Post by Steve Barber Post by GKnoll Post by Steve Barber Post by GKnoll Post by Steve Barber Post by GKnoll Post by Steve Barber Post by email@example.com Post by Anthony Marsh Post by GKnoll Post by firstname.lastname@example.org Post by Anthony Marsh Post by GKnoll Post by GKnoll
The "hold everything secure..." cross talk begins with a loud click.
Here is an image which shows the relationship between the loud click,
the onset of the "hold..." cross talk and the impulses that BBN
interpreted as impulses from a gunshot.
The loud click is very important. It is synchronous with the beginning
of the hold cross talk. Without the loud click there would be no "hold
..." cross talk.
Yes it is. But is is linked somehow or just a coincidence?
Could it be the cause of or be caused by?
It it electronic, sonic or mechanical?
Could it be a heterodyne?
Could it be two units trying to grab the same channel at the same time?
Is it associated with the previous message or with the next message or
What does it look like on an oscilloscope?
I don't think it's a shot.
Is there some other cause that we have not seen on another portion of
Post by GKnoll
The question is, what caused the loud click?
Its not a shot.
It is not a heterodyne.
I am pretty sure it is not coincidence.
It is not two units trying to grab the Channel at the same time.
I would think that the members of the forum would be very interested in
what our two resident acoustic experts (Mr. Barber and Mr. ODell) have to
say about it. They have been quiet. I would have thought they would have
told us what they think caused it. The Committee on Ballistic Acoustics
BBN was the first to recognize it as a "loud click followed by faint
Still no comment from barber and odellm
Same as Trump. Never answer questions because you might accidentally
tell the truth.
Post by GKnoll
This is too important to let fall by the way side.
They don't care. They already have their minds made up.
Don't confuse them with evidence.
Post by GKnoll
I think they have an obligation to address this.
No, not the cover-up.
Post by GKnoll
Why does the "hold everything secure..." cross talk begin with a loud
Has anyone ever duplicated it experimentally?
Post by GKnoll
They know that the loud click is "exculpatory" evidence, which is evidence
which is not favorable to their interpretation.
I am pretty sure that they know what caused that loud click, there is
really only one plausible explanation given all the other analysis that
has been performed on the "cross talk".
No, it has not been duplicated experimentally, the Ramsey Panel ignored
the relationship between the loud-click and the onset of the "hold ..."
cross talk. If they had drawn attention to it, it would have weakened
Barber heard the "hold everything secure..." comment, but apparently he
did not hear the "loud click" that starts it. Or if he did hear, did not
think it was important.
Barber should have said, "I heard a loud click and then the words 'hold
everything secure...' "
Rago, you are such a piece of cake.
FYI, there are other words of the Decker transmission besides "Hold
everything secure until the homicide and other investigators can get
there" being picked up by the open mic!
The words " Men available" "in an effort", "determine" within that
transmission are audible.
I There are mega clicks all over that police recording of channel one,
throughout. Why do you single out only one of them?
Why do I single out that one click?
The loud-click and the onset of the "hold ..." cross talk are so
intimately connected, that the loud-click is part of the the cross talk
on Channel 1, whereas, it is not part of the original transmission on
First off, judging by the things you were saying to me several months ago
about another transmission--which I know isn't correct--I take everything
that you say regarding the contents of the channel 1 Dictabelt recording
with a grain of salt. So what if the "click" as you call it and "...hold
everything secure..."? Listen to all the clicks that follow it! Listen
to many extremely audible ""clicks" throughout the open mic sequence.
I could say exactly the same thing about you regarding that exact same
transmission. You are wrong about that transmission. You missed it.
Go ahead if you want. It's no skin off my teeth. I know that you are full
of crap regarding the transmission at 12:28, I missed nothing because it
Post by GKnoll Post by Steve Barber
What is the significance of that particular "click" that you shouldn't
make issue of all the others? Furthermore, the only reason BBN mentioned
it was because that is the section of the recording they were studying for
gunshots, for crying out loud, and their "impulses" said to be gunshots
are taking place right in that section. There was no reason for the Ramsey
panel to mention the "click". Why should they? Explain.
You are kidding me right? Stop pretending you do not see the significance
of that particular loud click.
Who's "Pretending"? I'm not. Why don't just come out and say what the
significance of the click is?
NAS was silent about it.
What are you implying?
Post by GKnoll
the WC defenders never mention anything that could weaken their case. NAS
ignored it also. The "hold ..." cross talk STARTS with that loud click.
That is what makes the loud click important. The loud click and the
beginning of the "hold " cross talk are indistinguishable. They are so
closely connected that the loud click appears to be part of the
cross-talk. This is what makes that loud click different from all the
Spit it out, Rago. What is the significance of the click, in your
opinion? I am pretty certain I already know what you *think*, but I want
to hear it from you.
One more thing.
McAdams posted your reply to my comment just 4 hours after he published my
comment. This is a common problem that I always have to deal with in this
forum. McAdams is completely biased in his handling of these debates. I
normally have to wait 24 hours before one of my replies gets posted to the
newsgroup. You and a few others get preferential treatment. If you want me
to debate you, and reveal to you what I know then you better tell McAdams
to stop his crap. I will not publish what I know in his forum until he
proves to me that he is not biased.
First of all, it isn't up to me to tell.John anything. Secondly, I do
not know what you are whining about,re "preferential treatment". I don't
have several of my posts go up for at least 24 hours. You and Tony are the
two biggest whiners in this group, both of you actually believe that I and
others receive "preferential treatment" for some ridiculous reason. It
isn't true. What do think .John does? Sit around and wait for everybody to
send in posts so he can post them? Think again.
Thirdly, I didn't say anything about "debating" you. I asked you a point
blank question regarding what appears to me that you are saying regarding
the Ramsey panel not mentioning the "click". Why? Because I just wanted
to know. I do not intend to waste time "debating" you. The last time we
got into a disagreement over an issue with the police recording, you were
accusing me of snooping into your gmail account, and a slew of other
stupid things you said and that I did. I don't trust you any more than
Marsh can be trusted when it comes to this. The two of you should start
your own newsgroup or forum and welcome only people you can push around,
or who are willing to agree with everything the two of you come up with,
because it isn't going to happen here.
If you want .John to do something, you tell him yourself!
What is your problem? You are always rude.
You are afraid of the message and so you are attacking the messenger.
Do you know what is a rhetorical question? I was not expecting you to
answer the question regarding McAdams. I was commenting on the FACT that
McAdams posted YOUR reply to my post just 4 hours after he posted my
reply to your post, which took about 24 hours for him to post. That is a
Regarding the last time we debated an issue...One day I went to MY
google drive and I found a file in MY google drive that you created. I
did not understand how that happened. It took a while, but before it was
all over I told you what I think happened. I did not know at the time
that I saw the file you created in my google drive, that if someone
shares something with you the file that they share will show up in my
I am going to repeat...what is your problem? Why are you always rude?
Regarding you not wanting to debate me. I do not care if you want to
debate me or not. I really did not expect you to respond to that post,
that post was meant for McAdams, not you. As I said I do not care if you
want to debate me or not. I have bigger fish to fry that that. You
showed me in our last debate that your not able to admit when you are
wrong anymore. You have been doing this too long. You want people to
always tell you how good you are and know about your discoveries, but
you are not able to do that yourself.
Just so people know, here is the audio clip from the last time you and I
got into it. I think that the words being spoken in this audio clip is
"Murray, keep your mic off" followed about 7 seconds later with Murray
Jackson, one of the dispatchers saying "Ok". It is obvious that is a
reasonable interpretation. I even used one of the audio clips that you
used to show that the words were indeed, "Murray, keep your mic off".
During the entire discussion you were rude. You just cannot handle the
fact that someone else might have found something on the tape that
differs from what you think it is.
Here are the two clips with a little bit of context for anyone reading
this for the first time.
At 12:29:20 Someone told Dispatcher Murray Jackson to "keep his mic
off", Murry responds "All right".
There are no Channel 1 Dispatcher transmissions until 3 minutes later
Link to "Murray, keep your mic off.......all right" The word "Murray" is
heard at 2 seconds into the audio.
In case you do not believe it, here is a good audio that Steve Barber
made that leaves little doubt that the words are "Murray, keep your mic