The acoustic evidence needs you!

[Eddy Bainbridge]

Why don't JFK researchers support and develop the acoustic evidence? (I think Jim DiEugenio has hinted there may be more to come). I don't want to have a thread arguing whether its right or wrong, I want to know why its appears to be shied away from. To understand my position I'll outline my feelings on the topic.

I have no doubt the Dictabelt recording is of the assassination because the amount of corroboration for that is massive. The Zapruder film has been used as the starting point for analysis of the assassination by thousands. My view of the corroborative evidence that the film is completely genuine is that it is far weaker in comparison. So why not start from the acoustic evidence? The opportunities for expansion of the research seem huge to me.

The starting point for research in my eyes would be ; We have four established shots, a fifth needing further analysis and possibly more. I guess getting more Dealy Plaza testing done would not be easy, but what about computer simulation? How does the Zapruder film match up if the acoustic evidence becomes the standard? I would tentatively suggest it implies two headshots, one around Z320 (or whatever should be seen around that time). I don't fully understand the corroborative evidence for two headshots, but as a convinced convert to the 'large hole in the BOH' evidence I am open to persuasion that a headshot is missing from the Z film. A big gap in understanding in my view is the possible use of silenced weapons. Can the acoustic evidence be developed to show that the perceptions of the crowd can be explained by the focussing effect of weapons with silencers, and also perhaps an explanation for bullet paths. (By this I mean that slow moving bullets deflect from their path after impact far more easily i.e neck to lungs, forehead to top of head?)

 

The above is a bit of brain splurge, but hopefully demonstrates my frustration, that YOU are not backing what seems to me excellent evidence.

Edited April 17, 2017 by Eddy Bainbridge
spelling mistake

[Ron Ecker]

Several years ago the Dictabelt was supposed to be sent to an outfit, I think in California, for some new and definitive analysis. But no news resulted. I recall Gary Mack telling me what happened or what the problem was, but I don't remember what he told me. But someone here should know what happened.

 

 

[Micah Mileto]

Maybe one day Dealey Plaza can be roped off so that real shots can be fired from certain locations. The HSCA did that, but it wasn't as comprehensive as it could be.

[George Sawtelle]

Eddy

The acoustics investigation provided valid evidence. It was the key element in the`HSCA conclusion in 1979 that Kennedy's death was probably the result of a conspiracy.

The lead investigator wanted to do more testing but the US government said no probably because the government did not budget for the new testing. BBN wanted more shooter sites.

BBN used only two shooter sites, the TSBD southeast sixth floor window and a location about 15 feet west from the corner of the picket fence on the grassy knoll  for their initial investigation.

If a private source came forth with money and the city of Dallas gave the okay for new testing a new investigation is doable. W/O money we are stuck in limbo.  

[Eddy Bainbridge]

It is very difficult to untangle what has caused more damage to the value of the acoustic evidence : Project Mockingbird, The HSCA's rushed conclusions, the vaunted (by McAdams et al anyway) discovery of contradictory crosstalk, or the lack of support from the research community.

If you look at how 'The CIA did it' has blossomed since the 90's as a theory , and yet 'Oswald acted alone' as a theory still has followers, you can see that the research community has failed to find solid ground. The acoustic evidence, in my view is very solid ground.

[Michael Clark]

Eddy, IMO, acoustic evidence is esoteric in nature. You need to be an expert to produce the analysis and to call it evidence. Everyone else just has to decide whether they believe the experts or not. I believe the acoustic evidence that I have seen; but that doesn't amount to anything.

Cheers,

Michael

[Eddy Bainbridge]

Michael I take your point to an extent, but perhaps look at it this way: Look at the dissenting views of the acoustic evidence and you will see it is never attacked head on. The reason it isn't is because its so convincing. I am no expert in acoustic science, I am knowledgeable in statistical analysis and that is basically what is so convincing. To take one small piece of the evidence ; they fired a rifle out of the snipers nest and the sound pattern produced matched the pattern on the dictabelt. When I say 'matched' I mean in a statistical sense, or put another way some of the sounds heard on the dictabelt are highly likely to have been made by a rifle shot from the TBSD. I urge anyone who hasn't read it to read the work of Don Thomas, it isn't difficult to follow.

I am amazed you can say it doesn't amount to anything. If you believe in it then its four shots fired too fast for one person and its one shot from the Grassy Knowl. I don't see any more concrete evidence of conspiracy.

[George Sawtelle]

Michael

BBN used an oscilloscope and a digital computer to determine if the sounds on the Dictabelt were shots. An oscilloscope shows sound in the form of a wave.

If memory serves me BBN came up with 15 suspects from the oscilloscope which could be gunshots. There weren't fifteen bullets fired at Kennedy so BBN had to determine which of the wave forms depicted shots and which were other sounds.

BBN then applied a set of screening criteria that would separate the gunfire from sounds that weren't gunfire. They came up with six sounds that met their criteria.

From these six BBN rejected one sound, the first sound, because it did not have the required 10/11 peaks on the wave form. It showed echoes (peaks) but did not meet the criteria completely. It showed other characteristics to indicate that it might be a shot but the sound was attenuated. So they were left with 5 shots and that's what they gave the HSCA.

That in a nutshell is what BBN did and what they found on the Dictabelt. 

[Michael Clark]

2 hours ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

 

I am amazed you can say it doesn't amount to anything. 

Eddy, I am saying that the fact that I accept the science does not mean anything.

[Michael Clark]

13 minutes ago, George Sawtelle said:

Michael

BBN used an oscilloscope and a digital computer to determine if the sounds on the Dictabelt were shots. An oscilloscope shows sound in the form of a wave.

If memory serves me BBN came up with 15 suspects from the oscilloscope which could be gunshots. There weren't fifteen bullets fired at Kennedy so BBN had to determine which of the wave forms depicted shots and which were other sounds.

BBN then applied a set of screening criteria that would separate the gunfire from sounds that weren't gunfire. They came up with six sounds that met their criteria.

From these six BBN rejected one sound, the first sound, because it did not have the required 10/11 peaks on the wave form. It showed echoes (peaks) but did not meet the criteria completely. It showed other characteristics to indicate that it might be a shot but the sound was attenuated. So they were left with 5 shots and that's what they gave the HSCA.

That in a nutshell is what BBN did and what they found on the Dictabelt. 

Thanks George