A step in the right direction.
You admit the only distinguishing criteria was a loud noise at distance, and you admit they are indistinguishable, outside the coincidence of timing, from louder noises.
The BBN listed five criteria before even looking at the oscilloscope graphics in the laboratory:
1. The number of echo patterns had to be around 10 given that there was 5 buildings around Dealey Plaza = 5 facades + 5 corners (refractions).
2. Any echopattern would have an expected duration of around one-quarter to one-half second, given the dimensions of Dealey Plaza (500 ft wide) and the speed of sound.
3. There had to be at least three suspect patterns given it was at least three gunshots.
4. The suspect patterns would have to fall in a sequence of no less than four-and-a-half seconds (the minimum time that the Oswald rifle could be fired, cycled and refired three times) and no more than 15 seconds (the total time that the presidential limousine was on Elm Street).
5. Any such sequence of suspect patterns would have to occur within one minute either side of 12:30 p.m. by the dispatcher's clock, as that was how close the clocks were supposed to be synchronized.
Any issues with this?
By necessity, if the microphone was not at a specific location, where the echoes would be timed differently, due to differing distances, then the interpretation of the pulses is invalid.
Yes. And?
If the synchronisation of the timing is out by a few seconds (let alone an entire minute) the results no longer match the rifle shots and could be anything.
Yes. And?
We know also, from the paper, that despite you attempts to multiply numbers to fit your argument,
What numbers have I multiplied to fit what argument? Be specific, or retract.
that if the microphone was in the one spot where it all fits, that there was total of 5% chance that any or all of the pulses had been misidentified.
Wrong. The four identified rifle shots from behind the limo had a binary correlation between 0.6 - 0.8 which give each one of them at least 95% of being secured as such. The shot from in front at the picket fence, and who had the additional sonar analyzes made on it, was secured with P = 1/100 000 for being something else than a rifle shot from said fence.
On top of this is the topographical order in the data. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. If the patterns were, lets say, random statics, it should have been all over the place.
This is Scientific
proof of five rifle shots, if such a thing ever existed.
Which brings us to the unfortunate fact that we can not show a microphone to be in the right place, at the right time.
Not direct photographic evidence, correct. But:
1. Inference from the existing photographic record show that McLain was in position directly before and after the shooting, that he
could have been the MC cop with the stuck mike.
2. That the acoustical evidence proves he was that MC cop.
If you accept more recent analysis of the tapes, or not,
Which ”more recent analysis” are you alluding to here?
is moot, because we can see in the footage and photographs there simply is not a motorbike in, or near enough, to the one position the report allows the patterns to match rifle shots.
Is it not? Show me how you exclude McLain from being at the right spots at the right time.
Ergo: Those six selected impulses could be caused by any number of sources, because we have no measurements against which to calculate echo times, etc.
What? After the preliminary screening in the lab, finding 5 possible candidates + 1 candidate for possible candidate from a pistol or silencer, the BBN performed testing on site in Dealey Plaza. The performed test shots with a Carcano rifle from the snipers nest and from the picket fence on the knoll. They also did test shots with the Carcano drawn in from the window and also with a pistol from grassy knoll.
After this they compared all the test shots with the 6 suspect patterns on the DPD recording and found that 5 of them corresponded with said patterns.
Which is why when asked if the tests proved rifle shots, the man responsible for said tests answered "no".
Wrong:
1. He was responsible of the BBN-part of the investigation.
2. He was asked if the tests proved FOUR rifle shots, and answered, no. Which is technically correct, given that the correct number was FIVE proven rifle shots.
3. The missmatch between the findings in the two investigations (BBN + W&A) and the presentation of said findings is completely the fault of the chief of HSCA, Robert Blakey, forcing BBN and W&A to commit to a ”political compromise”:
1. One identified rifle shot from behind had to be excluded beacause:
"The entry in Table II that occurred at 140.32 sec is a false alarm, because it occurred only 1.05 sec later than earlier correlations also obtained from the TSBD. The rifle cannot be fired that rapidly. Since there are three correlations plausibly indicating the earlier shot, the one occurring 1.05 sec later must be a false alarm."
Which is circular reasoning a la Robert Blakey, and not grounded in the scientific investigation of the acoustical evidence.
2. The rifle shot from the picket fence was (by Blakey) moved from being number 4 (of 5) to being number 3 (of 4) because it could not be the fatal shot because Oswald killed JFK shooting from behind!!!
This is all Mr. Blakeys doing, not the investigating teams, nor their correct findings.
Blakeys stated reason for this deformation of the investigations results was that his Congressional overseers ”would never accept” the real findings, so to ”save” the shot from the picket fence = conspiracy, they had to soften it a little bit.
I assume you are happy his expertise is somewhat greater than your own?
I have nil expertise in ballistic acoustics. Do you?
