This was neither an assertion nor unfounded. I pointed you to the NRC's conclusion that the Barger team's analysis of acoustics and echoes was flawed. Now here's how you can correct your mistake. Go to the 1982 NRC report and check pages 1-2 where you will find an Executive Summary of these conclusions. From there, go to the chapter in which the NRC demonstrates the methodological flaws in the Barger group's analysis of acoustics and echoes. You see? I am not asserting anything. I am pointing you to a source that I and others find well argued, well supported, and persuasive. Do you see the difference?
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories VI: Lyndon Johnson's Revenge
- Thread starter BStrong
- Start date
- Status
This was neither an assertion nor unfounded. I pointed you to the NRC's conclusion that the Barger team's analysis of acoustics and echoes was flawed. Now here's how you can correct your mistake. Go to the 1982 NRC report and check pages 1-2 where you will find an Executive Summary of these conclusions. From there, go to the chapter in which the NRC demonstrates the methodological flaws in the Barger group's analysis of acoustics and echoes. You see? I am not asserting anything. I am pointing you to a source that I and others find well argued, well supported, and persuasive. Do you see the difference?
No, OKBob, it’s your claim that Myers proves that McClain couldn’t get to the position where his stuck mike picked up the first rifle shot.
To state that someone proves something doesn’t equal that said someone actually proves it. You should know this.
Show me how.
No. It is you who claims that NRC refuted BBN’s findings, so it is you who need to show how this is done.
I can’t do this for you.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
LOL. How is putting your fingers in your ears and shouting, "Nuh uh!" as loud as you can working out for you? It's getting you laughed at here.
The null hypothesis stands firm.
On the other hand, when a needle skips and creates an overdub on a recording, it leaves evidence. The NRC analyzed the recording and found no evidence that the needle skipped. So your explanation of the timing fails.
Now let's look at the data you are relying on for this (you can find this graph in the BBN report):
[imgw=350]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1151&pictureid=11793[/IMGw]
To argue for continuous recording, we have to be confident that the way they chose to separate the data is correct, and we have to be confident on the slopes of the lines. You can see from the graph itself that there is a lot of room for error. For example, we could easily draw a much shallower line for the period 12:28 to 12:34 that fits just as well as their lines.
Regarding the data points, BBN themselves say this:
"Note that the clock used by the Dispatcher is read out only in full minutes, and occasionally there is more than one annotation for the same minute."
Considering the issue is at most a 1-minute difference, this is a clear problem.
Bowles gives a more detailed description of the time data.
"A master clock on the telephone room wall was connected to the City Hall system. This clock reported "official" time. Within the dispatcher's office there were numerous other time giving and time recording devices, both in the telephone room and in the radio room. Telephone operators and radio operators were furnished "Simplex" clocks. Because the hands often worked loose, they indicated the incorrect time. However, their purpose was to stamp the time, day and date on incoming calls. While they were reliable at this, they were not synchronized as stated in the Committee report. Therefore, it was not uncommon for the time stamped on calls to be a minute to two ahead or behind the "official" time shown on the master clock. Accordingly, at "exactly" 10:10, various clocks could be stamping from 10:08 to 10:12, for example. When clocks were as much as a minute or so out of synchronization it was normal procedure to make the needed adjustments. During busy periods this was not readily done. "
To summarize:
- The recording was made on a device that by design sometimes stopped recording.
- An analysis of the actual recording itself shows no evidence of needle jumps to explain any time differences.
- The synchronization data is not nearly precise enough to identify a 30 second gap during the relevant time.
The conclusion that Channel II did not record continuously is the much better supported conclusion here.
"May have been continuous" does not equal "was." The more detailed and precise analysis by NRC is more reliable here. The BBN was only trying to show the data was consistent with their timing, which it is because it is consistent with a huge range of timings.
The details are in "Epipolar Geometric Analysis of Amateur Films Related to Acoustics Evidence in the John F. Kennedy Assassination." By finding points of synchronization across several films, we can determine when McLain actually reached Elm Street. For one, the Dorman film shows him arriving there, and comparison to other films shows it was after the assassination ended. Another, synchronization with the Hughes film shows he would have needed to drive 200 mph to get to where the HSCA concluded he was during the first shot. The PDF of the report contains images of all films showing the synchronization. It is better than the video at presenting the evidence.
Last edited:
So I need to show what the NRC has already shown? Can you tell us why this is a necessary or sane thing to ask me to do? Am I supposed to retype, here, the more than 100 pages of the NRC report? Am I supposed to produce a digest of the NRC's conclusions? Why? Just go to the blasted report yourself and stop stalling. This is why I grow impatient and suggest that the JFK assassination just isn't your thing.
Last edited:
You misrepresenting my evidence and arguments doesn’t cut it. It’s just bad manners and being dishonest.
No asumtions. Carefully selected criteria based on ballistic acoustics applied on the DPD dictabelt recording, is the correct wording.
No asumtion here either. Careful screening in the lab followed by careful testing on site gave the evidence of 5 rifle shots on Dealey Plaza during the relevant time frame of the real event.
I’m carefully refuting one claim at a time. With reference to the relevant evidence and methods.
Wrong. I carefully argue why McLains testimony is faulty:
1. He changes his mind and retracts his sworn testimony to HSCA when he understand that it gives credence to the acoustics findings of five shots = conspiracy = maybe an innocent Oswald.
2. To remember, at the time, very trivial episodes 15 years later is almost impossible. Did I use the siren? Did I use cha-1 or cha-2? Was my mike stuck? Etc ... against this you have to look at the scientific evidence for him remembering this trivia faulty.
You do the math.
I’m still waiting for said ”photographic evidence”.
Do you have any? Show me.
Wrong, again. There are no direct photographic evidence of McLain’s positions during the shooting. The existing photographic evidence shows him on Houston just before and on Elm just after. You have to show that he couldn’t have been in the needed positions and that with a certainty that is greater than the opposite, that he could have.
This is a lie. The argument was that ”one can hear on the doppler effect of the passing sirens that the MC was standing still”, to wich a replied that, no you can’t beacause the effect is still there even if the receiver is moving.
Not a word of moving at ”the same speed”.
No, it was such a silly accusation that I, at the time, did not bother to respond. I do it now when refuting all your lies and misrepresentations of my evidence and arguments in one grand swoop.
So, why are you lying and misrepresenting my writings?
Is this a typical Skeptics trait?
Are you asking me to repeat Myers' analysis word for word? Why? It's out there for you to review. There's a four-minute segment on YouTube that provides the gist of Myers' analysis of the officer's position in the motorcade. It's been linked recently here. I happen to be persuaded by it. If you want to discredit it--apart from ad hominem nonsense--that's your burden.
Last edited:
No, I want you to tell me why you find Myers investigation with conclusions compelling.
State the reasons.
Do you honestly expect someone to post the Warren Commission report and evidence, the HSCA report, the Rockefeller Commission report, the Clark report and the ARRB report page by page just so you can handwave it away?
There's really no excuse not to be familiar with the evidence. All these reports and evidence are readily available on the internet. If you have a problem with any of this evidence, feel free to explain, but I don't think you're going to get anyone to spoonfeed you the evidence because you're too lazy to do your own work.
Of course not. That is why I ask you to present specific evidence for specific claims.Do you honestly expect someone to post the Warren Commission report and evidence, the HSCA report, the Rockefeller Commission report, the Clark report and the ARRB report page by page just so you can handwave it away?
I’m all too familiar with the SO CALLED evidence in the investigations, but I do not know what specific evidence you find compelling in any specific case.
Only you yourself know that.
If you make a claim it’s up to you to provide evidence supporting said claim. I couldn’t possibly do that for you even if I wanted to.
I’m not a mind reader.
No. The NRC report and Myers' conclusions are there, independent of my selection or summary. Do you see the CTist pattern you're reproducing? "Show me exactly." "Quote precisely." "Be specific." It's all a transparent strategy to shift the burden of proof. Why not break with that pattern and show why the NRC and Myers are wrong? We'd be quite interested if you could do that, since, contrary to what you might think, many of us are not wedded to the null hypothesis out of ideology or affinity for authority.
Last edited:
Here's another reason why you aren't finding takers here willing to play your game. If we did cite specific evidence from these reports, you'd probably claim it was illegitimate on some ground that can't be proven: faked, altered, perjured, whatever.
Last edited:
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
What is it that you don't find compelling about the consilience of evidence which destroys your claims?
Be specific.
What recording?
Do you in any way dispute their selection of data?
The slopes = coifficients. Not?
No, it isn’t. Show me if the data and/or the calculations are faulty.
Are you serious? Claiming the coifficient was, like, ”eye balled” on to the diagram?
Yes, that is why they did a linear regression analysis, in order to see how much ”dead air” it was on the recording (cha-2). The very steep coifficient after the shooting sequence shows there is very little if any dead air the first six minutes after the shooting and none (negligent) the first two minutes.
Yes, and you have to show that this in any significant way makes the timing of the five rifle shots detected by BBN and confirmed by W&A impossible.
On top of that you have to show why the Fisher cross talk, closest to the shooting, is not sufficient evidence of correct timing of the five shots sequence on the dictabelt recording.
No time at all for accumulated dead air = in sync.
What recording?
But it is NRC who have to show that the 59 seconds is ’countered’ with ’dead air’ in the cha-2 recording.
No one is arguing against cha-2 not recording continuosly. The argument is against that it stopped recording the first minutes after the shooting and did so during a significant period of time.
1. Linear regression analysis says it did not.
2. Common sense = turbulent radio traffic during from the end of shooting = no dead air.
The RNC (and you) are making the claim that the Decker cross talk proves that the five impulse patterns had to have been recorded a minute after the actual shooting and therefore refutes the acoustic evidence of five rifle shots during the actual shooting.
Are you now reformulating this ”prove” to a ”may”?
Why?
The issue is still if NRC’s refutation is correct. Have they shown that BBN/W&A couldn’t possibly be right in claiming five rifle shots on the dictabelt during the actual shooting?
How does Myers know it’s McLain in the Dorman film?
He state this with unsupported asumtions:
1. He starts his counting from a faulty timeline.
2. There is NO information available on where Hughes was standing during the filming. Move him a couple of meters to the north and Myers 200 mph collapses to a modest 20 mph.
3. He analyses the speed of the vehicles in the motorcade as carts in a train with static gaps in between, when the correct movements is more like an accordion, very crowded at the end of a straight road and the opposite at the other end where they are speeding to catch up.
So, yes, it was ample time for McLain to reach the area where his stuck mike picked up the sound from the first rifle shot.
Yes I know, and no, it doesn’t matter if Myers are using fancy words for his spectacle, it is still severely flawed.
Well, if the ”evidence” has no secured provenance or secured chain of custody, how do you know if it is really evidence?
Intuition? Religious faith?
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
That's been refuted. What other claims do you want to be wrong about?
Of course. And?
No, but I see you calling names. Why?
On the contrary. If you make a claim you have to show the evidence and argue for the veracity of said evidence.
No one can do that for you.
If you have issues with the HSCA acoustical investigations and their findings, state your reasons for this.
No. You are shifting the burden of proof. If you dispute the HSCA acoustical investigations with findings, state your reasons for this.
I can’t possibly do that for you. I’m not a mind reader.
Because you don't get to determine what is "secured provenance or secured chain of custody." First, you aren't competent to make such determinations. Second, you aren't entitled to run the zoo.
- Status