Discussion:
acoustic analyses do not demonstrate that there was a grassy knoll shot
Add Reply
BOZ
2018-05-12 23:58:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
The NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE panel unanimously concluded that:

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 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.

Ramsey, Norman F.; Alvarez, Luis W.; Chernoff, Herman; Dicke, Robert H.;
Elkind, Jerome I.; Feggeler, John C.; Garwin, Richard L.; Horowitz, Paul;
Johnson, Alfred; Phinney, Robert A.; Rader, Charles; Sarles, F. Williams
(1982). Report of the Committee on Ballistic Acoustics (Report).
Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. p. 2
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-14 15:13:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
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 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.
Ramsey, Norman F.; Alvarez, Luis W.; Chernoff, Herman; Dicke, Robert H.;
Elkind, Jerome I.; Feggeler, John C.; Garwin, Richard L.; Horowitz, Paul;
Johnson, Alfred; Phinney, Robert A.; Rader, Charles; Sarles, F. Williams
(1982). Report of the Committee on Ballistic Acoustics (Report).
Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. p. 2
Garbage. They were not acoustical scientists.
BOZ
2018-05-15 13:11:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
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 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.
Ramsey, Norman F.; Alvarez, Luis W.; Chernoff, Herman; Dicke, Robert H.;
Elkind, Jerome I.; Feggeler, John C.; Garwin, Richard L.; Horowitz, Paul;
Johnson, Alfred; Phinney, Robert A.; Rader, Charles; Sarles, F. Williams
(1982). Report of the Committee on Ballistic Acoustics (Report).
Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. p. 2
Garbage. They were not acoustical scientists.
ARE YOU?
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-17 01:59:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
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 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.
Ramsey, Norman F.; Alvarez, Luis W.; Chernoff, Herman; Dicke, Robert H.;
Elkind, Jerome I.; Feggeler, John C.; Garwin, Richard L.; Horowitz, Paul;
Johnson, Alfred; Phinney, Robert A.; Rader, Charles; Sarles, F. Williams
(1982). Report of the Committee on Ballistic Acoustics (Report).
Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. p. 2
Garbage. They were not acoustical scientists.
ARE YOU?
No, but the HSCA found the best acoustical scientists in the country.
OHLeeRedux
2018-05-18 00:00:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
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 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.
Ramsey, Norman F.; Alvarez, Luis W.; Chernoff, Herman; Dicke, Robert H.;
Elkind, Jerome I.; Feggeler, John C.; Garwin, Richard L.; Horowitz, Paul;
Johnson, Alfred; Phinney, Robert A.; Rader, Charles; Sarles, F. Williams
(1982). Report of the Committee on Ballistic Acoustics (Report).
Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. p. 2
Garbage. They were not acoustical scientists.
ARE YOU?
No, but the HSCA found the best acoustical scientists in the country.
The blind leading the blind. A classic governmental circle jerk.
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-19 01:27:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
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 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.
Ramsey, Norman F.; Alvarez, Luis W.; Chernoff, Herman; Dicke, Robert H.;
Elkind, Jerome I.; Feggeler, John C.; Garwin, Richard L.; Horowitz, Paul;
Johnson, Alfred; Phinney, Robert A.; Rader, Charles; Sarles, F. Williams
(1982). Report of the Committee on Ballistic Acoustics (Report).
Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. p. 2
Garbage. They were not acoustical scientists.
ARE YOU?
No, but the HSCA found the best acoustical scientists in the country.
The blind leading the blind. A classic governmental circle jerk.
Maybe you know nothing about science. The HSCA asked the Acoustical
Society of America to recommend experts just as they had for watergate and
other investigations. They recommended BBN not Steve Barber. I see you
have no respect for science. Because you are an official science denier.
You probably still think smoking is good for you.
OHLeeRedux
2018-05-19 20:15:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Anthony Marsh
- hide quoted text -
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
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 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.
Ramsey, Norman F.; Alvarez, Luis W.; Chernoff, Herman; Dicke, Robert H.;
Elkind, Jerome I.; Feggeler, John C.; Garwin, Richard L.; Horowitz, Paul;
Johnson, Alfred; Phinney, Robert A.; Rader, Charles; Sarles, F. Williams
(1982). Report of the Committee on Ballistic Acoustics (Report).
Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. p. 2
Garbage. They were not acoustical scientists.
ARE YOU?
No, but the HSCA found the best acoustical scientists in the country.
The blind leading the blind. A classic governmental circle jerk.
Maybe you know nothing about science. The HSCA asked the Acoustical
Society of America to recommend experts just as they had for watergate and
other investigations. They recommended BBN not Steve Barber. I see you
have no respect for science. Because you are an official science denier.
You probably still think smoking is good for you.



I swear to God, Anthony Marsh, you can concoct some of the most idiotic
posts I have ever seen. And you seem to do it so effortlessly.

Thank you for the laughs.
Jason Burke
2018-05-20 01:35:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by OHLeeRedux
Anthony Marsh
- hide quoted text -
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
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 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.
Ramsey, Norman F.; Alvarez, Luis W.; Chernoff, Herman; Dicke, Robert H.;
Elkind, Jerome I.; Feggeler, John C.; Garwin, Richard L.; Horowitz, Paul;
Johnson, Alfred; Phinney, Robert A.; Rader, Charles; Sarles, F. Williams
(1982). Report of the Committee on Ballistic Acoustics (Report).
Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. p. 2
Garbage. They were not acoustical scientists.
ARE YOU?
No, but the HSCA found the best acoustical scientists in the country.
The blind leading the blind. A classic governmental circle jerk.
Maybe you know nothing about science. The HSCA asked the Acoustical
Society of America to recommend experts just as they had for watergate and
other investigations. They recommended BBN not Steve Barber. I see you
have no respect for science. Because you are an official science denier.
You probably still think smoking is good for you.
I swear to God, Anthony Marsh, you can concoct some of the most idiotic
posts I have ever seen. And you seem to do it so effortlessly.
Thank you for the laughs.
It's quite the skill.

Bud
2018-05-16 02:39:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
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 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.
Ramsey, Norman F.; Alvarez, Luis W.; Chernoff, Herman; Dicke, Robert H.;
Elkind, Jerome I.; Feggeler, John C.; Garwin, Richard L.; Horowitz, Paul;
Johnson, Alfred; Phinney, Robert A.; Rader, Charles; Sarles, F. Williams
(1982). Report of the Committee on Ballistic Acoustics (Report).
Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. p. 2
Garbage. They were not acoustical scientists.
Apparently one of them owned a watch with a second hand.
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-15 13:08:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
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 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.
Ramsey, Norman F.; Alvarez, Luis W.; Chernoff, Herman; Dicke, Robert H.;
Elkind, Jerome I.; Feggeler, John C.; Garwin, Richard L.; Horowitz, Paul;
Johnson, Alfred; Phinney, Robert A.; Rader, Charles; Sarles, F. Williams
(1982). Report of the Committee on Ballistic Acoustics (Report).
Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. p. 2
Come on. Conspiracy hobbyists know so much more than that panel of
esteemed scientists. Just ask them.
None of them were experts in acoustics.
Maybe experts in the extinction of the Dinosaurs.
Loading...