they were
>>done correctly in this case. It could be bias.
>>
>> Steve writes:
>>
>> You call the police and detectives in your area up Tony, and say
>>these exact words that you just said to me, and see what type of
>>response you get after you have said this.
>
>
> Tony, remember to tell the police and detectives one voice is nearly
> buried in the noise and garbled by a two-way radio. The second voice is
> ungarbed but is higher compressed by another radio.
>
Steve tries this baloney often. Argument by authority. Seems to me that
even some professors who should know better by now also try the same
trick. I personally am not impresses whether the voice is nearly buried in
the noise or easily heard. Something is there. Finding out what it is and
what it means is more important. I admit that there is something there. My
original beef with Steve was that he was so vague and evasive about
exactly what words were there. All he would say is that it was the same
message as from channel 2. We NOW know that not all the words are heard.
If, arguendo, only 2 words were the same it could be coincidence that
someone else said the same two words, "hold everything." If the
voiceprints were done by professionals without bias then perhaps they
might have something important. But if the voiceprints were done by the
most bias WC defender and those who assisted were coached about what to do
in order to make the best possible match, then "something very wrong
here." Let's pretend that the voiceprint science is as strong as
fingerprints just for the sake of the argument. OK? Now, let's say that
you have a black suspect in an all white community and you need to frame
him. One easy way is to find fingerprints and simply lie about how good
the match was. Pretend that 4 questionable matches are perfect matches and
add those to 2 perfect matches and then claim that you have 6 perfect
matches and that proves it is the right person. I don't want to name
names, but things like that have happened with other pieces of evidence
used to convict innocent people.
> The police may explain spectrographic matching requires nearly noise
> free and undistorted samples.
>
>
I know what you mean, but I don't agree. There have been probably
thousands of cases where voiceprint analysis was accepted when there was
noise in the recording. It's hard to imagine any telephone recordings or
wiretaps where there was absolutely no noise recorded.
>> This is truly Unbelievable. ABSOLUTELY UN-BELIEVABLE!!!!!!!!!
>
>
> The Ramsey Panel and the Watson Research Center examined each frequency
> range in Decker's Channel-II broadcast and called it a correlation if they
> found that range in the alleged crosstalk. This standard ignored testing
> for commonality of a frequency range being absent in both signals.
> Understanding noise as the presence of every frequency range shows the
> fallacy of the crosstalk matching. No matter which frequency range they
> picked the noise from the Dictabelt would guarantee a correlation! Now all
> they had to do was vary the wrap speed of one sample and observe the sharp
> peak when the reached equal durations of samples.
>
That is part of the problem. Another problem is cuing. And just as an
aside, some people make the incorrect assumption that the shots and voices
are mutually exclusive. That is not necessarily true. There could be shots
recorded during the same portion of the tape where there were voices,
bells, whatever recorded. And the source of the voices could be
non-acoustical while the shots were acoustical. Two units can be on the
same channel at the same time. So McLain would be recording the shots
while someone else was recording the Decker crosstalk. That would be the
situation if the stuck open microphone was recording the shots in Dealey
Plaza while another unit somewhere else was picking up the crosstalk.
> Herbert
jwrush
What you do or do not admit is NOT important at all regarding the acoustics
evidence.
My
> original beef with Steve was that he was so vague and evasive about
> exactly what words were there.
No he wasn't. He never has been.
Anthony Marsh
You weren't there at his presentation in Washington.
jwrush
He's never been vague to me. But you have a lot of trouble understanding
some of the most basic facts of the case, so you might not have understood
him and you might not want to understand him. That's your problem, not
everyone else's problem.