JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales
- Thread starter Robert Harris
- Start date
- Status
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
The Justice Department did open a new investigation on the basis of the acoustic evidence from the HSCA. They found that the sound on the tape alleged to be an additional shot did not actually occur at the time of the firing from the Depository. The HSCA investigators were mistaken about the timing. Since this was the only bit of evidence from which HSCA inferred there must have been a conspiracy, it's really a moot issue now.
Yes, they (NRC acoustic panel) got that from a musician, I know. But there are big problems with this as I see it:
1. The tapes was not in sync, depending on different possible factors.
2. The cross over-talk appears I believe five times över the ca five minutes of the recording and the closest cross over is spot on.
You have to consider the extraordinary high probability for five (not four) rifle shots appearing as they do on the recording. According to Donald Thomas there is P=1/100 000 for this configuration to be anything other than five typical rifle shots in the Dealey Plaza that day.
The teams from BB&N and Queens College where the world leading in acoustics at the time. They solved the shooting at Kentucky State Uni, designed the sonar systems for US Navy's nuclear submarines and mobile real time sniper detection, among other things.
The panel you are referring to included exactly zero nil experts on acoustic analysis.
Never wondered why?
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
If you're familiar with Thomas' work then why did you ask whether the HSCA results should have motivated a Dept. of Justice investigation? Thomas specifically studied their results. And now that you are familiar with Thomas' work, can you tell us what subsequent researchers found to be his error?
HSCA's acoustic evidence of JFK conspiracy?
I feel that this subject needs its own thread.
Why did not the Justice Department follow up on the HSCA recommendation and initiate an investigation on the probable conspiracy behind the assassination of president John F. Kennedy?
I know that a NRC acoustic panel came to the conclusion that a cross talk appeared to refute the HSCA findings of five shots (not four) recorded on the DPD dictabelt. This was plain wrong though. There is five instances of cross talk on the ca five minutes recording from a stuck microphone and none of them is in perfect sync. One of them, the one closest to the shots are spot on and refutes NRC's findings.
Donald Thomas says that the probability for the five echo configurations being something other than typical rifle shots in Dealey Plaza is P=1/100 000. Thats is, if you are disputing the HSCA findings you have two choices:
1. Find flaws in the HSCA acoustics findings.
2. Find some other data/incidents that's even more improbable being wrong.
NRC couldn't do "1", so they tried "2" after being tipped of by a musician, but as I said, they where wrong and that contradicts the HSCA analysis.
The HSCA's two research team was world leading in acoustic analysis, solving the Kent. State shooting, inventing the sonar system for US Navy's nuclear submarines and real time mobile sniper detection for urban warfare.
The NRC acoustic panel included two Nobel prize winners but none was an expert on acoustics. What a peculiar bias, don't you think?
I feel that this subject needs its own thread.
Why did not the Justice Department follow up on the HSCA recommendation and initiate an investigation on the probable conspiracy behind the assassination of president John F. Kennedy?
I know that a NRC acoustic panel came to the conclusion that a cross talk appeared to refute the HSCA findings of five shots (not four) recorded on the DPD dictabelt. This was plain wrong though. There is five instances of cross talk on the ca five minutes recording from a stuck microphone and none of them is in perfect sync. One of them, the one closest to the shots are spot on and refutes NRC's findings.
Donald Thomas says that the probability for the five echo configurations being something other than typical rifle shots in Dealey Plaza is P=1/100 000. Thats is, if you are disputing the HSCA findings you have two choices:
1. Find flaws in the HSCA acoustics findings.
2. Find some other data/incidents that's even more improbable being wrong.
NRC couldn't do "1", so they tried "2" after being tipped of by a musician, but as I said, they where wrong and that contradicts the HSCA analysis.
The HSCA's two research team was world leading in acoustic analysis, solving the Kent. State shooting, inventing the sonar system for US Navy's nuclear submarines and real time mobile sniper detection for urban warfare.
The NRC acoustic panel included two Nobel prize winners but none was an expert on acoustics. What a peculiar bias, don't you think?
Last edited:
calebprime
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2006
- Messages
- 13,001
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination_Dictabelt_recording
I'm satisfied that the Dictabelt recording has been discredited. It was weak evidence to begin with. People are too credulous about sound.
I'm satisfied that the Dictabelt recording has been discredited. It was weak evidence to begin with. People are too credulous about sound.
On what grounds has it been "discredited" and by whom?
calebprime
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2006
- Messages
- 13,001
Make your case, if you like.
HSCA has already made my case. You are disputing it. On what grounds?
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
Not even really sound, not even quite echoes; "impulse patterns" is what the whole thing turns on. One of the scientists of the NAS who studied the recording said it was "probably static"; it's one thing for the CTists to hang their hats on static, that's the basic methodology of CT, but it's quite another to suggest the US government should waste more taxpayer money chasing the ghosts of echoes to satisfy them.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Sorry, are we talking about the dictabelt recording of a transmission of unknown origin, whose validity has been flatly denied by the man whose motorbike it was supposed to have come from, but has been assumed by conspiracy theorists to have been from near the Presidential limousine because that's where they want it to come from? And this from the movement that disputes the chain of custody on every piece of evidence they don't like the look of, on whatever grounds they can dream up? Motes and beams spring to mind; the chain of custody on this evidence is non-existent. There's no reason to suppose it was recorded from anywhere within earshot of the assassination.
Dave
Yes, impulse patterns. You need those if you are a bat or if you need to in real time locate a sniper in Basra.
No one in the NAS acoustic panel knew anything about acoustics analysis. You take their "expertise" on what? Your gut?
Ah, you mean McLain? Yes. You take his subjective 'expertise' instead of careful research from the top two of the the worlds leading research teams in acoustics analysis?
Why?
No, not assumed. Carefully researched by the top two world leading research teams in acoustics analysis. And no, I do not want people get killed by evil conspiracies, all I want is the truth.
Heard of that?
So, chain of custody is an over estimated concept?
You are the one dreaming, making a fool of yourself. I'm here to help you.
You do not need a chain of custody in this case. The patterns are unique. It's impossible to fake them. Sorry, not completely impossible. There is a 1/100 000 possibility that the patterns isn't five typical rifle shots fired from behind (four) the limo and from the front (one), the grassy knoll in Dealey Plaza ca 12:00 on nov 22 1963.
You are willing to take that chance?
Last edited:
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
"Expertise" was not my point; consilience, the filtering out of static from meaningful signal, was.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Because the recording is supposed to come from his bike. The eyewitness on the spot denies the validity of the basic premise behind the evidence.
You just blew all your credibility. No evidence is of any value unless you know where it came from.
Dave
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
What you're here on this forum for is one thing- we can agree or disagree (or even agree to disagree) on the evidence and what it shows, no harm, no foul. But you apparently want a (presumably official) re-re-re-investigation of a whole event, and a conclusion about it based on total consilience, because of one isolated and only possibly anomalous data point- your not liking the NAS analysis doesn't make the anomaly more meaningful in context.
Look, I've been to Dealey Plaza-
- and the idea that a conspiracy that wanted to remain a hidden one could have, or would have, put a rifleman in such an exposed spot as the knoll (or even a Badgeman behind the fence right next to it) is ludicrous. You need more than just this one disputed data-point to justify the expense of continued investigation. Realistic trajectories, unaccounted-for bullet fragments, independent and convergent eyewitness testimony that puts a man with a rifle there- c'mon, you need consilience to overturn consilience, and your stand-alone "impulse patterns" aren't gonna get you there.
So you are saying that HSCA's experts didn't know the difference between statics and echo patterns?
Last edited:
Yes, but eyewitness is not hard evidence. That goes for DPD in particular.
Is this a blanket statement? The acoustic signature i unique and if it fits the experimental data (test firing in D Plaza) with a P = 1/100 000 you pretty much know where it came from.
If the acoustic analysis says there is five rifle shots on the dictabelt and a conspiracy, well, a critic has three choices:
1. Show thats something is wrong with the investigation.
2. Show other secondary data that contradicts the finding and with a stronger confidence.
3. Don't give a ****.
Wich is it?
Gawdzilla Sama
TImeToSweepTheLeg
So the "two gunners" people are down to counting echoes?
- Status