Tim Gratz Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 (edited) Brought to my atterntion by a post on alt.assassination.jfk, there is this report from the National Research Council: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10264.html Are any members "up" on the acoustics evidence to read the report and offer a commentary? BTW the site looks interesting on other grounds. It has 3,000 books "online" to read for free. Edited February 25, 2006 by Tim Gratz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Raymond Carroll Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10264.html Are any members "up" on the acoustics evidence to read the report and offer a commentary? Although he was not the Chairman, Nobel prizewinner Arthur Alvarez was the key figure on the accoustics panel. Alvarez already had an agenda, as evidenced by his Jet Effect theory which the HSCA ultimatekly had to discard. The Alvarez agenda can be seen at work in the language of the accoustic panel's report. Quote ON: Report of the Committee on Ballistic Acoustics (1982) Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Applications (CPSMA) 34 VII. CONCLUSIONS For the reasons discussed above and in the appendixes, the Committee On Ballistic Acoustics has reached the following unanimous conclusions: (a) The acoustic analyses do not demonstrate that there was a grassy knoll shot and in particular there is no acoustic basis for the claim of a 95% probability of such a shot. ( The acoustic impulses attributed to gunshots were recorded about one minute after the President had been shot and the motorcade had been instructed to go to the hospital. © Therefore, reliable acoustic data do not support a conclusion that there was a second gunman. QUOTE OFF Some phoney logic is being perpetrated here. An unbiased report would read : (a) The acoustic impulses attributed to gunshots were recorded about one minute after the President had been shot and the motorcade had been instructed to go to the hospital. ( Therefore, the accoustic analyses do not demonstrate that there were gunshots from the grassy knoll OR FROM THE TSBD. So it's back to the drawing board on where the shots came from. As I noted in a previous post, when we take away the accoustics, and also take away the Neutrion Activation Analysis which even Robert Blakey finally admits is "junk science," no one can disprove the argument made by Josiah Thompson and other early critics, namely, that CE399 and the limo fragments were planted after the assassination. Bear in mind that CE399 and the limo fragments showed nary a trace of human blood or tissue, as they should have done if they had actually passed through human flesh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10264.html Are any members "up" on the acoustics evidence to read the report and offer a commentary? Although he was not the Chairman, Nobel prizewinner Arthur Alvarez was the key figure on the accoustics panel. Alvarez already had an agenda, as evidenced by his Jet Effect theory which the HSCA ultimatekly had to discard. The Alvarez agenda can be seen at work in the language of the accoustic panel's report. Quote ON: Report of the Committee on Ballistic Acoustics (1982) Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Applications (CPSMA) 34 VII. CONCLUSIONS For the reasons discussed above and in the appendixes, the Committee On Ballistic Acoustics has reached the following unanimous conclusions: (a) The acoustic analyses do not demonstrate that there was a grassy knoll shot and in particular there is no acoustic basis for the claim of a 95% probability of such a shot. ( The acoustic impulses attributed to gunshots were recorded about one minute after the President had been shot and the motorcade had been instructed to go to the hospital. © Therefore, reliable acoustic data do not support a conclusion that there was a second gunman. QUOTE OFF Some phoney logic is being perpetrated here. An unbiased report would read : (a) The acoustic impulses attributed to gunshots were recorded about one minute after the President had been shot and the motorcade had been instructed to go to the hospital. ( Therefore, the accoustic analyses do not demonstrate that there were gunshots from the grassy knoll OR FROM THE TSBD. So it's back to the drawing board on where the shots came from. As I noted in a previous post, when we take away the accoustics, and also take away the Neutrion Activation Analysis which even Robert Blakey finally admits is "junk science," no one can disprove the argument made by Josiah Thompson and other early critics, namely, that CE399 and the limo fragments were planted after the assassination. Bear in mind that CE399 and the limo fragments showed nary a trace of human blood or tissue, as they should have done if they had actually passed through human flesh. I listened to the presentation last night. You can go to a site that plays the entire audio of the presentation, and clicks back and forth between the various slides. One of the things I noticed was that the presenter was on the panel with Alvarez in 1982, so no bias there, right? That said, I concluded that the acoustics evidence was junk some time ago, based upon my own research and analysis of McClain's position in the motorcade. He simply wasn't where they said he was. In the HSCA Report they used a picture of McClain on Main St. to demonstrate how close he was to the limo. The photo was taken with a zoom lense, however, and greatly distorted the distances. A close comparison of the Hughes film and the Zapruder film makes it obvious that to be where they said he was when the first shot rang out, McClain would have to have revved up his engine and sped up to fifty miles an hour for a few seconds and then slowed back down. BEFORE the first shot. The Dorman film, I believe, proves this isn't true. The new presentation focused primarily on the words first noticed by Steve Barber and their location on the recording. The words are a response to the shooting, and yet they occur more than thirty seconds before the supposed shots. The dictabelt evidence for a conspiracy is a dead issue, as far as I'm concerned. That said, whenever one door shuts another one opens up. In his post, Mr. Carroll wrongly asserts that the limo fragments "showed nary a trace of human blood or tissue". Perhaps he has forgotten, but the HSCA noticed foreign material on the bullet nose found on the front seat. They asked for this material to be studied. The ARRB pressed for this as well, and these tests were finally performed in 1998, as I remember. The test results were released in 2000, and received little attention. The research community blindly ignored the test results for the most part because they didn't feed into their theory that the head shot came from the grassy knoll. When I first read about the tests, two years ago, I had a different reaction, as they confirmed my theory to the exclusion of all other theories. As a result, I gained confidence that my theory was 100% correct on at least one of its key points. The results??? The tests performed by the FBI and others proved that the "foreign material" on the nose of the bullet was almost entirely SKIN. Not brain matter. SKIN. As the vast majority of missing scalp was at the supposed exit, this makes no sense, as a bullet has little direct contact with skin upon exit. These tests then should be taken as a confirmation that the bullet at 313 impacted directly upon the top of Kennedy's head from behind. Those skeptical should take a look at my presentation and see how this could have happened. The test results themselves are available on JFK Lancer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 Those skeptical should take a look at my presentation and see how this could have happened. The test results themselves are available on JFK Lancer. Pat, I would like very much to read your presentation, and have tried to do so in vain. There is now apparently a new version. I could never get the old version to download. (I hate pdf!) I go to the new version, and click on "download by chapter," and get a "sorry" message, there is no such page. I go further down and click on "Introduction" etc., and I get the slides, but when I click on the slides, the text is unreadable. Is it just me or my computer? Is there something further I should do? Are others not having this problem? Ron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Vermeer Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 The D.B. Thomas study completed a few years ago was very detailed in it's control of the "crosstalk" issue and that study places a gunshot impulse in the knoll area at a 96 percent confidence interval. Thomas also mentions that the impulse signatures are close matches to that of at least a .30 cal rifle. The results of the test are statistically significant. Naysayers frequently mention the cross talk issue and motorcyle position but you really need to look at Thomas's study to appreciate the value. Secondly, in most areas of research, there is a semblance of an effort made to explain acting variables...in this case-gunshot impulses. I have yet to see a scientifically controlled study that refutes the Thomas study by explaining WHAT the impulses were. The impulses themselves MUST BE accounted for. I believe Thomas does a more than adequate job in his study. I know I've read somewhere where the impulses were attributed to someone striking a bell somewhere outside of the plaza. Bullocks. Jason Vermeer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 The D.B. Thomas study completed a few years ago was very detailed in it's control of the "crosstalk" issue and that study places a gunshot impulse in the knoll area at a 96 percent confidence interval. Thomas also mentions that the impulse signatures are close matches to that of at least a .30 cal rifle. The results of the test are statistically significant. Naysayers frequently mention the cross talk issue and motorcyle position but you really need to look at Thomas's study to appreciate the value. Secondly, in most areas of research, there is a semblance of an effort made to explain acting variables...in this case-gunshot impulses. I have yet to see a scientifically controlled study that refutes the Thomas study by explaining WHAT the impulses were. The impulses themselves MUST BE accounted for. I believe Thomas does a more than adequate job in his study. I know I've read somewhere where the impulses were attributed to someone striking a bell somewhere outside of the plaza. Bullocks. Jason Vermeer This new presentation does discuss the the Thomas study. I would agree that it's POSSIBLE the impulses were the gunshots. But they are meaningless to everyone as long as they are on the wrong part of the tape, and as long as the man who supposedly recorded them was not where they said he was. If the same scientists who said these were shots to a 95% certainty hadn't also said that the microphone HAD to be at blank at such and such a time, they might still have some credibility. Unfortunately, they did. I can't remember if Thomas repeated their mistakes. If he didn't maybe he still has some credibility. Another overlooked element of the acoustics evidence is the fact that there were more than four shots on the tape. Blakey knew this, but opted to have them study only the ones he could correlate to the Zapruder film. This gave the appearance that WOW these sounds match up precisely to the Zapruder film, when there were other sounds that they simply chose to ignore. The HSCA screwed up by trusting Guinn, Baden, and Canning, men whose mistakes ALL pointed to a lone-nut conclusion. It was only fair that they would screw up by trusting Bolt, Beranek, etc, the one group of experts whose mistakes pointed towards a conspiracy. Can you imagine if they hadn't? And the people were told that the WC was right after all? We might be militants instead of armchair warriors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Those skeptical should take a look at my presentation and see how this could have happened. The test results themselves are available on JFK Lancer. Pat, I would like very much to read your presentation, and have tried to do so in vain. There is now apparently a new version. I could never get the old version to download. (I hate pdf!) I go to the new version, and click on "download by chapter," and get a "sorry" message, there is no such page. I go further down and click on "Introduction" etc., and I get the slides, but when I click on the slides, the text is unreadable. Is it just me or my computer? Is there something further I should do? Are others not having this problem? Ron Sorry, Ron. I just took a look. I'm about as tech-challenged as they come. The download by chapter button at the very top was working but the one further down above the view section was not. My IT person--my girlfriend--just fixed it. Have had a lot of problems with the Mac page as well. Since she'd already had this mac page we thought we'd make use of it. That way I could use the same presentation for the internet and for Lancer. In retrospect it was a mistake. I'll eventually turn it into a web page but am still trying to drum up some feedback from Academia and the medical community. Thanks for your interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Raymond Carroll Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 In his post, Mr. Carroll wrongly asserts that the limo fragments "showed nary a trace of human blood or tissue". Perhaps he has forgotten, but the HSCA noticed foreign material on the bullet nose found on the front seat. They asked for this material to be studied. The ARRB pressed for this as well, and these tests were finally performed in 1998, as I remember. The test results were released in 2000.....The results??? The tests performed by the FBI and others proved that the "foreign material" on the nose of the bullet was almost entirely SKIN. Not brain matter. SKIN... The test results themselves are available on JFK Lancer. Thank you Pat for that information. I was unaware of the "skin" finding. I checked the Lancer site map and find 2 entries: 1/ " Bullet Fragment Testing", by Backes and Conway. This section has a link to NARA TEST REPORT 1/21/00. Unfortunately the version there is simply illegible, at least with my equipment 2/ "Lab Test on JFK Evidence" in this press release, Debra Conway argues that "By being unable to match the fibers to any known fibers within the assassination setting, and by not being able to determine the source of the tissue found, the testing (citing a report dated 1/21/00) proves nothing at all." http://www.jfklancer.com/LNE/fragments.html I cannot find anything about this "skin" finding via Lancer. Do you know of a legible version of this report and is there also another report bearing on this issue? Many thanks in advance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Vermeer Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 The D.B. Thomas study completed a few years ago was very detailed in it's control of the "crosstalk" issue and that study places a gunshot impulse in the knoll area at a 96 percent confidence interval. Thomas also mentions that the impulse signatures are close matches to that of at least a .30 cal rifle. The results of the test are statistically significant. Naysayers frequently mention the cross talk issue and motorcyle position but you really need to look at Thomas's study to appreciate the value. Secondly, in most areas of research, there is a semblance of an effort made to explain acting variables...in this case-gunshot impulses. I have yet to see a scientifically controlled study that refutes the Thomas study by explaining WHAT the impulses were. The impulses themselves MUST BE accounted for. I believe Thomas does a more than adequate job in his study. I know I've read somewhere where the impulses were attributed to someone striking a bell somewhere outside of the plaza. Bullocks. Jason Vermeer This new presentation does discuss the the Thomas study. I would agree that it's POSSIBLE the impulses were the gunshots. But they are meaningless to everyone as long as they are on the wrong part of the tape, and as long as the man who supposedly recorded them was not where they said he was. If the same scientists who said these were shots to a 95% certainty hadn't also said that the microphone HAD to be at blank at such and such a time, they might still have some credibility. Unfortunately, they did. I can't remember if Thomas repeated their mistakes. If he didn't maybe he still has some credibility. Another overlooked element of the acoustics evidence is the fact that there were more than four shots on the tape. Blakey knew this, but opted to have them study only the ones he could correlate to the Zapruder film. This gave the appearance that WOW these sounds match up precisely to the Zapruder film, when there were other sounds that they simply chose to ignore. The HSCA screwed up by trusting Guinn, Baden, and Canning, men whose mistakes ALL pointed to a lone-nut conclusion. It was only fair that they would screw up by trusting Bolt, Beranek, etc, the one group of experts whose mistakes pointed towards a conspiracy. Can you imagine if they hadn't? And the people were told that the WC was right after all? We might be militants instead of armchair warriors. Pat, you stated... "I would agree that it's POSSIBLE the impulses were gunshots. But they are meaningless to everyone as long as they are on the wrong part of the tape..." If you agree that the impulses are possibly gunshots then their mere presence on ANY part of the tape is actually quite meaningful. This is the data that must be accounted for. If not gunshots, what is the alternative explanation?. The data is there and cannot be ignored. If you can't remember if Thomas repeated their mistakes then you need to take a closer look at his study. Remember, most of the acoustic flaws predate Thomas' study. Jason Vermeer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 Jefferson Morley, in the March 2005 issue of Readers Digest, The JFK Murder - Can new technolgy finally crack the case?, concludes, "...So, if all goes according to plan, Dictabelt No. 10 will be transported across the country to the Lawrence Brerkeley lab later this year. Once there, it will go under the confocal microscope. Within five months, a digital replica could be produced - a modern version of an old piece of evidence that may shed some new light on one of the country's most enduring mysteries." Does anyone know if this actually transpired? BK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 Bill, Nothing has been reported. Here's a link to what I wrote about this over a year ago. I fear that I was right and that this work was not and will not be allowed to take place. If I'm wrong, good. But if I'm wrong, why haven't we heard anything? http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...amp;#entry22400 Ron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 From Gary Mack: "You couldn't be more wrong. The work is proceeding, though I am not privy to exactly where the process stands right now. NARA is being extremely cautious about anything and everything that may affect the safety and integrity of the Dictabelts." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Raymond Carroll Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 From Gary Mack:"You couldn't be more wrong. The work is proceeding, though I am not privy to exactly where the process stands right now. NARA is being extremely cautious about anything and everything that may affect the safety and integrity of the Dictabelts." I do not know if this update is available, but I just came across a recent piece by Dale Myers, who seems to be Donald Thomas's main adversary in the accoustics debate. After nine months, entomologist and part-time conspiracy theorist Donald B. Thomas has finally weighed in on my 2007 research paper, “Epipolar Geometric Analysis of Amateur Films Related to Acoustics Evidence in the John F. Kennedy Assassination.” http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2008/04/photo...n-and_9100.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted January 23, 2010 Share Posted January 23, 2010 Has anyone read Thomas' new book on all of this? BK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerry Down Posted March 28, 2023 Share Posted March 28, 2023 DPD officer Les Beilharz claimed in an interview that it was his microphone, not H.B. McLains, that was stuck that day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now