HSCA Televised Hearings 1978 (Video)

[David Von Pein]

Above interview conducted by James K. Lambert.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/11/James Lambert's "Conspiracy Theorists Lie"

 

[James DiEugenio]

Pat, that is a really difficult paradox to understand I think.

He leaned CT even without his pet theories?  While spending more time than anyone attacking anyone and everyone who thought the WC was full of it?

The only way I think one can explain that is he liked the money.

[Tom Gram]

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I exchanged a number of emails with Gary, and watched all his TV appearances, and online interviews. And you are right, he spent most of his airtime debunking, or attempting to debunk--sometimes in an embarrassingly shoddy manner--conspiracy theories. 

But he never denounced or attempted to debunk his own "pet" theories--"badgeman" and the "dictabelt'. And he let on that he still believed they were valid reasons to suspect a conspiracy...right up till the end. 

So that's what I meant by "true believer". Somewhere along the line I read some studies about cognitive psychology that came to a surprising conclusion--that when people come to a conclusion based on vague evidence--such as a blurry photo--they are more likely to hold onto that conclusion in the face of opposition than if the evidence was less vague. Basically, our minds look at blots and form patterns and once they form that pattern they can't unsee that pattern. 

In any event, that's what I meant by "true believer." Gary was, to my understanding, a true believer in "badgeman" and the "dictabelt." 

Now, of course, I came to reject the dictabelt, and never put much stock in badgeman. So I thought Gary's "pet" theories were pet rocks. But I remember one interview in which he defended CT's by pointing out a number of coincidences and oddities about the case that he had trouble reconciling as coincidences. So I think he leaned CT even without his "pet" theories. 

Can you or someone else explain why it is necessary for the open mic to have been on the exact trajectory proposed by the HSCA for the acoustics evidence to be valid?

I’m completely ignorant here but it seems to me like if the impulses on a tape match the expected echo pattern at a certain position in Dealey Plaza they might also reasonably match the expected echo pattern at a different position in Dealey Plaza - or the expected echo pattern of shots fired from different locations, etc. 

[Pat Speer]

5 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

Can you or someone else explain why it is necessary for the open mic to have been on the exact trajectory proposed by the HSCA for the acoustics evidence to be valid?

I’m completely ignorant here but it seems to me like if the impulses on a tape match the expected echo pattern at a certain position in Dealey Plaza they might also reasonably match the expected echo pattern at a different position in Dealey Plaza - or the expected echo pattern of shots fired from different locations, etc. 

In order to sell how science-y it all was, the acoustics guys specified that the Impulses only matched certain locations at certain times. Well, their supposed exact specific results disproved the committee's central claim--that the impulses were picked up by McLain's open mic. So the authors of the HSCA report--I suspect Blakey--bsed their way out of this by claiming the image of McLain in the Dorman film showed him to be exactly where he needed to be when he needed to be there. Only this wasn't true. Not even close. The films prove McLain didn't come along for several seconds after he needed to be there. 

I had shown this to people for years but they were seduced by Don Thomas' arguments--because he was so science-y and all. And I was really disappointed when Tink (with the backing of others) put out a book supporting the dicta-belt, without addressing the points I'd been raising for years, and that some involved were well aware of. I think that Tink was so sucked into his research into Alvarez--who'd fudged some stuff to debunk the dicta-belt evidence--that he couldn't see that the dicta-belt evidence was at odds with the photo evidence and fatally flawed from the beginning.

So, in short, I'd hoped Tink or someone with an interest in the dicta-belt would move on from the same old crap and show us how it was still valid even if the mic was not in the locations proposed by the HSCA acoustics experts. But was sorely disappointed. 

Edited November 15, 2022 by Pat Speer

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

In order to sell how science-y it all was, the acoustics guys specified that the Impulses only matched certain locations at certain times. Well, their supposed exact specific results disproved the committee's central claim--that the impulses were picked up by McLain's open mic. So the authors of the HSCA report--I suspect Blakey--bsed their way out of this by claiming the image of McLain in the Dorman film showed him to be exactly where he needed to be when he needed to be there. Only this wasn't true. Not even close. The films prove McLain didn't come along for several seconds after he needed to be there. 

I had shown this to people for years but they were seduced by Don Thomas' arguments--because he was so science-y and all. And I was really disappointed when Tink (with the backing of others) put out a book supporting the dicta-belt, without addressing the points I'd been raising for years, and that some involved were well aware of. I think that Tink was so sucked into his research into Alvarez--who'd fudged some stuff to debunk the dicta-belt evidence--that he couldn't see that the dicta-belt evidence was at odds with the photo evidence and fatally flawed from the beginning.

So, in short, I'd hoped Tink or someone with an interest in the dicta-belt would move on from the same old crap and show us how it was still valid even if the mic was not in the locations proposed by the HSCA acoustics experts. But was sorely disappointed. 

= page 2 of Pat's upcoming essay on the history of JFK research 😃

Sorry, I just couldn't resist 😃

But I am adding these interesting comments to my "copy" of

https://www.patspeer.com/debunking-the-dictabelt

 

[Tom Gram]

6 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

In order to sell how science-y it all was, the acoustics guys specified that the Impulses only matched certain locations at certain times. Well, their supposed exact specific results disproved the committee's central claim--that the impulses were picked up by McLain's open mic. So the authors of the HSCA report--I suspect Blakey--bsed their way out of this by claiming the image of McLain in the Dorman film showed him to be exactly where he needed to be when he needed to be there. Only this wasn't true. Not even close. The films prove McLain didn't come along for several seconds after he needed to be there. 

I had shown this to people for years but they were seduced by Don Thomas' arguments--because he was so science-y and all. And I was really disappointed when Tink (with the backing of others) put out a book supporting the dicta-belt, without addressing the points I'd been raising for years, and that some involved were well aware of. I think that Tink was so sucked into his research into Alvarez--who'd fudged some stuff to debunk the dicta-belt evidence--that he couldn't see that the dicta-belt evidence was at odds with the photo evidence and fatally flawed from the beginning.

So, in short, I'd hoped Tink or someone with an interest in the dicta-belt would move on from the same old crap and show us how it was still valid even if the mic was not in the locations proposed by the HSCA acoustics experts. But was sorely disappointed. 

Thanks Pat. I’m just curious cause every dictabelt debunking I’ve read, yours included, focuses on the fact that McLain was not where the HSCA needed him to be, but I’ve never really seen much discussion on why the HSCA needed him to be there or what the impulse data actually represents. I guess I need to read the HSCA acoustics report. 

It just seems like there are an awful lot of variables involved: mic location, mic speed, shot location, etc. and that there might be more than one “solution” i.e. statistically probable fit for the data than one cop on one very specific trajectory picking up shots from the snipers nest and grassy knoll - assuming the mic was in DP at the time of the shots. 

[Gerry Down]

20 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

Thanks Pat. I’m just curious cause every dictabelt debunking I’ve read, yours included, focuses on the fact that McLain was not where the HSCA needed him to be, but I’ve never really seen much discussion on why the HSCA needed him to be there or what the impulse data actually represents. I guess I need to read the HSCA acoustics report. 

It just seems like there are an awful lot of variables involved: mic location, mic speed, shot location, etc. and that there might be more than one “solution” i.e. statistically probable fit for the data than one cop on one very specific trajectory picking up shots from the snipers nest and grassy knoll - assuming the mic was in DP at the time of the shots. 

The book "Hear No Evil" by Donald Thomas goes into the acoustic evidence in detail, in favor of it. Tink Thompsons latest book also probably does too though I have not read that one. 

[Pat Speer]

5 hours ago, Gerry Down said:

The book "Hear No Evil" by Donald Thomas goes into the acoustic evidence in detail, in favor of it. Tink Thompsons latest book also probably does too though I have not read that one. 

Yes, but they just bend over backwards to say the acoustics experts were correct. They don't question them on any of their basic presumptions--such as that a certain blip must have been recorded in a certain location. 

It's junk science,IMO. GIGO. 

[Gerry Down]

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Yes, but they just bend over backwards to say the acoustics experts were correct. They don't question them on any of their basic presumptions--such as that a certain blip must have been recorded in a certain location. 

It's junk science,IMO. GIGO. 

I agree, total junk. I was just offering a good resource on it - Donald Thomas seems to be very familiar with the acoustic. He lays out his arguments well even though I don't agree with his ultimate conclusions.

[Matthew Koch]

12 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Yes, but they just bend over backwards to say the acoustics experts were correct. They don't question them on any of their basic presumptions--such as that a certain blip must have been recorded in a certain location. 

It's junk science,IMO. GIGO. 

I already read a lot of what you already wrote on the subject, so I'm not trying to change your mind. I just disagree with the Junk Science and Garbage in Garbage Out statements because that science led to the development of the Boomerange, so it can't be junk science. 

 

Edited November 16, 2022 by Matthew Koch

[James DiEugenio]

I do not think its junk science either.

But I think if you look at what the recording device was--which TInk does a good job of explaining-- IMO, it was just too primitive to be gauged as being reliable.

Second, there was not enough film coverage to accurately place McLain as to where he needed to be. Richard Sprague, the photoanalyst, probably had the largest collection of films at the time.  He could not do it.

From my understanding, the cycle had to be at a certain place in the Plaza to garner the sound pattern contained on that radio.  If the cycle was somewhere else, the pattern would be slightly different, due to the differing locations of the buildings in that particular spot.

[Pat Speer]

4 hours ago, Matthew Koch said:

I already read a lot of what you already wrote on the subject, so I'm not trying to change your mind. I just disagree with the Junk Science and Garbage in Garbage Out statements because that science led to the development of the Boomerange, so it can't be junk science. 

 

Yes, you are correct. The identification of an object's location can be determined by the sounds it picks up. But the interpretation of the sounds from the dictabelt recording is extremely problematic, and amounts to junk science. Heck, this is one of the few things David Mantik and I agree upon. If I remember correctly, they presumed the recording equipment was running slightly fast, and their adjustment just so happened to bring the supposed shots on the tape in line with the timing of the shots proposed by the photographic panel. This then was used to support the authenticity of the acoustics evidence--that the blips were indeed shots.

But you can bet the farm it was reverse-engineered, and that the adjustments were made to bring the blips into alignment with the films. 

I mean, think about it. if the tapes were in sync with the films, why didn't the HSCA or Thomas, or Thompson, put out a video with the tapes over-dubbed onto the films? 

While I don't know for sure, I suspect they knew the majority of those watching and listening would have been unconvinced. So they made an argument from authority instead--"Well, this guys an expert and he says" blah blah blah." 

The Ramsey Panel was unconvinced, and while they may have been biased, and may have made mistakes, the only refutations I am aware of come from Thomas and Thompson, who've built a castle upon quicksand. 

The films absolutely positively prove that McLain was not where he needed to be for the acoustics conclusions to be valid. 

He said his mic was not left open, and that he wasn't where they said he was when the shots were fired. And the films prove he was correct. 

So why are we still discussing this? 

Because dogs can't let go of a bone once they think they have one.

Now, could someone come along and re-interpret the data and come to the conclusion shots were indeed recorded, but that the mic recording them was not where the acoustics experts/Thomas/Thompson claimed they were?

Sure. I've been hoping for this for decades. But nope. Not gonna happen. It appears that those supporting the acoustics are reluctant to admit that their heroes could be wrong about anything.

I see similar patterns throughout this case, but that's a rant for a different thread. 

 

[Matthew Koch]

24 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Yes, you are correct. The identification of an object's location can be determined by the sounds it picks up. But the interpretation of the sounds from the dictabelt recording is extremely problematic, and amounts to junk science. Heck, this is one of the few things David Mantik and I agree upon. If I remember correctly, they presumed the recording equipment was running slightly fast, and their adjustment just so happened to bring the supposed shots on the tape in line with the timing of the shots proposed by the photographic panel. This then was used to support the authenticity of the acoustics evidence--that the blips were indeed shots.

But you can bet the farm it was reverse-engineered, and that the adjustments were made to bring the blips into alignment with the films. 

I mean, think about it. if the tapes were in sync with the films, why didn't the HSCA or Thomas, or Thompson, put out a video with the tapes over-dubbed onto the films? 

While I don't know for sure, I suspect they knew the majority of those watching and listening would have been unconvinced. So they made an argument from authority instead--"Well, this guys an expert and he says" blah blah blah." 

The Ramsey Panel was unconvinced, and while they may have been biased, and may have made mistakes, the only refutations I am aware of come from Thomas and Thompson, who've built a castle upon quicksand. 

The films absolutely positively prove that McLain was not where he needed to be for the acoustics conclusions to be valid. 

He said his mic was not left open, and that he wasn't where they said he was when the shots were fired. And the films prove he was correct. 

So why are we still discussing this? 

Because dogs can't let go of a bone once they think they have one.

Now, could someone come along and re-interpret the data and come to the conclusion shots were indeed recorded, but that the mic recording them was not where the acoustics experts/Thomas/Thompson claimed they were?

Sure. I've been hoping for this for decades. But nope. Not gonna happen. It appears that those supporting the acoustics are reluctant to admit that their heroes could be wrong about anything.

I see similar patterns throughout this case, but that's a rant for a different thread. 

 

The Dictablet study is also build on the same "science" sonar from a submarine uses hence why if you would have to set up another study somewhere else and use those results to say that the echos are the same hence it's junk science. Also for it to be "Science" there would need to be more testing. But as we see the results were excellent given the time restraints and has held up very well. 

The dictabelt evidence was originally "debunked" on the cross talk which has been shown to be a phenomena similar to static electricity and has been shown to be random and does not line up with the other tape. We are at a point with the evidence that, what is making up the very small difference is what we need to find. It's not like Dale Myers says that it would mean it's debunked that's not really how it works. I mean it's not like these guys took the model to the furtherest it could go and declared it science. 

The calculations are very close, like what's the time it takes the speed of sound to travel that extra distance, it's very quick. The temperature that day and the speed of the motorcade matched from that tests I think that's a big deal. The impulses on the tape line up with alot of witness statements Bang, pause Bang, Bang. We also hear that same impulse pattern on the radio broadcast where they say "Something appears to be wrong with the motorcade" listen to it, it's there right after he says Trade Mart (bang, bang)7:14 on Four Days. Those impulses line up with the flip on the lapel, and the head shot and second head shot (which I think can be seen on Much More when I look at it) So while I would agree that it is not quite to the level of the Definition of settled science. It is way closer to being settled science than say the Pfizer "Vaccine"  

 

[David Von Pein]

16 minutes ago, Matthew Koch said:

We also hear that same impulse pattern on the radio broadcast where they say "Something appears to be wrong with the motorcade" listen to it, it's there right after he says Trade Mart (bang, bang) 7:14 on Four Days.

Matthew,

That radio broadcast you're referring to is merely a re-creation that was done several days after Nov. 22 by the KBOX-Radio announcers. It is NOT a "live" broadcast. Therefore, any "impulse patterns" you hear cannot be related to gunshots or the assassination.

 

Edited November 17, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Matthew Koch]

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

Matthew,

That radio broadcast you're referring to is merely a re-creation that was done several days after Nov. 22 by the KBOX-Radio announcers. It is NOT a "live" broadcast. Therefore, any "impulse patterns" you hear cannot be related to gunshots or the assassination.

 

David, I'm going to need a citation on that because the book I have in front of me 'Hear No Evil' goes into it on page 560-562