Discussion:
"Hold everything secure" cross talk begins wit loud click.
Add Reply
GKnoll
2018-05-25 23:05:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
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.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
GKnoll
2018-05-26 23:24:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
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.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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.

The question is, what caused the loud click?
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-28 00:12:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
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.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
neither?
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
the tape?
Post by GKnoll
The question is, what caused the loud click?
g***@gmail.com
2018-05-28 20:30:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
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.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
neither?
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
the tape?
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
ignored it.

BBN was the first to recognize it as a "loud click followed by faint
speech".


https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
GKnoll
2018-05-31 03:29:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by g***@gmail.com
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.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
neither?
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
the tape?
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
ignored it.
BBN was the first to recognize it as a "loud click followed by faint
speech".
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
Still no comment from barber and odellm

This is too important to let fall by the way side.

I think they have an obligation to address this.

Why does the "hold everything secure..." cross talk begin with a loud
click?

https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-01 13:51:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GKnoll
Post by g***@gmail.com
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.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
neither?
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
the tape?
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
ignored it.
BBN was the first to recognize it as a "loud click followed by faint
speech".
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
click?
Has anyone ever duplicated it experimentally?
Post by GKnoll
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
g***@gmail.com
2018-06-02 01:08:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
Post by g***@gmail.com
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.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
neither?
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
the tape?
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
ignored it.
BBN was the first to recognize it as a "loud click followed by faint
speech".
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
click?
Has anyone ever duplicated it experimentally?
Post by GKnoll
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
their case.

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...' "
Steve Barber
2018-06-02 20:55:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
Post by g***@gmail.com
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.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
neither?
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
the tape?
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
ignored it.
BBN was the first to recognize it as a "loud click followed by faint
speech".
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
click?
Has anyone ever duplicated it experimentally?
Post by GKnoll
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
their case.
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?

Enough said.
GKnoll
2018-06-03 18:43:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve Barber
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
Post by g***@gmail.com
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.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
neither?
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
the tape?
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
ignored it.
BBN was the first to recognize it as a "loud click followed by faint
speech".
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
click?
Has anyone ever duplicated it experimentally?
Post by GKnoll
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
their case.
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.
Ok, lets hear it.

Here is a link to the track 1 audio, it starts 11 seconds before the
"hold everything secure..." cross talk.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TAJ6wtJEAXWNz4MOZ_q9UugaC3J9o0EY/view?usp=sharing

At what time, do you hear the words "men available"?
Post by Steve Barber
I There are mega clicks all over that police recording of channel one,
throughout. Why do you single out only one of them?
Enough said.
GKnoll
2018-06-04 01:32:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve Barber
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
Post by g***@gmail.com
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.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
neither?
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
the tape?
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
ignored it.
BBN was the first to recognize it as a "loud click followed by faint
speech".
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
click?
Has anyone ever duplicated it experimentally?
Post by GKnoll
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
their case.
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?

Because the beginning of the "hold cross talk..." starts with that loud
click. One cannot separate the two, meaning, the beginning of the "hold
cross talk" and the loud-click. They are OBVIOUSLY connected. It is
reasonable to want to figure out what is that connection.

The first thing I did was go to the NAS report. They are completely silent
about it. Understandably so, because it weakens their conclusion.

BBN noticed it.
Post by Steve Barber
Enough said.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-04 23:43:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
Post by g***@gmail.com
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.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
neither?
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
the tape?
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
ignored it.
BBN was the first to recognize it as a "loud click followed by faint
speech".
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
click?
Has anyone ever duplicated it experimentally?
Post by GKnoll
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
their case.
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?
Because the beginning of the "hold cross talk..." starts with that loud
click. One cannot separate the two, meaning, the beginning of the "hold
cross talk" and the loud-click. They are OBVIOUSLY connected. It is
reasonable to want to figure out what is that connection.
Again, that is what you ASSuME, but can you prove it? If it is not just
a coincidence then you must claim cause. So which causes which?
Post by GKnoll
The first thing I did was go to the NAS report. They are completely
silent about it. Understandably so, because it weakens their conclusion.
That is a good clue. Like most WC defenders who do not want to talk
about something because they fear that it will disprove their conclusion.
Post by GKnoll
BBN noticed it.
Why?
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
   Enough said.
GKnoll
2018-06-04 19:20:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve Barber
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
Post by g***@gmail.com
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.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
neither?
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
the tape?
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
ignored it.
BBN was the first to recognize it as a "loud click followed by faint
speech".
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
click?
Has anyone ever duplicated it experimentally?
Post by GKnoll
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
their case.
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
Channel 2.
Post by Steve Barber
Enough said.
Steve Barber
2018-06-04 23:51:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
Post by g***@gmail.com
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.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
neither?
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
the tape?
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
ignored it.
BBN was the first to recognize it as a "loud click followed by faint
speech".
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
click?
Has anyone ever duplicated it experimentally?
Post by GKnoll
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
their case.
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
Channel 2.
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.

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.
GKnoll
2018-06-05 20:50:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
Post by g***@gmail.com
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.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
neither?
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
the tape?
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
ignored it.
BBN was the first to recognize it as a "loud click followed by faint
speech".
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
click?
Has anyone ever duplicated it experimentally?
Post by GKnoll
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
their case.
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
Channel 2.
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.
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. NAS was silent about it. Marsh is right,
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
other clicks.
Steve Barber
2018-06-06 01:12:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
Post by g***@gmail.com
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.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
neither?
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
the tape?
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
ignored it.
BBN was the first to recognize it as a "loud click followed by faint
speech".
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
click?
Has anyone ever duplicated it experimentally?
Post by GKnoll
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
their case.
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
Channel 2.
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
is nothing.
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
other clicks.
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.
GKnoll
2018-06-06 19:42:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
Post by g***@gmail.com
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.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
neither?
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
the tape?
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
ignored it.
BBN was the first to recognize it as a "loud click followed by faint
speech".
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
click?
Has anyone ever duplicated it experimentally?
Post by GKnoll
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
their case.
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
Channel 2.
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
is nothing.
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?
I am not implying anything, I am stating a fact.
Post by Steve Barber
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
other clicks.
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.
It is the only thing that it could be. It is the only thing that makes
everything make sense.

If you know what I am thinking, then say it.
Steve Barber
2018-06-07 13:52:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
Post by g***@gmail.com
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.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
neither?
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
the tape?
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
ignored it.
BBN was the first to recognize it as a "loud click followed by faint
speech".
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
click?
Has anyone ever duplicated it experimentally?
Post by GKnoll
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
their case.
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
Channel 2.
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
is nothing.
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?
I am not implying anything, I am stating a fact.
I am asking you a question. You have to have a reason for making an
issue out of the Ramsey panel "being silent" about the "click". Why do you
believe they were "being silent" about it?
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
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
other clicks.
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.
It is the only thing that it could be. It is the only thing that makes
everything make sense.
If you know what I am thinking, then say it.
No. I want *you* to tell us what all this is about.
GKnoll
2018-06-08 21:41:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
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 g***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
Post by g***@gmail.com
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.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
neither?
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
the tape?
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
ignored it.
BBN was the first to recognize it as a "loud click followed by faint
speech".
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
click?
Has anyone ever duplicated it experimentally?
Post by GKnoll
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
their case.
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
Channel 2.
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
is nothing.
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?
I am not implying anything, I am stating a fact.
I am asking you a question. You have to have a reason for making an
issue out of the Ramsey panel "being silent" about the "click". Why do you
believe they were "being silent" about it?
I already stated what I think. I said that the NAS panel was silent
about it because if they had mentioned it, it would have weakened their
case.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
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
other clicks.
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.
It is the only thing that it could be. It is the only thing that makes
everything make sense.
If you know what I am thinking, then say it.
No. I want *you* to tell us what all this is about.
I am telling you what it is all about.
GKnoll
2018-06-07 01:06:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
Post by g***@gmail.com
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.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
neither?
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
the tape?
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
ignored it.
BBN was the first to recognize it as a "loud click followed by faint
speech".
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
click?
Has anyone ever duplicated it experimentally?
Post by GKnoll
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
their case.
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
Channel 2.
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
is nothing.
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
other clicks.
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.
Steve Barber
2018-06-08 00:56:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
Post by g***@gmail.com
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.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
neither?
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
the tape?
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
ignored it.
BBN was the first to recognize it as a "loud click followed by faint
speech".
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
click?
Has anyone ever duplicated it experimentally?
Post by GKnoll
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
their case.
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
Channel 2.
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
is nothing.
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
other clicks.
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!
GKnoll
2018-06-08 22:26:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
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 g***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
Post by g***@gmail.com
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.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
neither?
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
the tape?
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
ignored it.
BBN was the first to recognize it as a "loud click followed by faint
speech".
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
click?
Has anyone ever duplicated it experimentally?
Post by GKnoll
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
their case.
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
Channel 2.
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
is nothing.
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
other clicks.
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
fact.

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
google drive.

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
(12:32:39)

Link to "Murray, keep your mic off.......all right" The word "Murray" is
heard at 2 seconds into the audio.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1TIa7EkAi5lZVlGWEVsMlNzbDQ/view

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
off".

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1TIa7EkAi5leDBYTXVjSk1CTlU/view
Steve Barber
2018-06-09 18:25:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GKnoll
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 g***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
Post by g***@gmail.com
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.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
neither?
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
the tape?
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
ignored it.
BBN was the first to recognize it as a "loud click followed by faint
speech".
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
click?
Has anyone ever duplicated it experimentally?
Post by GKnoll
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
their case.
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
Channel 2.
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
is nothing.
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
other clicks.
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.
What is your problem? You are always making false accusations!
Post by GKnoll
You are afraid of the message and so you are attacking the messenger.
I am afraid of nothing, oh nameless one. Quit flattering yourself.
Post by GKnoll
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
fact.
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
google drive.
Don't insult my intelligence!
Post by GKnoll
I am going to repeat...what is your problem? Why are you always rude?
I am going to repeat. Why are you always making false accusations?!
Post by GKnoll
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.
The same is said for you, oh nameless one. I'm not wrong, I can prove it,
but no one gives a damn but you, and I'm not wasting my time trying to
prove anything to you.
Post by GKnoll
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
(12:32:39)
Link to "Murray, keep your mic off.......all right" The word "Murray" is
heard at 2 seconds into the audio.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1TIa7EkAi5lZVlGWEVsMlNzbDQ/view
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
off".
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1TIa7EkAi5leDBYTXVjSk1CTlU/view
GKnoll
2018-06-10 22:45:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
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 GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
Post by g***@gmail.com
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.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
neither?
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
the tape?
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
ignored it.
BBN was the first to recognize it as a "loud click followed by faint
speech".
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
click?
Has anyone ever duplicated it experimentally?
Post by GKnoll
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
their case.
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
Channel 2.
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
is nothing.
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
other clicks.
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.
What is your problem? You are always making false accusations!
Post by GKnoll
You are afraid of the message and so you are attacking the messenger.
I am afraid of nothing, oh nameless one. Quit flattering yourself.
Yes you are. You are afraid of being wrong. You are afraid that you might
lose credibility. You are afraid of many things. That is why you are
always rude.

You think that if someone points out something about you that you disagree
with that they are flattering themselves. What does that say about you?
(This is a rhetorical question, you do not have to answer it, but you can
if you want).

Steve, you do not have all the facts.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
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
fact.
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
google drive.
Don't insult my intelligence!
I am giving you the benefit of the doubt.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
I am going to repeat...what is your problem? Why are you always rude?
I am going to repeat. Why are you always making false accusations?!
Post by GKnoll
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.
The same is said for you, oh nameless one. I'm not wrong, I can prove it,
but no one gives a damn but you, and I'm not wasting my time trying to
prove anything to you.
You can prove what? That the world is flat?

You are wrong. Just like you were wrong about the "Murray, keep your mic
off." You said you could prove that and we all know how that turned out.
The only thing you proved was that you will not admit when you have made a
mistake.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
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
(12:32:39)
Link to "Murray, keep your mic off.......all right" The word "Murray" is
heard at 2 seconds into the audio.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1TIa7EkAi5lZVlGWEVsMlNzbDQ/view
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
off".
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1TIa7EkAi5leDBYTXVjSk1CTlU/view
Steve Barber
2018-06-11 19:27:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GKnoll
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 GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
Post by g***@gmail.com
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.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
neither?
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
the tape?
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
ignored it.
BBN was the first to recognize it as a "loud click followed by faint
speech".
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
click?
Has anyone ever duplicated it experimentally?
Post by GKnoll
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
their case.
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
Channel 2.
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
is nothing.
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
other clicks.
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.
What is your problem? You are always making false accusations!
Post by GKnoll
You are afraid of the message and so you are attacking the messenger.
I am afraid of nothing, oh nameless one. Quit flattering yourself.
Yes you are. You are afraid of being wrong. You are afraid that you might
lose credibility. You are afraid of many things. That is why you are
always rude.
Nothing whatsoever to do with "being wrong". You brought this all on
yourself! I have no respect for you because of the things that you did
several months ago when we were arguing over the 12:28 transmission. You
just look up those posts and read through them! It is a lot more than just
your accusation that I was "snooping" into your Gmail account. That's not
half of it!

I further have no respect for you because you keep your true identity from
everyone, going by several name aliases, "Mike Rago" (being only one of
them) There are other names that others saw you posting under in here.

[I] am 'rude' "? This is what I mean when I say stop flattering
yourself. You don't mean a thing to me! Period. If you find something on
the police recording that proves whatever it is that you are trying to
prove GO FOR IT! All I see in your is a lot of projecting!
Post by GKnoll
You think that if someone points out something about you that you disagree
with that they are flattering themselves. What does that say about you?
(This is a rhetorical question, you do not have to answer it, but you can
if you want).
That isn't even close to what I am saying.
Post by GKnoll
Steve, you do not have all the facts.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
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
fact.
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
google drive.
Don't insult my intelligence!
I am giving you the benefit of the doubt.
You insulted my (and everyone elses') intelligence when you said that
you were "not expecting [me] to answer the question regarding McAdams"
when you posted your "rhetorical question". Don't give e that crap.
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
I am going to repeat...what is your problem? Why are you always rude?
I am going to repeat. Why are you always making false accusations?!
Post by GKnoll
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.
The same is said for you, oh nameless one. I'm not wrong, I can prove it,
but no one gives a damn but you, and I'm not wasting my time trying to
prove anything to you.
You can prove what? That the world is flat?
No, that's something would try to do.

I'm talking about the 12:28 transmission. Your "Murray, keep your mic
off" nonsense. I have stated what I believe it to be, and I can prove that
I am right. But, I am not going to waste anymore time trying to do so,
because you won't ever admit that I am right and you are wrong. You have
made this abundantly clear. This is what I am talking about when I say
that all I see with you is a lot of projecting. You say that I am so
afraid that someone is going to prove me wrong, when it is you who is
afraid of being proved wrong. Your hostility towards me is as clear as a
bell in just about every comment you post here regarding me. This *isn't*
about *me*. This is about someone (you) saying they hear someone saying
something that isn't being said at all. I am the only one who has
challenged you on this, and you have a cow whenever I say that you are
wrong. Don't preach to me.
Post by GKnoll
You are wrong. Just like you were wrong about the "Murray, keep your mic
off." You said you could prove that and we all know how that turned out.
The only thing you proved was that you will not admit when you have made a
mistake.
No, I am not wrong. I haven't made any mistake. You are the only person
who hears what you say you hear: "Murray, keep your mic off". A totally
and absolutely ridiculous claim. Not one person in this newsgroup except
myself challenged you. You aren't ready to accept a challenge with anyone
whenever they do challenge you, and this has happened regarding other
topics, like the Hester couple and some of your other "photographic"
things. But that is another topic. All kinds of evidence to prove you
wrong that others posted here when you were arguing about Mr. Hester's
neck tie vs. Zapruder's bow tie, claiming that the man seen in the Bell
film and Bond stills isn't HEster it's Zapruder and blah, blah, blah. I
only bring this up because people have dealt with your arguments before,
and you will not admit when you're wrong, and that topic is proof of it.
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
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
(12:32:39)
Link to "Murray, keep your mic off.......all right" The word "Murray" is
heard at 2 seconds into the audio.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1TIa7EkAi5lZVlGWEVsMlNzbDQ/view
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
off".
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1TIa7EkAi5leDBYTXVjSk1CTlU/view
GKnoll
2018-06-12 12:44:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
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 GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
Post by g***@gmail.com
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.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
neither?
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
the tape?
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
ignored it.
BBN was the first to recognize it as a "loud click followed by faint
speech".
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
click?
Has anyone ever duplicated it experimentally?
Post by GKnoll
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
their case.
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
Channel 2.
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
is nothing.
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
other clicks.
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.
What is your problem? You are always making false accusations!
Post by GKnoll
You are afraid of the message and so you are attacking the messenger.
I am afraid of nothing, oh nameless one. Quit flattering yourself.
Yes you are. You are afraid of being wrong. You are afraid that you might
lose credibility. You are afraid of many things. That is why you are
always rude.
Nothing whatsoever to do with "being wrong". You brought this all on
yourself! I have no respect for you because of the things that you did
several months ago when we were arguing over the 12:28 transmission. You
just look up those posts and read through them! It is a lot more than just
your accusation that I was "snooping" into your Gmail account. That's not
half of it!
I further have no respect for you because you keep your true identity from
everyone, going by several name aliases, "Mike Rago" (being only one of
them) There are other names that others saw you posting under in here.
[I] am 'rude' "? This is what I mean when I say stop flattering
yourself. You don't mean a thing to me! Period. If you find something on
the police recording that proves whatever it is that you are trying to
prove GO FOR IT! All I see in your is a lot of projecting!
Post by GKnoll
You think that if someone points out something about you that you disagree
with that they are flattering themselves. What does that say about you?
(This is a rhetorical question, you do not have to answer it, but you can
if you want).
That isn't even close to what I am saying.
Post by GKnoll
Steve, you do not have all the facts.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
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
fact.
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
google drive.
Don't insult my intelligence!
I am giving you the benefit of the doubt.
You insulted my (and everyone elses') intelligence when you said that
you were "not expecting [me] to answer the question regarding McAdams"
when you posted your "rhetorical question". Don't give e that crap.
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
I am going to repeat...what is your problem? Why are you always rude?
I am going to repeat. Why are you always making false accusations?!
Post by GKnoll
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.
The same is said for you, oh nameless one. I'm not wrong, I can prove it,
but no one gives a damn but you, and I'm not wasting my time trying to
prove anything to you.
You can prove what? That the world is flat?
No, that's something would try to do.
I'm talking about the 12:28 transmission. Your "Murray, keep your mic
off" nonsense. I have stated what I believe it to be, and I can prove that
I am right. But, I am not going to waste anymore time trying to do so,
because you won't ever admit that I am right and you are wrong. You have
made this abundantly clear. This is what I am talking about when I say
that all I see with you is a lot of projecting. You say that I am so
afraid that someone is going to prove me wrong, when it is you who is
afraid of being proved wrong. Your hostility towards me is as clear as a
bell in just about every comment you post here regarding me. This *isn't*
about *me*. This is about someone (you) saying they hear someone saying
something that isn't being said at all. I am the only one who has
challenged you on this, and you have a cow whenever I say that you are
wrong. Don't preach to me.
You are well advised to not try to prove what you think it is again. It
won't work, it will be like trying to prove the earth is flat.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
You are wrong. Just like you were wrong about the "Murray, keep your mic
off." You said you could prove that and we all know how that turned out.
The only thing you proved was that you will not admit when you have made a
mistake.
No, I am not wrong. I haven't made any mistake. You are the only person
who hears what you say you hear: "Murray, keep your mic off". A totally
and absolutely ridiculous claim. Not one person in this newsgroup except
myself challenged you. You aren't ready to accept a challenge with anyone
whenever they do challenge you, and this has happened regarding other
topics, like the Hester couple and some of your other "photographic"
things. But that is another topic. All kinds of evidence to prove you
wrong that others posted here when you were arguing about Mr. Hester's
neck tie vs. Zapruder's bow tie, claiming that the man seen in the Bell
film and Bond stills isn't HEster it's Zapruder and blah, blah, blah. I
only bring this up because people have dealt with your arguments before,
and you will not admit when you're wrong, and that topic is proof of it.
I am not the only person who hears what I hear. Many people hear it.

Even Marsh admitted he hears it.

When odellm listened to it, his reply to me was, "and my point is"? Of
course he did not come out and state that he hears it. He would not do
that because that would put him in disagreement with you. I am quite sure
that you emailed him to tell him what you say it is.

I tend to trust odellm (in some things) more than you. I think he really
does want to know what is the truth. Lets see if you can get him to say
that he does not hear "Murray, keep your mic off" followed by Murray
Jackson saying "OK".

All one has to do is listen to it. The links are below.

What really bothers me about your stubbornness, is that you completely
ignore the context. Not only does someone tell Murray to keep his mic off
at 12:28, but Murray responds to that transmission with "OK" and then
there are no more Dispatcher transmission for about 5 minutes. Until well
after the assassination. Murray did what he was told to do.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
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
(12:32:39)
Link to "Murray, keep your mic off.......all right" The word "Murray" is
heard at 2 seconds into the audio.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1TIa7EkAi5lZVlGWEVsMlNzbDQ/view
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
off".
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1TIa7EkAi5leDBYTXVjSk1CTlU/view
Steve Barber
2018-06-12 21:51:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GKnoll
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 GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
Post by g***@gmail.com
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.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
neither?
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
the tape?
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
ignored it.
BBN was the first to recognize it as a "loud click followed by faint
speech".
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
click?
Has anyone ever duplicated it experimentally?
Post by GKnoll
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
their case.
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
Channel 2.
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
is nothing.
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
other clicks.
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.
What is your problem? You are always making false accusations!
Post by GKnoll
You are afraid of the message and so you are attacking the messenger.
I am afraid of nothing, oh nameless one. Quit flattering yourself.
Yes you are. You are afraid of being wrong. You are afraid that you might
lose credibility. You are afraid of many things. That is why you are
always rude.
Nothing whatsoever to do with "being wrong". You brought this all on
yourself! I have no respect for you because of the things that you did
several months ago when we were arguing over the 12:28 transmission. You
just look up those posts and read through them! It is a lot more than just
your accusation that I was "snooping" into your Gmail account. That's not
half of it!
I further have no respect for you because you keep your true identity from
everyone, going by several name aliases, "Mike Rago" (being only one of
them) There are other names that others saw you posting under in here.
[I] am 'rude' "? This is what I mean when I say stop flattering
yourself. You don't mean a thing to me! Period. If you find something on
the police recording that proves whatever it is that you are trying to
prove GO FOR IT! All I see in your is a lot of projecting!
Post by GKnoll
You think that if someone points out something about you that you disagree
with that they are flattering themselves. What does that say about you?
(This is a rhetorical question, you do not have to answer it, but you can
if you want).
That isn't even close to what I am saying.
Post by GKnoll
Steve, you do not have all the facts.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
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
fact.
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
google drive.
Don't insult my intelligence!
I am giving you the benefit of the doubt.
You insulted my (and everyone elses') intelligence when you said that
you were "not expecting [me] to answer the question regarding McAdams"
when you posted your "rhetorical question". Don't give e that crap.
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
I am going to repeat...what is your problem? Why are you always rude?
I am going to repeat. Why are you always making false accusations?!
Post by GKnoll
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.
The same is said for you, oh nameless one. I'm not wrong, I can prove it,
but no one gives a damn but you, and I'm not wasting my time trying to
prove anything to you.
You can prove what? That the world is flat?
No, that's something would try to do.
I'm talking about the 12:28 transmission. Your "Murray, keep your mic
off" nonsense. I have stated what I believe it to be, and I can prove that
I am right. But, I am not going to waste anymore time trying to do so,
because you won't ever admit that I am right and you are wrong. You have
made this abundantly clear. This is what I am talking about when I say
that all I see with you is a lot of projecting. You say that I am so
afraid that someone is going to prove me wrong, when it is you who is
afraid of being proved wrong. Your hostility towards me is as clear as a
bell in just about every comment you post here regarding me. This *isn't*
about *me*. This is about someone (you) saying they hear someone saying
something that isn't being said at all. I am the only one who has
challenged you on this, and you have a cow whenever I say that you are
wrong. Don't preach to me.
You are well advised to not try to prove what you think it is again. It
won't work, it will be like trying to prove the earth is flat.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
You are wrong. Just like you were wrong about the "Murray, keep your mic
off." You said you could prove that and we all know how that turned out.
The only thing you proved was that you will not admit when you have made a
mistake.
No, I am not wrong. I haven't made any mistake. You are the only person
who hears what you say you hear: "Murray, keep your mic off". A totally
and absolutely ridiculous claim. Not one person in this newsgroup except
myself challenged you. You aren't ready to accept a challenge with anyone
whenever they do challenge you, and this has happened regarding other
topics, like the Hester couple and some of your other "photographic"
things. But that is another topic. All kinds of evidence to prove you
wrong that others posted here when you were arguing about Mr. Hester's
neck tie vs. Zapruder's bow tie, claiming that the man seen in the Bell
film and Bond stills isn't HEster it's Zapruder and blah, blah, blah. I
only bring this up because people have dealt with your arguments before,
and you will not admit when you're wrong, and that topic is proof of it.
I am not the only person who hears what I hear. Many people hear it.
In this newsgroup?
Post by GKnoll
Even Marsh admitted he hears it.
Really? I don't recall any such thing. Perhaps my recollection is in
error, but I don't remember his saying that he agrees that it's "Murray,
keep your mic off".

By the way...When I want your advice, Franky/Mike, I'll ask for it.
Post by GKnoll
When odellm listened to it, his reply to me was, "and my point is"? Of
course he did not come out and state that he hears it. He would not do
that because that would put him in disagreement with you. I am quite sure
that you emailed him to tell him what you say it is.
No, actually I didn't email Michael and tell him anything. You are so
paranoid?
Post by GKnoll
I tend to trust odellm (in some things) more than you. I think he really
does want to know what is the truth. Lets see if you can get him to say
that he does not hear "Murray, keep your mic off" followed by Murray
Jackson saying "OK".
What's the use? Either way you will accuse me of bias and of coaxing
Michael should he say he doesn't hear what you claim is there.
Post by GKnoll
All one has to do is listen to it. The links are below.
What really bothers me about your stubbornness, is that you completely
ignore the context. Not only does someone tell Murray to keep his mic off
at 12:28, but Murray responds to that transmission with "OK" and then
there are no more Dispatcher transmission for about 5 minutes. Until well
after the assassination. Murray did what he was told to do.
It isn't stubborness, Franky/Mike. Common sense tells us that no police
officer is going to tell the dispatcher to keep his mic off. You've yet to
state why anyone would tell a dispatcher to keep his mic off, or give any
other reason or theory as to why.
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
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
(12:32:39)
Link to "Murray, keep your mic off.......all right" The word "Murray" is
heard at 2 seconds into the audio.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1TIa7EkAi5lZVlGWEVsMlNzbDQ/view
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
off".
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1TIa7EkAi5leDBYTXVjSk1CTlU/view
GKnoll
2018-06-13 03:08:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
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 GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
Post by g***@gmail.com
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.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
neither?
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
the tape?
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
ignored it.
BBN was the first to recognize it as a "loud click followed by faint
speech".
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
click?
Has anyone ever duplicated it experimentally?
Post by GKnoll
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
their case.
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
Channel 2.
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
is nothing.
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
other clicks.
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.
What is your problem? You are always making false accusations!
Post by GKnoll
You are afraid of the message and so you are attacking the messenger.
I am afraid of nothing, oh nameless one. Quit flattering yourself.
Yes you are. You are afraid of being wrong. You are afraid that you might
lose credibility. You are afraid of many things. That is why you are
always rude.
Nothing whatsoever to do with "being wrong". You brought this all on
yourself! I have no respect for you because of the things that you did
several months ago when we were arguing over the 12:28 transmission. You
just look up those posts and read through them! It is a lot more than just
your accusation that I was "snooping" into your Gmail account. That's not
half of it!
I further have no respect for you because you keep your true identity from
everyone, going by several name aliases, "Mike Rago" (being only one of
them) There are other names that others saw you posting under in here.
[I] am 'rude' "? This is what I mean when I say stop flattering
yourself. You don't mean a thing to me! Period. If you find something on
the police recording that proves whatever it is that you are trying to
prove GO FOR IT! All I see in your is a lot of projecting!
Post by GKnoll
You think that if someone points out something about you that you disagree
with that they are flattering themselves. What does that say about you?
(This is a rhetorical question, you do not have to answer it, but you can
if you want).
That isn't even close to what I am saying.
Post by GKnoll
Steve, you do not have all the facts.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
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
fact.
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
google drive.
Don't insult my intelligence!
I am giving you the benefit of the doubt.
You insulted my (and everyone elses') intelligence when you said that
you were "not expecting [me] to answer the question regarding McAdams"
when you posted your "rhetorical question". Don't give e that crap.
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
I am going to repeat...what is your problem? Why are you always rude?
I am going to repeat. Why are you always making false accusations?!
Post by GKnoll
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.
The same is said for you, oh nameless one. I'm not wrong, I can prove it,
but no one gives a damn but you, and I'm not wasting my time trying to
prove anything to you.
You can prove what? That the world is flat?
No, that's something would try to do.
I'm talking about the 12:28 transmission. Your "Murray, keep your mic
off" nonsense. I have stated what I believe it to be, and I can prove that
I am right. But, I am not going to waste anymore time trying to do so,
because you won't ever admit that I am right and you are wrong. You have
made this abundantly clear. This is what I am talking about when I say
that all I see with you is a lot of projecting. You say that I am so
afraid that someone is going to prove me wrong, when it is you who is
afraid of being proved wrong. Your hostility towards me is as clear as a
bell in just about every comment you post here regarding me. This *isn't*
about *me*. This is about someone (you) saying they hear someone saying
something that isn't being said at all. I am the only one who has
challenged you on this, and you have a cow whenever I say that you are
wrong. Don't preach to me.
You are well advised to not try to prove what you think it is again. It
won't work, it will be like trying to prove the earth is flat.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
You are wrong. Just like you were wrong about the "Murray, keep your mic
off." You said you could prove that and we all know how that turned out.
The only thing you proved was that you will not admit when you have made a
mistake.
No, I am not wrong. I haven't made any mistake. You are the only person
who hears what you say you hear: "Murray, keep your mic off". A totally
and absolutely ridiculous claim. Not one person in this newsgroup except
myself challenged you. You aren't ready to accept a challenge with anyone
whenever they do challenge you, and this has happened regarding other
topics, like the Hester couple and some of your other "photographic"
things. But that is another topic. All kinds of evidence to prove you
wrong that others posted here when you were arguing about Mr. Hester's
neck tie vs. Zapruder's bow tie, claiming that the man seen in the Bell
film and Bond stills isn't HEster it's Zapruder and blah, blah, blah. I
only bring this up because people have dealt with your arguments before,
and you will not admit when you're wrong, and that topic is proof of it.
I am not the only person who hears what I hear. Many people hear it.
In this newsgroup?
Post by GKnoll
Even Marsh admitted he hears it.
Really? I don't recall any such thing. Perhaps my recollection is in
error, but I don't remember his saying that he agrees that it's "Murray,
keep your mic off".
Yes really. It is the Dictabelt thread.
Post by Steve Barber
By the way...When I want your advice, Franky/Mike, I'll ask for it.
Post by GKnoll
When odellm listened to it, his reply to me was, "and my point is"? Of
course he did not come out and state that he hears it. He would not do
that because that would put him in disagreement with you. I am quite sure
that you emailed him to tell him what you say it is.
No, actually I didn't email Michael and tell him anything. You are so
paranoid?
I just know how you guys operated.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
I tend to trust odellm (in some things) more than you. I think he really
does want to know what is the truth. Lets see if you can get him to say
that he does not hear "Murray, keep your mic off" followed by Murray
Jackson saying "OK".
What's the use? Either way you will accuse me of bias and of coaxing
Michael should he say he doesn't hear what you claim is there.
What do you care what I say? That is just a cop out on your part.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
All one has to do is listen to it. The links are below.
What really bothers me about your stubbornness, is that you completely
ignore the context. Not only does someone tell Murray to keep his mic off
at 12:28, but Murray responds to that transmission with "OK" and then
there are no more Dispatcher transmission for about 5 minutes. Until well
after the assassination. Murray did what he was told to do.
It isn't stubborness, Franky/Mike. Common sense tells us that no police
officer is going to tell the dispatcher to keep his mic off. You've yet to
state why anyone would tell a dispatcher to keep his mic off, or give any
other reason or theory as to why.
Thats not how investigations work. You are putting the cart before the
horse. Because you do not think it would happen you do not believe it
happened , even though, it is quite obvious that it happened. One not fit
the evidence to the theory (which is what you are doing). One fits the
theory to the evidence.

I never said it was a police officer, you said that, I didn't. It would
frankly be nice to know who did say it.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
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
(12:32:39)
Link to "Murray, keep your mic off.......all right" The word "Murray" is
heard at 2 seconds into the audio.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1TIa7EkAi5lZVlGWEVsMlNzbDQ/view
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
off".
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1TIa7EkAi5leDBYTXVjSk1CTlU/view
Steve Barber
2018-06-14 02:23:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GKnoll
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 GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
Post by g***@gmail.com
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.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
neither?
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
the tape?
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
ignored it.
BBN was the first to recognize it as a "loud click followed by faint
speech".
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
click?
Has anyone ever duplicated it experimentally?
Post by GKnoll
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
their case.
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
Channel 2.
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
is nothing.
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
other clicks.
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.
What is your problem? You are always making false accusations!
Post by GKnoll
You are afraid of the message and so you are attacking the messenger.
I am afraid of nothing, oh nameless one. Quit flattering yourself.
Yes you are. You are afraid of being wrong. You are afraid that you might
lose credibility. You are afraid of many things. That is why you are
always rude.
Nothing whatsoever to do with "being wrong". You brought this all on
yourself! I have no respect for you because of the things that you did
several months ago when we were arguing over the 12:28 transmission. You
just look up those posts and read through them! It is a lot more than just
your accusation that I was "snooping" into your Gmail account. That's not
half of it!
I further have no respect for you because you keep your true identity from
everyone, going by several name aliases, "Mike Rago" (being only one of
them) There are other names that others saw you posting under in here.
[I] am 'rude' "? This is what I mean when I say stop flattering
yourself. You don't mean a thing to me! Period. If you find something on
the police recording that proves whatever it is that you are trying to
prove GO FOR IT! All I see in your is a lot of projecting!
Post by GKnoll
You think that if someone points out something about you that you disagree
with that they are flattering themselves. What does that say about you?
(This is a rhetorical question, you do not have to answer it, but you can
if you want).
That isn't even close to what I am saying.
Post by GKnoll
Steve, you do not have all the facts.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
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
fact.
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
google drive.
Don't insult my intelligence!
I am giving you the benefit of the doubt.
You insulted my (and everyone elses') intelligence when you said that
you were "not expecting [me] to answer the question regarding McAdams"
when you posted your "rhetorical question". Don't give e that crap.
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
I am going to repeat...what is your problem? Why are you always rude?
I am going to repeat. Why are you always making false accusations?!
Post by GKnoll
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.
The same is said for you, oh nameless one. I'm not wrong, I can prove it,
but no one gives a damn but you, and I'm not wasting my time trying to
prove anything to you.
You can prove what? That the world is flat?
No, that's something would try to do.
I'm talking about the 12:28 transmission. Your "Murray, keep your mic
off" nonsense. I have stated what I believe it to be, and I can prove that
I am right. But, I am not going to waste anymore time trying to do so,
because you won't ever admit that I am right and you are wrong. You have
made this abundantly clear. This is what I am talking about when I say
that all I see with you is a lot of projecting. You say that I am so
afraid that someone is going to prove me wrong, when it is you who is
afraid of being proved wrong. Your hostility towards me is as clear as a
bell in just about every comment you post here regarding me. This *isn't*
about *me*. This is about someone (you) saying they hear someone saying
something that isn't being said at all. I am the only one who has
challenged you on this, and you have a cow whenever I say that you are
wrong. Don't preach to me.
You are well advised to not try to prove what you think it is again. It
won't work, it will be like trying to prove the earth is flat.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
You are wrong. Just like you were wrong about the "Murray, keep your mic
off." You said you could prove that and we all know how that turned out.
The only thing you proved was that you will not admit when you have made a
mistake.
No, I am not wrong. I haven't made any mistake. You are the only person
who hears what you say you hear: "Murray, keep your mic off". A totally
and absolutely ridiculous claim. Not one person in this newsgroup except
myself challenged you. You aren't ready to accept a challenge with anyone
whenever they do challenge you, and this has happened regarding other
topics, like the Hester couple and some of your other "photographic"
things. But that is another topic. All kinds of evidence to prove you
wrong that others posted here when you were arguing about Mr. Hester's
neck tie vs. Zapruder's bow tie, claiming that the man seen in the Bell
film and Bond stills isn't HEster it's Zapruder and blah, blah, blah. I
only bring this up because people have dealt with your arguments before,
and you will not admit when you're wrong, and that topic is proof of it.
I am not the only person who hears what I hear. Many people hear it.
In this newsgroup?
Post by GKnoll
Even Marsh admitted he hears it.
Really? I don't recall any such thing. Perhaps my recollection is in
error, but I don't remember his saying that he agrees that it's "Murray,
keep your mic off".
Yes really. It is the Dictabelt thread.
Are you going to tell us what the devil that is supposed to mean, or is
it that you don't want anyone to see it? What is "the Dictabelt thread"?
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
By the way...When I want your advice, Franky/Mike, I'll ask for it.
Post by GKnoll
When odellm listened to it, his reply to me was, "and my point is"? Of
course he did not come out and state that he hears it. He would not do
that because that would put him in disagreement with you. I am quite sure
that you emailed him to tell him what you say it is.
No, actually I didn't email Michael and tell him anything. You are so
paranoid?
I just know how you guys operated.
No you don't. You don't know the first thing about Michael and myself.
Michael and I have never personally worked together on anything JFK, and
have discussed very little when it comes to the acoustics issue.
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
I tend to trust odellm (in some things) more than you. I think he really
does want to know what is the truth. Lets see if you can get him to say
that he does not hear "Murray, keep your mic off" followed by Murray
Jackson saying "OK".
What's the use? Either way you will accuse me of bias and of coaxing
Michael should he say he doesn't hear what you claim is there.
What do you care what I say? That is just a cop out on your part.
I *DON'T* care what you say! Why can't you understand that?!
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
All one has to do is listen to it. The links are below.
What really bothers me about your stubbornness, is that you completely
ignore the context. Not only does someone tell Murray to keep his mic off
at 12:28, but Murray responds to that transmission with "OK" and then
there are no more Dispatcher transmission for about 5 minutes. Until well
after the assassination. Murray did what he was told to do.
It isn't stubborness, Franky/Mike. Common sense tells us that no police
officer is going to tell the dispatcher to keep his mic off. You've yet to
state why anyone would tell a dispatcher to keep his mic off, or give any
other reason or theory as to why.
Thats not how investigations work. You are putting the cart before the
horse. Because you do not think it would happen you do not believe it
happened , even though, it is quite obvious that it happened. One not fit
the evidence to the theory (which is what you are doing). One fits the
theory to the evidence.
I never said it was a police officer, you said that, I didn't. It would
frankly be nice to know who did say it.
Oh, excuse me. I forgot. You conspiracy nutters live in your own
little world and believe that someone was pulling strings with the DPD and
someone broke in on the frequency(or whatever your silly ida is) and
supposedly told dispatcher Murray Jackson to keep his mic off, Right? And
that Murray Jackson was in on the conspiracy". This isn't an
"investigation". This is you making up ludicrous conspiracy theories. Your
whole theory is laughable.
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
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
(12:32:39)
Link to "Murray, keep your mic off.......all right" The word "Murray" is
heard at 2 seconds into the audio.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1TIa7EkAi5lZVlGWEVsMlNzbDQ/view
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
off".
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1TIa7EkAi5leDBYTXVjSk1CTlU/view
GKnoll
2018-06-14 23:53:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
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 GKnoll
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 g***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
Post by g***@gmail.com
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.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
neither?
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
the tape?
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
ignored it.
BBN was the first to recognize it as a "loud click followed by faint
speech".
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
click?
Has anyone ever duplicated it experimentally?
Post by GKnoll
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
their case.
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
Channel 2.
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
is nothing.
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
other clicks.
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.
What is your problem? You are always making false accusations!
Post by GKnoll
You are afraid of the message and so you are attacking the messenger.
I am afraid of nothing, oh nameless one. Quit flattering yourself.
Yes you are. You are afraid of being wrong. You are afraid that you might
lose credibility. You are afraid of many things. That is why you are
always rude.
Nothing whatsoever to do with "being wrong". You brought this all on
yourself! I have no respect for you because of the things that you did
several months ago when we were arguing over the 12:28 transmission. You
just look up those posts and read through them! It is a lot more than just
your accusation that I was "snooping" into your Gmail account. That's not
half of it!
I further have no respect for you because you keep your true identity from
everyone, going by several name aliases, "Mike Rago" (being only one of
them) There are other names that others saw you posting under in here.
[I] am 'rude' "? This is what I mean when I say stop flattering
yourself. You don't mean a thing to me! Period. If you find something on
the police recording that proves whatever it is that you are trying to
prove GO FOR IT! All I see in your is a lot of projecting!
Post by GKnoll
You think that if someone points out something about you that you disagree
with that they are flattering themselves. What does that say about you?
(This is a rhetorical question, you do not have to answer it, but you can
if you want).
That isn't even close to what I am saying.
Post by GKnoll
Steve, you do not have all the facts.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
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
fact.
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
google drive.
Don't insult my intelligence!
I am giving you the benefit of the doubt.
You insulted my (and everyone elses') intelligence when you said that
you were "not expecting [me] to answer the question regarding McAdams"
when you posted your "rhetorical question". Don't give e that crap.
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
I am going to repeat...what is your problem? Why are you always rude?
I am going to repeat. Why are you always making false accusations?!
Post by GKnoll
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.
The same is said for you, oh nameless one. I'm not wrong, I can prove it,
but no one gives a damn but you, and I'm not wasting my time trying to
prove anything to you.
You can prove what? That the world is flat?
No, that's something would try to do.
I'm talking about the 12:28 transmission. Your "Murray, keep your mic
off" nonsense. I have stated what I believe it to be, and I can prove that
I am right. But, I am not going to waste anymore time trying to do so,
because you won't ever admit that I am right and you are wrong. You have
made this abundantly clear. This is what I am talking about when I say
that all I see with you is a lot of projecting. You say that I am so
afraid that someone is going to prove me wrong, when it is you who is
afraid of being proved wrong. Your hostility towards me is as clear as a
bell in just about every comment you post here regarding me. This *isn't*
about *me*. This is about someone (you) saying they hear someone saying
something that isn't being said at all. I am the only one who has
challenged you on this, and you have a cow whenever I say that you are
wrong. Don't preach to me.
You are well advised to not try to prove what you think it is again. It
won't work, it will be like trying to prove the earth is flat.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
You are wrong. Just like you were wrong about the "Murray, keep your mic
off." You said you could prove that and we all know how that turned out.
The only thing you proved was that you will not admit when you have made a
mistake.
No, I am not wrong. I haven't made any mistake. You are the only person
who hears what you say you hear: "Murray, keep your mic off". A totally
and absolutely ridiculous claim. Not one person in this newsgroup except
myself challenged you. You aren't ready to accept a challenge with anyone
whenever they do challenge you, and this has happened regarding other
topics, like the Hester couple and some of your other "photographic"
things. But that is another topic. All kinds of evidence to prove you
wrong that others posted here when you were arguing about Mr. Hester's
neck tie vs. Zapruder's bow tie, claiming that the man seen in the Bell
film and Bond stills isn't HEster it's Zapruder and blah, blah, blah. I
only bring this up because people have dealt with your arguments before,
and you will not admit when you're wrong, and that topic is proof of it.
I am not the only person who hears what I hear. Many people hear it.
In this newsgroup?
Post by GKnoll
Even Marsh admitted he hears it.
Really? I don't recall any such thing. Perhaps my recollection is in
error, but I don't remember his saying that he agrees that it's "Murray,
keep your mic off".
Yes really. It is the Dictabelt thread.
Are you going to tell us what the devil that is supposed to mean, or is
it that you don't want anyone to see it? What is "the Dictabelt thread"?
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
By the way...When I want your advice, Franky/Mike, I'll ask for it.
Post by GKnoll
When odellm listened to it, his reply to me was, "and my point is"? Of
course he did not come out and state that he hears it. He would not do
that because that would put him in disagreement with you. I am quite sure
that you emailed him to tell him what you say it is.
No, actually I didn't email Michael and tell him anything. You are so
paranoid?
I just know how you guys operated.
No you don't. You don't know the first thing about Michael and myself.
Michael and I have never personally worked together on anything JFK, and
have discussed very little when it comes to the acoustics issue.
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
I tend to trust odellm (in some things) more than you. I think he really
does want to know what is the truth. Lets see if you can get him to say
that he does not hear "Murray, keep your mic off" followed by Murray
Jackson saying "OK".
What's the use? Either way you will accuse me of bias and of coaxing
Michael should he say he doesn't hear what you claim is there.
What do you care what I say? That is just a cop out on your part.
I *DON'T* care what you say! Why can't you understand that?!
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
All one has to do is listen to it. The links are below.
What really bothers me about your stubbornness, is that you completely
ignore the context. Not only does someone tell Murray to keep his mic off
at 12:28, but Murray responds to that transmission with "OK" and then
there are no more Dispatcher transmission for about 5 minutes. Until well
after the assassination. Murray did what he was told to do.
It isn't stubborness, Franky/Mike. Common sense tells us that no police
officer is going to tell the dispatcher to keep his mic off. You've yet to
state why anyone would tell a dispatcher to keep his mic off, or give any
other reason or theory as to why.
Thats not how investigations work. You are putting the cart before the
horse. Because you do not think it would happen you do not believe it
happened , even though, it is quite obvious that it happened. One not fit
the evidence to the theory (which is what you are doing). One fits the
theory to the evidence.
I never said it was a police officer, you said that, I didn't. It would
frankly be nice to know who did say it.
Oh, excuse me. I forgot. You conspiracy nutters live in your own
little world and believe that someone was pulling strings with the DPD and
someone broke in on the frequency(or whatever your silly ida is) and
supposedly told dispatcher Murray Jackson to keep his mic off, Right? And
that Murray Jackson was in on the conspiracy". This isn't an
"investigation". This is you making up ludicrous conspiracy theories. Your
whole theory is laughable.
Everything you just said is what you think, not what I think.

You are going about this ass backwards. You are trying to make the
evidence fit your theory. (ie that because an officer would never say
something like that to the dispatcher then what we hear must not be right.
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 GKnoll
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
(12:32:39)
Link to "Murray, keep your mic off.......all right" The word "Murray" is
heard at 2 seconds into the audio.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1TIa7EkAi5lZVlGWEVsMlNzbDQ/view
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
off".
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1TIa7EkAi5leDBYTXVjSk1CTlU/view
Steve Barber
2018-06-13 02:39:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GKnoll
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 GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
Post by g***@gmail.com
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.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
neither?
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
the tape?
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
ignored it.
BBN was the first to recognize it as a "loud click followed by faint
speech".
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
click?
Has anyone ever duplicated it experimentally?
Post by GKnoll
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
their case.
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
Channel 2.
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
is nothing.
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
other clicks.
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.
What is your problem? You are always making false accusations!
Post by GKnoll
You are afraid of the message and so you are attacking the messenger.
I am afraid of nothing, oh nameless one. Quit flattering yourself.
Yes you are. You are afraid of being wrong. You are afraid that you might
lose credibility. You are afraid of many things. That is why you are
always rude.
Nothing whatsoever to do with "being wrong". You brought this all on
yourself! I have no respect for you because of the things that you did
several months ago when we were arguing over the 12:28 transmission. You
just look up those posts and read through them! It is a lot more than just
your accusation that I was "snooping" into your Gmail account. That's not
half of it!
I further have no respect for you because you keep your true identity from
everyone, going by several name aliases, "Mike Rago" (being only one of
them) There are other names that others saw you posting under in here.
[I] am 'rude' "? This is what I mean when I say stop flattering
yourself. You don't mean a thing to me! Period. If you find something on
the police recording that proves whatever it is that you are trying to
prove GO FOR IT! All I see in your is a lot of projecting!
Post by GKnoll
You think that if someone points out something about you that you disagree
with that they are flattering themselves. What does that say about you?
(This is a rhetorical question, you do not have to answer it, but you can
if you want).
That isn't even close to what I am saying.
Post by GKnoll
Steve, you do not have all the facts.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
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
fact.
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
google drive.
Don't insult my intelligence!
I am giving you the benefit of the doubt.
You insulted my (and everyone elses') intelligence when you said that
you were "not expecting [me] to answer the question regarding McAdams"
when you posted your "rhetorical question". Don't give e that crap.
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
I am going to repeat...what is your problem? Why are you always rude?
I am going to repeat. Why are you always making false accusations?!
Post by GKnoll
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.
The same is said for you, oh nameless one. I'm not wrong, I can prove it,
but no one gives a damn but you, and I'm not wasting my time trying to
prove anything to you.
You can prove what? That the world is flat?
No, that's something would try to do.
I'm talking about the 12:28 transmission. Your "Murray, keep your mic
off" nonsense. I have stated what I believe it to be, and I can prove that
I am right. But, I am not going to waste anymore time trying to do so,
because you won't ever admit that I am right and you are wrong. You have
made this abundantly clear. This is what I am talking about when I say
that all I see with you is a lot of projecting. You say that I am so
afraid that someone is going to prove me wrong, when it is you who is
afraid of being proved wrong. Your hostility towards me is as clear as a
bell in just about every comment you post here regarding me. This *isn't*
about *me*. This is about someone (you) saying they hear someone saying
something that isn't being said at all. I am the only one who has
challenged you on this, and you have a cow whenever I say that you are
wrong. Don't preach to me.
You are well advised to not try to prove what you think it is again. It
won't work, it will be like trying to prove the earth is flat.
Here's something I would like for you to do for the benefit of the
readers of this newsgroup, and myself.

How about you make available just the two words that you say are the
words "Mic off" during transmission which you claim is "Murray, keep your
mic off"? Just capture those two words/sounds and nothing else, and post
them so we can hear them. Deal?
GKnoll
2018-06-14 02:30:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
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 GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
Post by g***@gmail.com
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.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
neither?
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
the tape?
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
ignored it.
BBN was the first to recognize it as a "loud click followed by faint
speech".
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
click?
Has anyone ever duplicated it experimentally?
Post by GKnoll
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
their case.
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
Channel 2.
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
is nothing.
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
other clicks.
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.
What is your problem? You are always making false accusations!
Post by GKnoll
You are afraid of the message and so you are attacking the messenger.
I am afraid of nothing, oh nameless one. Quit flattering yourself.
Yes you are. You are afraid of being wrong. You are afraid that you might
lose credibility. You are afraid of many things. That is why you are
always rude.
Nothing whatsoever to do with "being wrong". You brought this all on
yourself! I have no respect for you because of the things that you did
several months ago when we were arguing over the 12:28 transmission. You
just look up those posts and read through them! It is a lot more than just
your accusation that I was "snooping" into your Gmail account. That's not
half of it!
I further have no respect for you because you keep your true identity from
everyone, going by several name aliases, "Mike Rago" (being only one of
them) There are other names that others saw you posting under in here.
[I] am 'rude' "? This is what I mean when I say stop flattering
yourself. You don't mean a thing to me! Period. If you find something on
the police recording that proves whatever it is that you are trying to
prove GO FOR IT! All I see in your is a lot of projecting!
Post by GKnoll
You think that if someone points out something about you that you disagree
with that they are flattering themselves. What does that say about you?
(This is a rhetorical question, you do not have to answer it, but you can
if you want).
That isn't even close to what I am saying.
Post by GKnoll
Steve, you do not have all the facts.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
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
fact.
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
google drive.
Don't insult my intelligence!
I am giving you the benefit of the doubt.
You insulted my (and everyone elses') intelligence when you said that
you were "not expecting [me] to answer the question regarding McAdams"
when you posted your "rhetorical question". Don't give e that crap.
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
I am going to repeat...what is your problem? Why are you always rude?
I am going to repeat. Why are you always making false accusations?!
Post by GKnoll
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.
The same is said for you, oh nameless one. I'm not wrong, I can prove it,
but no one gives a damn but you, and I'm not wasting my time trying to
prove anything to you.
You can prove what? That the world is flat?
No, that's something would try to do.
I'm talking about the 12:28 transmission. Your "Murray, keep your mic
off" nonsense. I have stated what I believe it to be, and I can prove that
I am right. But, I am not going to waste anymore time trying to do so,
because you won't ever admit that I am right and you are wrong. You have
made this abundantly clear. This is what I am talking about when I say
that all I see with you is a lot of projecting. You say that I am so
afraid that someone is going to prove me wrong, when it is you who is
afraid of being proved wrong. Your hostility towards me is as clear as a
bell in just about every comment you post here regarding me. This *isn't*
about *me*. This is about someone (you) saying they hear someone saying
something that isn't being said at all. I am the only one who has
challenged you on this, and you have a cow whenever I say that you are
wrong. Don't preach to me.
You are well advised to not try to prove what you think it is again. It
won't work, it will be like trying to prove the earth is flat.
Here's something I would like for you to do for the benefit of the
readers of this newsgroup, and myself.
How about you make available just the two words that you say are the
words "Mic off" during transmission which you claim is "Murray, keep your
mic off"? Just capture those two words/sounds and nothing else, and post
them so we can hear them. Deal?
We did this before. Here is an audio I made back then.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1TIa7EkAi5lSy1TWWxFYlpkeHM/view?usp=sharing
Steve Barber
2018-06-15 00:07:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GKnoll
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 GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
Post by g***@gmail.com
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.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
neither?
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
the tape?
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
ignored it.
BBN was the first to recognize it as a "loud click followed by faint
speech".
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
click?
Has anyone ever duplicated it experimentally?
Post by GKnoll
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
their case.
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
Channel 2.
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
is nothing.
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
other clicks.
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.
What is your problem? You are always making false accusations!
Post by GKnoll
You are afraid of the message and so you are attacking the messenger.
I am afraid of nothing, oh nameless one. Quit flattering yourself.
Yes you are. You are afraid of being wrong. You are afraid that you might
lose credibility. You are afraid of many things. That is why you are
always rude.
Nothing whatsoever to do with "being wrong". You brought this all on
yourself! I have no respect for you because of the things that you did
several months ago when we were arguing over the 12:28 transmission. You
just look up those posts and read through them! It is a lot more than just
your accusation that I was "snooping" into your Gmail account. That's not
half of it!
I further have no respect for you because you keep your true identity from
everyone, going by several name aliases, "Mike Rago" (being only one of
them) There are other names that others saw you posting under in here.
[I] am 'rude' "? This is what I mean when I say stop flattering
yourself. You don't mean a thing to me! Period. If you find something on
the police recording that proves whatever it is that you are trying to
prove GO FOR IT! All I see in your is a lot of projecting!
Post by GKnoll
You think that if someone points out something about you that you disagree
with that they are flattering themselves. What does that say about you?
(This is a rhetorical question, you do not have to answer it, but you can
if you want).
That isn't even close to what I am saying.
Post by GKnoll
Steve, you do not have all the facts.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
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
fact.
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
google drive.
Don't insult my intelligence!
I am giving you the benefit of the doubt.
You insulted my (and everyone elses') intelligence when you said that
you were "not expecting [me] to answer the question regarding McAdams"
when you posted your "rhetorical question". Don't give e that crap.
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
I am going to repeat...what is your problem? Why are you always rude?
I am going to repeat. Why are you always making false accusations?!
Post by GKnoll
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.
The same is said for you, oh nameless one. I'm not wrong, I can prove it,
but no one gives a damn but you, and I'm not wasting my time trying to
prove anything to you.
You can prove what? That the world is flat?
No, that's something would try to do.
I'm talking about the 12:28 transmission. Your "Murray, keep your mic
off" nonsense. I have stated what I believe it to be, and I can prove that
I am right. But, I am not going to waste anymore time trying to do so,
because you won't ever admit that I am right and you are wrong. You have
made this abundantly clear. This is what I am talking about when I say
that all I see with you is a lot of projecting. You say that I am so
afraid that someone is going to prove me wrong, when it is you who is
afraid of being proved wrong. Your hostility towards me is as clear as a
bell in just about every comment you post here regarding me. This *isn't*
about *me*. This is about someone (you) saying they hear someone saying
something that isn't being said at all. I am the only one who has
challenged you on this, and you have a cow whenever I say that you are
wrong. Don't preach to me.
You are well advised to not try to prove what you think it is again. It
won't work, it will be like trying to prove the earth is flat.
Here's something I would like for you to do for the benefit of the
readers of this newsgroup, and myself.
How about you make available just the two words that you say are the
words "Mic off" during transmission which you claim is "Murray, keep your
mic off"? Just capture those two words/sounds and nothing else, and post
them so we can hear them. Deal?
We did this before. Here is an audio I made back then.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1TIa7EkAi5lSy1TWWxFYlpkeHM/view?usp=sharing
I remember this, thank you. Now, why don't you want to slow down the
tempo of the speech within the recording without changing the pitch--which
is very easy to do without distorting or altering the speech
whatsoever--so that the reader/listener can get a grasp at what they're
hearing? Do you honestly expect people to get anything out of it playing
at that speed? Why do you have such a problem with allowing the listener
a chance to listen to what you are claiming is there by slowing the speech
tempo down?
GKnoll
2018-06-15 21:21:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
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 GKnoll
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 g***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
Post by g***@gmail.com
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.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
neither?
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
the tape?
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
ignored it.
BBN was the first to recognize it as a "loud click followed by faint
speech".
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
click?
Has anyone ever duplicated it experimentally?
Post by GKnoll
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
their case.
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
Channel 2.
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
is nothing.
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
other clicks.
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.
What is your problem? You are always making false accusations!
Post by GKnoll
You are afraid of the message and so you are attacking the messenger.
I am afraid of nothing, oh nameless one. Quit flattering yourself.
Yes you are. You are afraid of being wrong. You are afraid that you might
lose credibility. You are afraid of many things. That is why you are
always rude.
Nothing whatsoever to do with "being wrong". You brought this all on
yourself! I have no respect for you because of the things that you did
several months ago when we were arguing over the 12:28 transmission. You
just look up those posts and read through them! It is a lot more than just
your accusation that I was "snooping" into your Gmail account. That's not
half of it!
I further have no respect for you because you keep your true identity from
everyone, going by several name aliases, "Mike Rago" (being only one of
them) There are other names that others saw you posting under in here.
[I] am 'rude' "? This is what I mean when I say stop flattering
yourself. You don't mean a thing to me! Period. If you find something on
the police recording that proves whatever it is that you are trying to
prove GO FOR IT! All I see in your is a lot of projecting!
Post by GKnoll
You think that if someone points out something about you that you disagree
with that they are flattering themselves. What does that say about you?
(This is a rhetorical question, you do not have to answer it, but you can
if you want).
That isn't even close to what I am saying.
Post by GKnoll
Steve, you do not have all the facts.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
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
fact.
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
google drive.
Don't insult my intelligence!
I am giving you the benefit of the doubt.
You insulted my (and everyone elses') intelligence when you said that
you were "not expecting [me] to answer the question regarding McAdams"
when you posted your "rhetorical question". Don't give e that crap.
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
I am going to repeat...what is your problem? Why are you always rude?
I am going to repeat. Why are you always making false accusations?!
Post by GKnoll
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.
The same is said for you, oh nameless one. I'm not wrong, I can prove it,
but no one gives a damn but you, and I'm not wasting my time trying to
prove anything to you.
You can prove what? That the world is flat?
No, that's something would try to do.
I'm talking about the 12:28 transmission. Your "Murray, keep your mic
off" nonsense. I have stated what I believe it to be, and I can prove that
I am right. But, I am not going to waste anymore time trying to do so,
because you won't ever admit that I am right and you are wrong. You have
made this abundantly clear. This is what I am talking about when I say
that all I see with you is a lot of projecting. You say that I am so
afraid that someone is going to prove me wrong, when it is you who is
afraid of being proved wrong. Your hostility towards me is as clear as a
bell in just about every comment you post here regarding me. This *isn't*
about *me*. This is about someone (you) saying they hear someone saying
something that isn't being said at all. I am the only one who has
challenged you on this, and you have a cow whenever I say that you are
wrong. Don't preach to me.
You are well advised to not try to prove what you think it is again. It
won't work, it will be like trying to prove the earth is flat.
Here's something I would like for you to do for the benefit of the
readers of this newsgroup, and myself.
How about you make available just the two words that you say are the
words "Mic off" during transmission which you claim is "Murray, keep your
mic off"? Just capture those two words/sounds and nothing else, and post
them so we can hear them. Deal?
We did this before. Here is an audio I made back then.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1TIa7EkAi5lSy1TWWxFYlpkeHM/view?usp=sharing
I remember this, thank you. Now, why don't you want to slow down the
tempo of the speech within the recording without changing the pitch--which
is very easy to do without distorting or altering the speech
whatsoever--so that the reader/listener can get a grasp at what they're
hearing? Do you honestly expect people to get anything out of it playing
at that speed? Why do you have such a problem with allowing the listener
a chance to listen to what you are claiming is there by slowing the speech
tempo down?
Whats the matter Steve? You can't make it sound the way you want to make
it sound?

There is nothing wrong with the speed of that recording.

You are just trying to cover your ass Steve I told you not to get into this.

Also, do not post about this in this thread. This thread is about the
"Hold ..." cross talk. I do not want you side-tracking this thread.
Steve Barber
2018-06-16 21:03:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GKnoll
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 GKnoll
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 g***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
Post by g***@gmail.com
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.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
neither?
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
the tape?
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
ignored it.
BBN was the first to recognize it as a "loud click followed by faint
speech".
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
click?
Has anyone ever duplicated it experimentally?
Post by GKnoll
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
their case.
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
Channel 2.
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
is nothing.
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
other clicks.
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.
What is your problem? You are always making false accusations!
Post by GKnoll
You are afraid of the message and so you are attacking the messenger.
I am afraid of nothing, oh nameless one. Quit flattering yourself.
Yes you are. You are afraid of being wrong. You are afraid that you might
lose credibility. You are afraid of many things. That is why you are
always rude.
Nothing whatsoever to do with "being wrong". You brought this all on
yourself! I have no respect for you because of the things that you did
several months ago when we were arguing over the 12:28 transmission. You
just look up those posts and read through them! It is a lot more than just
your accusation that I was "snooping" into your Gmail account. That's not
half of it!
I further have no respect for you because you keep your true identity from
everyone, going by several name aliases, "Mike Rago" (being only one of
them) There are other names that others saw you posting under in here.
[I] am 'rude' "? This is what I mean when I say stop flattering
yourself. You don't mean a thing to me! Period. If you find something on
the police recording that proves whatever it is that you are trying to
prove GO FOR IT! All I see in your is a lot of projecting!
Post by GKnoll
You think that if someone points out something about you that you disagree
with that they are flattering themselves. What does that say about you?
(This is a rhetorical question, you do not have to answer it, but you can
if you want).
That isn't even close to what I am saying.
Post by GKnoll
Steve, you do not have all the facts.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
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
fact.
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
google drive.
Don't insult my intelligence!
I am giving you the benefit of the doubt.
You insulted my (and everyone elses') intelligence when you said that
you were "not expecting [me] to answer the question regarding McAdams"
when you posted your "rhetorical question". Don't give e that crap.
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
I am going to repeat...what is your problem? Why are you always rude?
I am going to repeat. Why are you always making false accusations?!
Post by GKnoll
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.
The same is said for you, oh nameless one. I'm not wrong, I can prove it,
but no one gives a damn but you, and I'm not wasting my time trying to
prove anything to you.
You can prove what? That the world is flat?
No, that's something would try to do.
I'm talking about the 12:28 transmission. Your "Murray, keep your mic
off" nonsense. I have stated what I believe it to be, and I can prove that
I am right. But, I am not going to waste anymore time trying to do so,
because you won't ever admit that I am right and you are wrong. You have
made this abundantly clear. This is what I am talking about when I say
that all I see with you is a lot of projecting. You say that I am so
afraid that someone is going to prove me wrong, when it is you who is
afraid of being proved wrong. Your hostility towards me is as clear as a
bell in just about every comment you post here regarding me. This *isn't*
about *me*. This is about someone (you) saying they hear someone saying
something that isn't being said at all. I am the only one who has
challenged you on this, and you have a cow whenever I say that you are
wrong. Don't preach to me.
You are well advised to not try to prove what you think it is again. It
won't work, it will be like trying to prove the earth is flat.
Here's something I would like for you to do for the benefit of the
readers of this newsgroup, and myself.
How about you make available just the two words that you say are the
words "Mic off" during transmission which you claim is "Murray, keep your
mic off"? Just capture those two words/sounds and nothing else, and post
them so we can hear them. Deal?
We did this before. Here is an audio I made back then.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1TIa7EkAi5lSy1TWWxFYlpkeHM/view?usp=sharing
I remember this, thank you. Now, why don't you want to slow down the
tempo of the speech within the recording without changing the pitch--which
is very easy to do without distorting or altering the speech
whatsoever--so that the reader/listener can get a grasp at what they're
hearing? Do you honestly expect people to get anything out of it playing
at that speed? Why do you have such a problem with allowing the listener
a chance to listen to what you are claiming is there by slowing the speech
tempo down?
Whats the matter Steve? You can't make it sound the way you want to make
it sound?
What's the matter, Franky/Mike? You can't have it your way and keep
people from hearing what is really on the recording, once its made clear
to them? You don't want ANYONE to hear this!
Post by GKnoll
There is nothing wrong with the speed of that recording.
I didn't say that there is anything "wrong with the speed" of the
recording. You just do not want anyone to hear it clearly. Obscurity is
your friend, and as long as you can get away with spreading tripe about
this, people(although I still haven't seen one person in here who supports
your claim "Murray keep your mic off" is on the recording) you will keep
spreading your tripe. You do not want anyone to hear what I have found.
You've made this clear. You don't want anyone to have a chance to listen
closely to the speech, you want them to try to make out what you claim is
on the recording by making it as difficult as possible. If you tried to
palm this thing off in court, you would be laughed right out of the
courtroom. Especially the gibberish that you claim is "Murray, keep
your". There is absolutely no way in the world you can prove that those
words are being spoken because of all of the background noise distorting
it!
Post by GKnoll
You are just trying to cover your ass Steve I told you not to get into this.
Also, do not post about this in this thread. This thread is about the
"Hold ..." cross talk. I do not want you side-tracking this thread.
In spite of your arrogance, you do not--and cannot--tell me what and
what not to do! Do you understand this? You should have thought of this
before when I first brought it up in here if you didn't want it posted in
this thread, but you didn't say a word about it. NEWSFLASH: I can post
anything I want to in the newsgroups as long as it's not personally
attacking someone or posting threads that do not deal with the JFK
assassination.


I can see that I have struck a nerve with you. You can't even answer the
question I put to you because you do not want me--or anyone disproving
your claim. Well, I have news for you...
g***@gmail.com
2018-06-17 20:29:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
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 GKnoll
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 GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
Post by g***@gmail.com
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.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
neither?
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
the tape?
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
ignored it.
BBN was the first to recognize it as a "loud click followed by faint
speech".
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
click?
Has anyone ever duplicated it experimentally?
Post by GKnoll
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
their case.
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
Channel 2.
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
is nothing.
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
other clicks.
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.
What is your problem? You are always making false accusations!
Post by GKnoll
You are afraid of the message and so you are attacking the messenger.
I am afraid of nothing, oh nameless one. Quit flattering yourself.
Yes you are. You are afraid of being wrong. You are afraid that you might
lose credibility. You are afraid of many things. That is why you are
always rude.
Nothing whatsoever to do with "being wrong". You brought this all on
yourself! I have no respect for you because of the things that you did
several months ago when we were arguing over the 12:28 transmission. You
just look up those posts and read through them! It is a lot more than just
your accusation that I was "snooping" into your Gmail account. That's not
half of it!
I further have no respect for you because you keep your true identity from
everyone, going by several name aliases, "Mike Rago" (being only one of
them) There are other names that others saw you posting under in here.
[I] am 'rude' "? This is what I mean when I say stop flattering
yourself. You don't mean a thing to me! Period. If you find something on
the police recording that proves whatever it is that you are trying to
prove GO FOR IT! All I see in your is a lot of projecting!
Post by GKnoll
You think that if someone points out something about you that you disagree
with that they are flattering themselves. What does that say about you?
(This is a rhetorical question, you do not have to answer it, but you can
if you want).
That isn't even close to what I am saying.
Post by GKnoll
Steve, you do not have all the facts.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
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
fact.
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
google drive.
Don't insult my intelligence!
I am giving you the benefit of the doubt.
You insulted my (and everyone elses') intelligence when you said that
you were "not expecting [me] to answer the question regarding McAdams"
when you posted your "rhetorical question". Don't give e that crap.
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
I am going to repeat...what is your problem? Why are you always rude?
I am going to repeat. Why are you always making false accusations?!
Post by GKnoll
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.
The same is said for you, oh nameless one. I'm not wrong, I can prove it,
but no one gives a damn but you, and I'm not wasting my time trying to
prove anything to you.
You can prove what? That the world is flat?
No, that's something would try to do.
I'm talking about the 12:28 transmission. Your "Murray, keep your mic
off" nonsense. I have stated what I believe it to be, and I can prove that
I am right. But, I am not going to waste anymore time trying to do so,
because you won't ever admit that I am right and you are wrong. You have
made this abundantly clear. This is what I am talking about when I say
that all I see with you is a lot of projecting. You say that I am so
afraid that someone is going to prove me wrong, when it is you who is
afraid of being proved wrong. Your hostility towards me is as clear as a
bell in just about every comment you post here regarding me. This *isn't*
about *me*. This is about someone (you) saying they hear someone saying
something that isn't being said at all. I am the only one who has
challenged you on this, and you have a cow whenever I say that you are
wrong. Don't preach to me.
You are well advised to not try to prove what you think it is again. It
won't work, it will be like trying to prove the earth is flat.
Here's something I would like for you to do for the benefit of the
readers of this newsgroup, and myself.
How about you make available just the two words that you say are the
words "Mic off" during transmission which you claim is "Murray, keep your
mic off"? Just capture those two words/sounds and nothing else, and post
them so we can hear them. Deal?
We did this before. Here is an audio I made back then.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1TIa7EkAi5lSy1TWWxFYlpkeHM/view?usp=sharing
I remember this, thank you. Now, why don't you want to slow down the
tempo of the speech within the recording without changing the pitch--which
is very easy to do without distorting or altering the speech
whatsoever--so that the reader/listener can get a grasp at what they're
hearing? Do you honestly expect people to get anything out of it playing
at that speed? Why do you have such a problem with allowing the listener
a chance to listen to what you are claiming is there by slowing the speech
tempo down?
Whats the matter Steve? You can't make it sound the way you want to make
it sound?
What's the matter, Franky/Mike? You can't have it your way and keep
people from hearing what is really on the recording, once its made clear
to them? You don't want ANYONE to hear this!
Post by GKnoll
There is nothing wrong with the speed of that recording.
I didn't say that there is anything "wrong with the speed" of the
recording. You just do not want anyone to hear it clearly. Obscurity is
your friend, and as long as you can get away with spreading tripe about
this, people(although I still haven't seen one person in here who supports
your claim "Murray keep your mic off" is on the recording) you will keep
spreading your tripe. You do not want anyone to hear what I have found.
You've made this clear. You don't want anyone to have a chance to listen
closely to the speech, you want them to try to make out what you claim is
on the recording by making it as difficult as possible. If you tried to
palm this thing off in court, you would be laughed right out of the
courtroom. Especially the gibberish that you claim is "Murray, keep
your". There is absolutely no way in the world you can prove that those
words are being spoken because of all of the background noise distorting
it!
Steve, you are doing something that I will not allow. You are trying to
bluff your way out of it and you are trying to use your "15 minutes of
fame" to do it.

You are wrong. I showed you were wrong 6 months ago. I used the audio clip
that YOU MADE to show that you were wrong.

Here it is again. This is the audio clip that YOU made. Got that, YOU MADE
THIS CLIP. It is clear that the words spoken are "Murray keep your mic
off".

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1TIa7EkAi5leDBYTXVjSk1CTlU/view
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
You are just trying to cover your ass Steve I told you not to get into this.
Also, do not post about this in this thread. This thread is about the
"Hold ..." cross talk. I do not want you side-tracking this thread.
In spite of your arrogance, you do not--and cannot--tell me what and
what not to do! Do you understand this? You should have thought of this
before when I first brought it up in here if you didn't want it posted in
this thread, but you didn't say a word about it. NEWSFLASH: I can post
anything I want to in the newsgroups as long as it's not personally
attacking someone or posting threads that do not deal with the JFK
assassination.
Steve, get off your high horse.

Arrogance? You are going to say that I am the one who is being arrogant?
Steve, look in the mirror.
Post by Steve Barber
I can see that I have struck a nerve with you. You can't even answer the
question I put to you because you do not want me--or anyone disproving
your claim. Well, I have news for you...
Actually Steve, I am that one who sees that I have struck a nerve with
you. You are trying to bluff your way out of this because you do not have
the evidence to support your theory.

Again, for the second time in this thread, here is the audio clip that YOU
created. It is clear that the words spoken are "Murray, keep you mic off"

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1TIa7EkAi5leDBYTXVjSk1CTlU/view
odellm
2018-06-14 23:52:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GKnoll
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 GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
Post by g***@gmail.com
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.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
neither?
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
the tape?
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
ignored it.
BBN was the first to recognize it as a "loud click followed by faint
speech".
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
click?
Has anyone ever duplicated it experimentally?
Post by GKnoll
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
their case.
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
Channel 2.
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
is nothing.
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
other clicks.
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.
What is your problem? You are always making false accusations!
Post by GKnoll
You are afraid of the message and so you are attacking the messenger.
I am afraid of nothing, oh nameless one. Quit flattering yourself.
Yes you are. You are afraid of being wrong. You are afraid that you might
lose credibility. You are afraid of many things. That is why you are
always rude.
Nothing whatsoever to do with "being wrong". You brought this all on
yourself! I have no respect for you because of the things that you did
several months ago when we were arguing over the 12:28 transmission. You
just look up those posts and read through them! It is a lot more than just
your accusation that I was "snooping" into your Gmail account. That's not
half of it!
I further have no respect for you because you keep your true identity from
everyone, going by several name aliases, "Mike Rago" (being only one of
them) There are other names that others saw you posting under in here.
[I] am 'rude' "? This is what I mean when I say stop flattering
yourself. You don't mean a thing to me! Period. If you find something on
the police recording that proves whatever it is that you are trying to
prove GO FOR IT! All I see in your is a lot of projecting!
Post by GKnoll
You think that if someone points out something about you that you disagree
with that they are flattering themselves. What does that say about you?
(This is a rhetorical question, you do not have to answer it, but you can
if you want).
That isn't even close to what I am saying.
Post by GKnoll
Steve, you do not have all the facts.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
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
fact.
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
google drive.
Don't insult my intelligence!
I am giving you the benefit of the doubt.
You insulted my (and everyone elses') intelligence when you said that
you were "not expecting [me] to answer the question regarding McAdams"
when you posted your "rhetorical question". Don't give e that crap.
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
I am going to repeat...what is your problem? Why are you always rude?
I am going to repeat. Why are you always making false accusations?!
Post by GKnoll
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.
The same is said for you, oh nameless one. I'm not wrong, I can prove it,
but no one gives a damn but you, and I'm not wasting my time trying to
prove anything to you.
You can prove what? That the world is flat?
No, that's something would try to do.
I'm talking about the 12:28 transmission. Your "Murray, keep your mic
off" nonsense. I have stated what I believe it to be, and I can prove that
I am right. But, I am not going to waste anymore time trying to do so,
because you won't ever admit that I am right and you are wrong. You have
made this abundantly clear. This is what I am talking about when I say
that all I see with you is a lot of projecting. You say that I am so
afraid that someone is going to prove me wrong, when it is you who is
afraid of being proved wrong. Your hostility towards me is as clear as a
bell in just about every comment you post here regarding me. This *isn't*
about *me*. This is about someone (you) saying they hear someone saying
something that isn't being said at all. I am the only one who has
challenged you on this, and you have a cow whenever I say that you are
wrong. Don't preach to me.
You are well advised to not try to prove what you think it is again. It
won't work, it will be like trying to prove the earth is flat.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
You are wrong. Just like you were wrong about the "Murray, keep your mic
off." You said you could prove that and we all know how that turned out.
The only thing you proved was that you will not admit when you have made a
mistake.
No, I am not wrong. I haven't made any mistake. You are the only person
who hears what you say you hear: "Murray, keep your mic off". A totally
and absolutely ridiculous claim. Not one person in this newsgroup except
myself challenged you. You aren't ready to accept a challenge with anyone
whenever they do challenge you, and this has happened regarding other
topics, like the Hester couple and some of your other "photographic"
things. But that is another topic. All kinds of evidence to prove you
wrong that others posted here when you were arguing about Mr. Hester's
neck tie vs. Zapruder's bow tie, claiming that the man seen in the Bell
film and Bond stills isn't HEster it's Zapruder and blah, blah, blah. I
only bring this up because people have dealt with your arguments before,
and you will not admit when you're wrong, and that topic is proof of it.
I am not the only person who hears what I hear. Many people hear it.
Even Marsh admitted he hears it.
When odellm listened to it, his reply to me was, "and my point is"? Of
course he did not come out and state that he hears it.
I think I asked you that about this thread. Have you yet told us what you
click theory is?
Post by GKnoll
He would not do
that because that would put him in disagreement with you. I am quite sure
that you emailed him to tell him what you say it is.
Don't speak for me.
Post by GKnoll
I tend to trust odellm (in some things) more than you. I think he really
does want to know what is the truth. Lets see if you can get him to say
that he does not hear "Murray, keep your mic off" followed by Murray
Jackson saying "OK".
All one has to do is listen to it. The links are below.
What really bothers me about your stubbornness, is that you completely
ignore the context. Not only does someone tell Murray to keep his mic off
at 12:28, but Murray responds to that transmission with "OK" and then
there are no more Dispatcher transmission for about 5 minutes. Until well
after the assassination. Murray did what he was told to do.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
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
(12:32:39)
Link to "Murray, keep your mic off.......all right" The word "Murray" is
heard at 2 seconds into the audio.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1TIa7EkAi5lZVlGWEVsMlNzbDQ/view
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
off".
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1TIa7EkAi5leDBYTXVjSk1CTlU/view
GKnoll
2018-06-16 04:46:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
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 GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
Post by g***@gmail.com
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.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
neither?
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
the tape?
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
ignored it.
BBN was the first to recognize it as a "loud click followed by faint
speech".
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
click?
Has anyone ever duplicated it experimentally?
Post by GKnoll
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
their case.
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
Channel 2.
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
is nothing.
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
other clicks.
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.
What is your problem? You are always making false accusations!
Post by GKnoll
You are afraid of the message and so you are attacking the messenger.
I am afraid of nothing, oh nameless one. Quit flattering yourself.
Yes you are. You are afraid of being wrong. You are afraid that you might
lose credibility. You are afraid of many things. That is why you are
always rude.
Nothing whatsoever to do with "being wrong". You brought this all on
yourself! I have no respect for you because of the things that you did
several months ago when we were arguing over the 12:28 transmission. You
just look up those posts and read through them! It is a lot more than just
your accusation that I was "snooping" into your Gmail account. That's not
half of it!
I further have no respect for you because you keep your true identity from
everyone, going by several name aliases, "Mike Rago" (being only one of
them) There are other names that others saw you posting under in here.
[I] am 'rude' "? This is what I mean when I say stop flattering
yourself. You don't mean a thing to me! Period. If you find something on
the police recording that proves whatever it is that you are trying to
prove GO FOR IT! All I see in your is a lot of projecting!
Post by GKnoll
You think that if someone points out something about you that you disagree
with that they are flattering themselves. What does that say about you?
(This is a rhetorical question, you do not have to answer it, but you can
if you want).
That isn't even close to what I am saying.
Post by GKnoll
Steve, you do not have all the facts.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
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
fact.
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
google drive.
Don't insult my intelligence!
I am giving you the benefit of the doubt.
You insulted my (and everyone elses') intelligence when you said that
you were "not expecting [me] to answer the question regarding McAdams"
when you posted your "rhetorical question". Don't give e that crap.
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
I am going to repeat...what is your problem? Why are you always rude?
I am going to repeat. Why are you always making false accusations?!
Post by GKnoll
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.
The same is said for you, oh nameless one. I'm not wrong, I can prove it,
but no one gives a damn but you, and I'm not wasting my time trying to
prove anything to you.
You can prove what? That the world is flat?
No, that's something would try to do.
I'm talking about the 12:28 transmission. Your "Murray, keep your mic
off" nonsense. I have stated what I believe it to be, and I can prove that
I am right. But, I am not going to waste anymore time trying to do so,
because you won't ever admit that I am right and you are wrong. You have
made this abundantly clear. This is what I am talking about when I say
that all I see with you is a lot of projecting. You say that I am so
afraid that someone is going to prove me wrong, when it is you who is
afraid of being proved wrong. Your hostility towards me is as clear as a
bell in just about every comment you post here regarding me. This *isn't*
about *me*. This is about someone (you) saying they hear someone saying
something that isn't being said at all. I am the only one who has
challenged you on this, and you have a cow whenever I say that you are
wrong. Don't preach to me.
You are well advised to not try to prove what you think it is again. It
won't work, it will be like trying to prove the earth is flat.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
You are wrong. Just like you were wrong about the "Murray, keep your mic
off." You said you could prove that and we all know how that turned out.
The only thing you proved was that you will not admit when you have made a
mistake.
No, I am not wrong. I haven't made any mistake. You are the only person
who hears what you say you hear: "Murray, keep your mic off". A totally
and absolutely ridiculous claim. Not one person in this newsgroup except
myself challenged you. You aren't ready to accept a challenge with anyone
whenever they do challenge you, and this has happened regarding other
topics, like the Hester couple and some of your other "photographic"
things. But that is another topic. All kinds of evidence to prove you
wrong that others posted here when you were arguing about Mr. Hester's
neck tie vs. Zapruder's bow tie, claiming that the man seen in the Bell
film and Bond stills isn't HEster it's Zapruder and blah, blah, blah. I
only bring this up because people have dealt with your arguments before,
and you will not admit when you're wrong, and that topic is proof of it.
I am not the only person who hears what I hear. Many people hear it.
Even Marsh admitted he hears it.
When odellm listened to it, his reply to me was, "and my point is"? Of
course he did not come out and state that he hears it.
I think I asked you that about this thread. Have you yet told us what you
click theory is?
Stop pretending.
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
He would not do
that because that would put him in disagreement with you. I am quite sure
that you emailed him to tell him what you say it is.
Don't speak for me.
Post by GKnoll
I tend to trust odellm (in some things) more than you. I think he really
does want to know what is the truth. Lets see if you can get him to say
that he does not hear "Murray, keep your mic off" followed by Murray
Jackson saying "OK".
All one has to do is listen to it. The links are below.
What really bothers me about your stubbornness, is that you completely
ignore the context. Not only does someone tell Murray to keep his mic off
at 12:28, but Murray responds to that transmission with "OK" and then
there are no more Dispatcher transmission for about 5 minutes. Until well
after the assassination. Murray did what he was told to do.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
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
(12:32:39)
Link to "Murray, keep your mic off.......all right" The word "Murray" is
heard at 2 seconds into the audio.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1TIa7EkAi5lZVlGWEVsMlNzbDQ/view
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
off".
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1TIa7EkAi5leDBYTXVjSk1CTlU/view
odellm
2018-06-17 01:40:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
I think I asked you that about this thread. Have you yet told us what you
click theory is?
Stop pretending.
There you go again. Pretending would be lying. Not only am I not
pretending, it's a nonsensical thing to say in response to my comment.

You started this thread a thread with the obvious intent of posing some
theory about the click. Yet you've never done it. If there's a point you
want to make about it, make it. Expecting everyone else to rebut in
advance an idea you haven't even expressed, is irrational.

Michael
GKnoll
2018-06-12 13:07:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
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 GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
Post by g***@gmail.com
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.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
neither?
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
the tape?
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
ignored it.
BBN was the first to recognize it as a "loud click followed by faint
speech".
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
click?
Has anyone ever duplicated it experimentally?
Post by GKnoll
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
their case.
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
Channel 2.
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
is nothing.
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
other clicks.
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.
What is your problem? You are always making false accusations!
Post by GKnoll
You are afraid of the message and so you are attacking the messenger.
I am afraid of nothing, oh nameless one. Quit flattering yourself.
Yes you are. You are afraid of being wrong. You are afraid that you might
lose credibility. You are afraid of many things. That is why you are
always rude.
Nothing whatsoever to do with "being wrong". You brought this all on
yourself! I have no respect for you because of the things that you did
several months ago when we were arguing over the 12:28 transmission. You
just look up those posts and read through them! It is a lot more than just
your accusation that I was "snooping" into your Gmail account. That's not
half of it!
I further have no respect for you because you keep your true identity from
everyone, going by several name aliases, "Mike Rago" (being only one of
them) There are other names that others saw you posting under in here.
[I] am 'rude' "? This is what I mean when I say stop flattering
yourself. You don't mean a thing to me! Period. If you find something on
the police recording that proves whatever it is that you are trying to
prove GO FOR IT! All I see in your is a lot of projecting!
Post by GKnoll
You think that if someone points out something about you that you disagree
with that they are flattering themselves. What does that say about you?
(This is a rhetorical question, you do not have to answer it, but you can
if you want).
That isn't even close to what I am saying.
Post by GKnoll
Steve, you do not have all the facts.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
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
fact.
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
google drive.
Don't insult my intelligence!
I am giving you the benefit of the doubt.
You insulted my (and everyone elses') intelligence when you said that
you were "not expecting [me] to answer the question regarding McAdams"
when you posted your "rhetorical question". Don't give e that crap.
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
I am going to repeat...what is your problem? Why are you always rude?
I am going to repeat. Why are you always making false accusations?!
Post by GKnoll
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.
The same is said for you, oh nameless one. I'm not wrong, I can prove it,
but no one gives a damn but you, and I'm not wasting my time trying to
prove anything to you.
You can prove what? That the world is flat?
No, that's something would try to do.
I'm talking about the 12:28 transmission. Your "Murray, keep your mic
off" nonsense. I have stated what I believe it to be, and I can prove that
I am right. But, I am not going to waste anymore time trying to do so,
because you won't ever admit that I am right and you are wrong. You have
made this abundantly clear. This is what I am talking about when I say
that all I see with you is a lot of projecting. You say that I am so
afraid that someone is going to prove me wrong, when it is you who is
afraid of being proved wrong. Your hostility towards me is as clear as a
bell in just about every comment you post here regarding me. This *isn't*
about *me*. This is about someone (you) saying they hear someone saying
something that isn't being said at all. I am the only one who has
challenged you on this, and you have a cow whenever I say that you are
wrong. Don't preach to me.
Post by GKnoll
You are wrong. Just like you were wrong about the "Murray, keep your mic
off." You said you could prove that and we all know how that turned out.
The only thing you proved was that you will not admit when you have made a
mistake.
No, I am not wrong. I haven't made any mistake. You are the only person
who hears what you say you hear: "Murray, keep your mic off". A totally
and absolutely ridiculous claim. Not one person in this newsgroup except
myself challenged you. You aren't ready to accept a challenge with anyone
whenever they do challenge you, and this has happened regarding other
topics, like the Hester couple and some of your other "photographic"
things. But that is another topic. All kinds of evidence to prove you
wrong that others posted here when you were arguing about Mr. Hester's
neck tie vs. Zapruder's bow tie, claiming that the man seen in the Bell
film and Bond stills isn't HEster it's Zapruder and blah, blah, blah. I
only bring this up because people have dealt with your arguments before,
and you will not admit when you're wrong, and that topic is proof of it.
Regarding Charles Hester or Zapruder I do not admit I was wrong about that
because I am not wrong about that. No one ever presented any evidence to
show that I was wrong. It is Zapruder in the walkway and the person in
that walkway is wearing a bow tie and is also wearing a hat. I have no
problem getting into that again. Even Marsh admitted seeing a hat on the
person in the walkway in Bond 4.

Here is an extreme blowup of the figure in Bond-4. There are many points
of comparision that match Zapruder. Most obvious, is the indication he was
wearing a hat and glasses. Since the image is self-explanatory I will not
dwell on it.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/ApHYfTaCJ2Dg5qCw6

Here is a crop from the Towner photo. It shows Beatrice Hester rushing to
the shelter. The man trailing behind is Zapruder, (not Charles, Charles is
inside the shelter.) The man in the ellispe looks to be waring a hat, has
a rickety kind of gait, and has what appears to be a "hunchback" but it is
not a "hunchback" it is Zapruders camera bag which he had thrown over his
shoulder.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/gggoegtgk4LitFH18
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
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
(12:32:39)
Link to "Murray, keep your mic off.......all right" The word "Murray" is
heard at 2 seconds into the audio.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1TIa7EkAi5lZVlGWEVsMlNzbDQ/view
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
off".
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1TIa7EkAi5leDBYTXVjSk1CTlU/view
Steve Barber
2018-06-12 21:53:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GKnoll
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 GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
Post by g***@gmail.com
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.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
neither?
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
the tape?
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
ignored it.
BBN was the first to recognize it as a "loud click followed by faint
speech".
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
click?
Has anyone ever duplicated it experimentally?
Post by GKnoll
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
their case.
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
Channel 2.
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
is nothing.
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
other clicks.
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.
What is your problem? You are always making false accusations!
Post by GKnoll
You are afraid of the message and so you are attacking the messenger.
I am afraid of nothing, oh nameless one. Quit flattering yourself.
Yes you are. You are afraid of being wrong. You are afraid that you might
lose credibility. You are afraid of many things. That is why you are
always rude.
Nothing whatsoever to do with "being wrong". You brought this all on
yourself! I have no respect for you because of the things that you did
several months ago when we were arguing over the 12:28 transmission. You
just look up those posts and read through them! It is a lot more than just
your accusation that I was "snooping" into your Gmail account. That's not
half of it!
I further have no respect for you because you keep your true identity from
everyone, going by several name aliases, "Mike Rago" (being only one of
them) There are other names that others saw you posting under in here.
[I] am 'rude' "? This is what I mean when I say stop flattering
yourself. You don't mean a thing to me! Period. If you find something on
the police recording that proves whatever it is that you are trying to
prove GO FOR IT! All I see in your is a lot of projecting!
Post by GKnoll
You think that if someone points out something about you that you disagree
with that they are flattering themselves. What does that say about you?
(This is a rhetorical question, you do not have to answer it, but you can
if you want).
That isn't even close to what I am saying.
Post by GKnoll
Steve, you do not have all the facts.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
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
fact.
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
google drive.
Don't insult my intelligence!
I am giving you the benefit of the doubt.
You insulted my (and everyone elses') intelligence when you said that
you were "not expecting [me] to answer the question regarding McAdams"
when you posted your "rhetorical question". Don't give e that crap.
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
I am going to repeat...what is your problem? Why are you always rude?
I am going to repeat. Why are you always making false accusations?!
Post by GKnoll
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.
The same is said for you, oh nameless one. I'm not wrong, I can prove it,
but no one gives a damn but you, and I'm not wasting my time trying to
prove anything to you.
You can prove what? That the world is flat?
No, that's something would try to do.
I'm talking about the 12:28 transmission. Your "Murray, keep your mic
off" nonsense. I have stated what I believe it to be, and I can prove that
I am right. But, I am not going to waste anymore time trying to do so,
because you won't ever admit that I am right and you are wrong. You have
made this abundantly clear. This is what I am talking about when I say
that all I see with you is a lot of projecting. You say that I am so
afraid that someone is going to prove me wrong, when it is you who is
afraid of being proved wrong. Your hostility towards me is as clear as a
bell in just about every comment you post here regarding me. This *isn't*
about *me*. This is about someone (you) saying they hear someone saying
something that isn't being said at all. I am the only one who has
challenged you on this, and you have a cow whenever I say that you are
wrong. Don't preach to me.
Post by GKnoll
You are wrong. Just like you were wrong about the "Murray, keep your mic
off." You said you could prove that and we all know how that turned out.
The only thing you proved was that you will not admit when you have made a
mistake.
No, I am not wrong. I haven't made any mistake. You are the only person
who hears what you say you hear: "Murray, keep your mic off". A totally
and absolutely ridiculous claim. Not one person in this newsgroup except
myself challenged you. You aren't ready to accept a challenge with anyone
whenever they do challenge you, and this has happened regarding other
topics, like the Hester couple and some of your other "photographic"
things. But that is another topic. All kinds of evidence to prove you
wrong that others posted here when you were arguing about Mr. Hester's
neck tie vs. Zapruder's bow tie, claiming that the man seen in the Bell
film and Bond stills isn't HEster it's Zapruder and blah, blah, blah. I
only bring this up because people have dealt with your arguments before,
and you will not admit when you're wrong, and that topic is proof of it.
Regarding Charles Hester or Zapruder I do not admit I was wrong about that
because I am not wrong about that. No one ever presented any evidence to
show that I was wrong. It is Zapruder in the walkway and the person in
that walkway is wearing a bow tie and is also wearing a hat. I have no
problem getting into that again. Even Marsh admitted seeing a hat on the
person in the walkway in Bond 4.
Here is an extreme blowup of the figure in Bond-4. There are many points
of comparision that match Zapruder. Most obvious, is the indication he was
wearing a hat and glasses. Since the image is self-explanatory I will not
dwell on it.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/ApHYfTaCJ2Dg5qCw6
Here is a crop from the Towner photo. It shows Beatrice Hester rushing to
the shelter. The man trailing behind is Zapruder, (not Charles, Charles is
inside the shelter.) The man in the ellispe looks to be waring a hat, has
a rickety kind of gait, and has what appears to be a "hunchback" but it is
not a "hunchback" it is Zapruders camera bag which he had thrown over his
shoulder.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/gggoegtgk4LitFH18
Thanks for confirming what I said in my post.
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
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
(12:32:39)
Link to "Murray, keep your mic off.......all right" The word "Murray" is
heard at 2 seconds into the audio.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1TIa7EkAi5lZVlGWEVsMlNzbDQ/view
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
off".
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1TIa7EkAi5leDBYTXVjSk1CTlU/view
GKnoll
2018-06-13 03:08:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
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 GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
Post by g***@gmail.com
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.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
neither?
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
the tape?
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
ignored it.
BBN was the first to recognize it as a "loud click followed by faint
speech".
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
click?
Has anyone ever duplicated it experimentally?
Post by GKnoll
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
their case.
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
Channel 2.
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
is nothing.
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
other clicks.
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.
What is your problem? You are always making false accusations!
Post by GKnoll
You are afraid of the message and so you are attacking the messenger.
I am afraid of nothing, oh nameless one. Quit flattering yourself.
Yes you are. You are afraid of being wrong. You are afraid that you might
lose credibility. You are afraid of many things. That is why you are
always rude.
Nothing whatsoever to do with "being wrong". You brought this all on
yourself! I have no respect for you because of the things that you did
several months ago when we were arguing over the 12:28 transmission. You
just look up those posts and read through them! It is a lot more than just
your accusation that I was "snooping" into your Gmail account. That's not
half of it!
I further have no respect for you because you keep your true identity from
everyone, going by several name aliases, "Mike Rago" (being only one of
them) There are other names that others saw you posting under in here.
[I] am 'rude' "? This is what I mean when I say stop flattering
yourself. You don't mean a thing to me! Period. If you find something on
the police recording that proves whatever it is that you are trying to
prove GO FOR IT! All I see in your is a lot of projecting!
Post by GKnoll
You think that if someone points out something about you that you disagree
with that they are flattering themselves. What does that say about you?
(This is a rhetorical question, you do not have to answer it, but you can
if you want).
That isn't even close to what I am saying.
Post by GKnoll
Steve, you do not have all the facts.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
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
fact.
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
google drive.
Don't insult my intelligence!
I am giving you the benefit of the doubt.
You insulted my (and everyone elses') intelligence when you said that
you were "not expecting [me] to answer the question regarding McAdams"
when you posted your "rhetorical question". Don't give e that crap.
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
I am going to repeat...what is your problem? Why are you always rude?
I am going to repeat. Why are you always making false accusations?!
Post by GKnoll
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.
The same is said for you, oh nameless one. I'm not wrong, I can prove it,
but no one gives a damn but you, and I'm not wasting my time trying to
prove anything to you.
You can prove what? That the world is flat?
No, that's something would try to do.
I'm talking about the 12:28 transmission. Your "Murray, keep your mic
off" nonsense. I have stated what I believe it to be, and I can prove that
I am right. But, I am not going to waste anymore time trying to do so,
because you won't ever admit that I am right and you are wrong. You have
made this abundantly clear. This is what I am talking about when I say
that all I see with you is a lot of projecting. You say that I am so
afraid that someone is going to prove me wrong, when it is you who is
afraid of being proved wrong. Your hostility towards me is as clear as a
bell in just about every comment you post here regarding me. This *isn't*
about *me*. This is about someone (you) saying they hear someone saying
something that isn't being said at all. I am the only one who has
challenged you on this, and you have a cow whenever I say that you are
wrong. Don't preach to me.
Post by GKnoll
You are wrong. Just like you were wrong about the "Murray, keep your mic
off." You said you could prove that and we all know how that turned out.
The only thing you proved was that you will not admit when you have made a
mistake.
No, I am not wrong. I haven't made any mistake. You are the only person
who hears what you say you hear: "Murray, keep your mic off". A totally
and absolutely ridiculous claim. Not one person in this newsgroup except
myself challenged you. You aren't ready to accept a challenge with anyone
whenever they do challenge you, and this has happened regarding other
topics, like the Hester couple and some of your other "photographic"
things. But that is another topic. All kinds of evidence to prove you
wrong that others posted here when you were arguing about Mr. Hester's
neck tie vs. Zapruder's bow tie, claiming that the man seen in the Bell
film and Bond stills isn't HEster it's Zapruder and blah, blah, blah. I
only bring this up because people have dealt with your arguments before,
and you will not admit when you're wrong, and that topic is proof of it.
Regarding Charles Hester or Zapruder I do not admit I was wrong about that
because I am not wrong about that. No one ever presented any evidence to
show that I was wrong. It is Zapruder in the walkway and the person in
that walkway is wearing a bow tie and is also wearing a hat. I have no
problem getting into that again. Even Marsh admitted seeing a hat on the
person in the walkway in Bond 4.
Here is an extreme blowup of the figure in Bond-4. There are many points
of comparision that match Zapruder. Most obvious, is the indication he was
wearing a hat and glasses. Since the image is self-explanatory I will not
dwell on it.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/ApHYfTaCJ2Dg5qCw6
Here is a crop from the Towner photo. It shows Beatrice Hester rushing to
the shelter. The man trailing behind is Zapruder, (not Charles, Charles is
inside the shelter.) The man in the ellispe looks to be waring a hat, has
a rickety kind of gait, and has what appears to be a "hunchback" but it is
not a "hunchback" it is Zapruders camera bag which he had thrown over his
shoulder.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/gggoegtgk4LitFH18
Thanks for confirming what I said in my post.
Once again, you cannot admit that you made a mistake.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
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
(12:32:39)
Link to "Murray, keep your mic off.......all right" The word "Murray" is
heard at 2 seconds into the audio.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1TIa7EkAi5lZVlGWEVsMlNzbDQ/view
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
off".
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1TIa7EkAi5leDBYTXVjSk1CTlU/view
Steve Barber
2018-06-14 02:24:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GKnoll
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 GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
Post by g***@gmail.com
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.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
neither?
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
the tape?
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
ignored it.
BBN was the first to recognize it as a "loud click followed by faint
speech".
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
click?
Has anyone ever duplicated it experimentally?
Post by GKnoll
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
their case.
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
Channel 2.
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
is nothing.
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
other clicks.
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.
What is your problem? You are always making false accusations!
Post by GKnoll
You are afraid of the message and so you are attacking the messenger.
I am afraid of nothing, oh nameless one. Quit flattering yourself.
Yes you are. You are afraid of being wrong. You are afraid that you might
lose credibility. You are afraid of many things. That is why you are
always rude.
Nothing whatsoever to do with "being wrong". You brought this all on
yourself! I have no respect for you because of the things that you did
several months ago when we were arguing over the 12:28 transmission. You
just look up those posts and read through them! It is a lot more than just
your accusation that I was "snooping" into your Gmail account. That's not
half of it!
I further have no respect for you because you keep your true identity from
everyone, going by several name aliases, "Mike Rago" (being only one of
them) There are other names that others saw you posting under in here.
[I] am 'rude' "? This is what I mean when I say stop flattering
yourself. You don't mean a thing to me! Period. If you find something on
the police recording that proves whatever it is that you are trying to
prove GO FOR IT! All I see in your is a lot of projecting!
Post by GKnoll
You think that if someone points out something about you that you disagree
with that they are flattering themselves. What does that say about you?
(This is a rhetorical question, you do not have to answer it, but you can
if you want).
That isn't even close to what I am saying.
Post by GKnoll
Steve, you do not have all the facts.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
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
fact.
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
google drive.
Don't insult my intelligence!
I am giving you the benefit of the doubt.
You insulted my (and everyone elses') intelligence when you said that
you were "not expecting [me] to answer the question regarding McAdams"
when you posted your "rhetorical question". Don't give e that crap.
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
I am going to repeat...what is your problem? Why are you always rude?
I am going to repeat. Why are you always making false accusations?!
Post by GKnoll
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.
The same is said for you, oh nameless one. I'm not wrong, I can prove it,
but no one gives a damn but you, and I'm not wasting my time trying to
prove anything to you.
You can prove what? That the world is flat?
No, that's something would try to do.
I'm talking about the 12:28 transmission. Your "Murray, keep your mic
off" nonsense. I have stated what I believe it to be, and I can prove that
I am right. But, I am not going to waste anymore time trying to do so,
because you won't ever admit that I am right and you are wrong. You have
made this abundantly clear. This is what I am talking about when I say
that all I see with you is a lot of projecting. You say that I am so
afraid that someone is going to prove me wrong, when it is you who is
afraid of being proved wrong. Your hostility towards me is as clear as a
bell in just about every comment you post here regarding me. This *isn't*
about *me*. This is about someone (you) saying they hear someone saying
something that isn't being said at all. I am the only one who has
challenged you on this, and you have a cow whenever I say that you are
wrong. Don't preach to me.
Post by GKnoll
You are wrong. Just like you were wrong about the "Murray, keep your mic
off." You said you could prove that and we all know how that turned out.
The only thing you proved was that you will not admit when you have made a
mistake.
No, I am not wrong. I haven't made any mistake. You are the only person
who hears what you say you hear: "Murray, keep your mic off". A totally
and absolutely ridiculous claim. Not one person in this newsgroup except
myself challenged you. You aren't ready to accept a challenge with anyone
whenever they do challenge you, and this has happened regarding other
topics, like the Hester couple and some of your other "photographic"
things. But that is another topic. All kinds of evidence to prove you
wrong that others posted here when you were arguing about Mr. Hester's
neck tie vs. Zapruder's bow tie, claiming that the man seen in the Bell
film and Bond stills isn't HEster it's Zapruder and blah, blah, blah. I
only bring this up because people have dealt with your arguments before,
and you will not admit when you're wrong, and that topic is proof of it.
Regarding Charles Hester or Zapruder I do not admit I was wrong about that
because I am not wrong about that. No one ever presented any evidence to
show that I was wrong. It is Zapruder in the walkway and the person in
that walkway is wearing a bow tie and is also wearing a hat. I have no
problem getting into that again. Even Marsh admitted seeing a hat on the
person in the walkway in Bond 4.
Here is an extreme blowup of the figure in Bond-4. There are many points
of comparision that match Zapruder. Most obvious, is the indication he was
wearing a hat and glasses. Since the image is self-explanatory I will not
dwell on it.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/ApHYfTaCJ2Dg5qCw6
Here is a crop from the Towner photo. It shows Beatrice Hester rushing to
the shelter. The man trailing behind is Zapruder, (not Charles, Charles is
inside the shelter.) The man in the ellispe looks to be waring a hat, has
a rickety kind of gait, and has what appears to be a "hunchback" but it is
not a "hunchback" it is Zapruders camera bag which he had thrown over his
shoulder.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/gggoegtgk4LitFH18
Thanks for confirming what I said in my post.
Once again, you cannot admit that you made a mistake.
Once again, you cannot admit that you don't know what you're talking
about. I'll admit that I am mistaken, if I accept what the accuser is
claiming is my mistake. So far, you're batting zero regarding the Hester's
and the 12:28 transmission. Andy by the way, you are really good at
projecting.
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
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
(12:32:39)
Link to "Murray, keep your mic off.......all right" The word "Murray" is
heard at 2 seconds into the audio.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1TIa7EkAi5lZVlGWEVsMlNzbDQ/view
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
off".
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1TIa7EkAi5leDBYTXVjSk1CTlU/view
GKnoll
2018-06-14 23:53:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
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 GKnoll
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 g***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
Post by g***@gmail.com
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.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
neither?
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
the tape?
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
ignored it.
BBN was the first to recognize it as a "loud click followed by faint
speech".
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
click?
Has anyone ever duplicated it experimentally?
Post by GKnoll
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
their case.
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
Channel 2.
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
is nothing.
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
other clicks.
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.
What is your problem? You are always making false accusations!
Post by GKnoll
You are afraid of the message and so you are attacking the messenger.
I am afraid of nothing, oh nameless one. Quit flattering yourself.
Yes you are. You are afraid of being wrong. You are afraid that you might
lose credibility. You are afraid of many things. That is why you are
always rude.
Nothing whatsoever to do with "being wrong". You brought this all on
yourself! I have no respect for you because of the things that you did
several months ago when we were arguing over the 12:28 transmission. You
just look up those posts and read through them! It is a lot more than just
your accusation that I was "snooping" into your Gmail account. That's not
half of it!
I further have no respect for you because you keep your true identity from
everyone, going by several name aliases, "Mike Rago" (being only one of
them) There are other names that others saw you posting under in here.
[I] am 'rude' "? This is what I mean when I say stop flattering
yourself. You don't mean a thing to me! Period. If you find something on
the police recording that proves whatever it is that you are trying to
prove GO FOR IT! All I see in your is a lot of projecting!
Post by GKnoll
You think that if someone points out something about you that you disagree
with that they are flattering themselves. What does that say about you?
(This is a rhetorical question, you do not have to answer it, but you can
if you want).
That isn't even close to what I am saying.
Post by GKnoll
Steve, you do not have all the facts.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
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
fact.
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
google drive.
Don't insult my intelligence!
I am giving you the benefit of the doubt.
You insulted my (and everyone elses') intelligence when you said that
you were "not expecting [me] to answer the question regarding McAdams"
when you posted your "rhetorical question". Don't give e that crap.
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
I am going to repeat...what is your problem? Why are you always rude?
I am going to repeat. Why are you always making false accusations?!
Post by GKnoll
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.
The same is said for you, oh nameless one. I'm not wrong, I can prove it,
but no one gives a damn but you, and I'm not wasting my time trying to
prove anything to you.
You can prove what? That the world is flat?
No, that's something would try to do.
I'm talking about the 12:28 transmission. Your "Murray, keep your mic
off" nonsense. I have stated what I believe it to be, and I can prove that
I am right. But, I am not going to waste anymore time trying to do so,
because you won't ever admit that I am right and you are wrong. You have
made this abundantly clear. This is what I am talking about when I say
that all I see with you is a lot of projecting. You say that I am so
afraid that someone is going to prove me wrong, when it is you who is
afraid of being proved wrong. Your hostility towards me is as clear as a
bell in just about every comment you post here regarding me. This *isn't*
about *me*. This is about someone (you) saying they hear someone saying
something that isn't being said at all. I am the only one who has
challenged you on this, and you have a cow whenever I say that you are
wrong. Don't preach to me.
Post by GKnoll
You are wrong. Just like you were wrong about the "Murray, keep your mic
off." You said you could prove that and we all know how that turned out.
The only thing you proved was that you will not admit when you have made a
mistake.
No, I am not wrong. I haven't made any mistake. You are the only person
who hears what you say you hear: "Murray, keep your mic off". A totally
and absolutely ridiculous claim. Not one person in this newsgroup except
myself challenged you. You aren't ready to accept a challenge with anyone
whenever they do challenge you, and this has happened regarding other
topics, like the Hester couple and some of your other "photographic"
things. But that is another topic. All kinds of evidence to prove you
wrong that others posted here when you were arguing about Mr. Hester's
neck tie vs. Zapruder's bow tie, claiming that the man seen in the Bell
film and Bond stills isn't HEster it's Zapruder and blah, blah, blah. I
only bring this up because people have dealt with your arguments before,
and you will not admit when you're wrong, and that topic is proof of it.
Regarding Charles Hester or Zapruder I do not admit I was wrong about that
because I am not wrong about that. No one ever presented any evidence to
show that I was wrong. It is Zapruder in the walkway and the person in
that walkway is wearing a bow tie and is also wearing a hat. I have no
problem getting into that again. Even Marsh admitted seeing a hat on the
person in the walkway in Bond 4.
Here is an extreme blowup of the figure in Bond-4. There are many points
of comparision that match Zapruder. Most obvious, is the indication he was
wearing a hat and glasses. Since the image is self-explanatory I will not
dwell on it.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/ApHYfTaCJ2Dg5qCw6
Here is a crop from the Towner photo. It shows Beatrice Hester rushing to
the shelter. The man trailing behind is Zapruder, (not Charles, Charles is
inside the shelter.) The man in the ellispe looks to be waring a hat, has
a rickety kind of gait, and has what appears to be a "hunchback" but it is
not a "hunchback" it is Zapruders camera bag which he had thrown over his
shoulder.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/gggoegtgk4LitFH18
Thanks for confirming what I said in my post.
Once again, you cannot admit that you made a mistake.
Once again, you cannot admit that you don't know what you're talking
about. I'll admit that I am mistaken, if I accept what the accuser is
claiming is my mistake. So far, you're batting zero regarding the Hester's
and the 12:28 transmission. Andy by the way, you are really good at
projecting.
Again, you cannot admit you made a mistake. Period.

Any honest analysis of the evidence I presented would leave no doubt that
the man in Zapruder. I have absolutely no doubt that if a unbiased panel
of photographic experts were to evaluate those photos for the markers I
have presented, it would be accepted as fact that Zapruder is the man in
the walkway.
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 GKnoll
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
(12:32:39)
Link to "Murray, keep your mic off.......all right" The word "Murray" is
heard at 2 seconds into the audio.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1TIa7EkAi5lZVlGWEVsMlNzbDQ/view
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
off".
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1TIa7EkAi5leDBYTXVjSk1CTlU/view
Steve Barber
2018-06-16 04:46:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GKnoll
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 GKnoll
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 g***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
Post by g***@gmail.com
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.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
neither?
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
the tape?
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
ignored it.
BBN was the first to recognize it as a "loud click followed by faint
speech".
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
click?
Has anyone ever duplicated it experimentally?
Post by GKnoll
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
their case.
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
Channel 2.
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
is nothing.
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
other clicks.
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.
What is your problem? You are always making false accusations!
Post by GKnoll
You are afraid of the message and so you are attacking the messenger.
I am afraid of nothing, oh nameless one. Quit flattering yourself.
Yes you are. You are afraid of being wrong. You are afraid that you might
lose credibility. You are afraid of many things. That is why you are
always rude.
Nothing whatsoever to do with "being wrong". You brought this all on
yourself! I have no respect for you because of the things that you did
several months ago when we were arguing over the 12:28 transmission. You
just look up those posts and read through them! It is a lot more than just
your accusation that I was "snooping" into your Gmail account. That's not
half of it!
I further have no respect for you because you keep your true identity from
everyone, going by several name aliases, "Mike Rago" (being only one of
them) There are other names that others saw you posting under in here.
[I] am 'rude' "? This is what I mean when I say stop flattering
yourself. You don't mean a thing to me! Period. If you find something on
the police recording that proves whatever it is that you are trying to
prove GO FOR IT! All I see in your is a lot of projecting!
Post by GKnoll
You think that if someone points out something about you that you disagree
with that they are flattering themselves. What does that say about you?
(This is a rhetorical question, you do not have to answer it, but you can
if you want).
That isn't even close to what I am saying.
Post by GKnoll
Steve, you do not have all the facts.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
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
fact.
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
google drive.
Don't insult my intelligence!
I am giving you the benefit of the doubt.
You insulted my (and everyone elses') intelligence when you said that
you were "not expecting [me] to answer the question regarding McAdams"
when you posted your "rhetorical question". Don't give e that crap.
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
I am going to repeat...what is your problem? Why are you always rude?
I am going to repeat. Why are you always making false accusations?!
Post by GKnoll
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.
The same is said for you, oh nameless one. I'm not wrong, I can prove it,
but no one gives a damn but you, and I'm not wasting my time trying to
prove anything to you.
You can prove what? That the world is flat?
No, that's something would try to do.
I'm talking about the 12:28 transmission. Your "Murray, keep your mic
off" nonsense. I have stated what I believe it to be, and I can prove that
I am right. But, I am not going to waste anymore time trying to do so,
because you won't ever admit that I am right and you are wrong. You have
made this abundantly clear. This is what I am talking about when I say
that all I see with you is a lot of projecting. You say that I am so
afraid that someone is going to prove me wrong, when it is you who is
afraid of being proved wrong. Your hostility towards me is as clear as a
bell in just about every comment you post here regarding me. This *isn't*
about *me*. This is about someone (you) saying they hear someone saying
something that isn't being said at all. I am the only one who has
challenged you on this, and you have a cow whenever I say that you are
wrong. Don't preach to me.
Post by GKnoll
You are wrong. Just like you were wrong about the "Murray, keep your mic
off." You said you could prove that and we all know how that turned out.
The only thing you proved was that you will not admit when you have made a
mistake.
No, I am not wrong. I haven't made any mistake. You are the only person
who hears what you say you hear: "Murray, keep your mic off". A totally
and absolutely ridiculous claim. Not one person in this newsgroup except
myself challenged you. You aren't ready to accept a challenge with anyone
whenever they do challenge you, and this has happened regarding other
topics, like the Hester couple and some of your other "photographic"
things. But that is another topic. All kinds of evidence to prove you
wrong that others posted here when you were arguing about Mr. Hester's
neck tie vs. Zapruder's bow tie, claiming that the man seen in the Bell
film and Bond stills isn't HEster it's Zapruder and blah, blah, blah. I
only bring this up because people have dealt with your arguments before,
and you will not admit when you're wrong, and that topic is proof of it.
Regarding Charles Hester or Zapruder I do not admit I was wrong about that
because I am not wrong about that. No one ever presented any evidence to
show that I was wrong. It is Zapruder in the walkway and the person in
that walkway is wearing a bow tie and is also wearing a hat. I have no
problem getting into that again. Even Marsh admitted seeing a hat on the
person in the walkway in Bond 4.
Here is an extreme blowup of the figure in Bond-4. There are many points
of comparision that match Zapruder. Most obvious, is the indication he was
wearing a hat and glasses. Since the image is self-explanatory I will not
dwell on it.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/ApHYfTaCJ2Dg5qCw6
Here is a crop from the Towner photo. It shows Beatrice Hester rushing to
the shelter. The man trailing behind is Zapruder, (not Charles, Charles is
inside the shelter.) The man in the ellispe looks to be waring a hat, has
a rickety kind of gait, and has what appears to be a "hunchback" but it is
not a "hunchback" it is Zapruders camera bag which he had thrown over his
shoulder.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/gggoegtgk4LitFH18
Thanks for confirming what I said in my post.
Once again, you cannot admit that you made a mistake.
Once again, you cannot admit that you don't know what you're talking
about. I'll admit that I am mistaken, if I accept what the accuser is
claiming is my mistake. So far, you're batting zero regarding the Hester's
and the 12:28 transmission. Andy by the way, you are really good at
projecting.
Again, you cannot admit you made a mistake. Period.
What the hell is your first name, so that I can address you? I am sick
and tired of talking to you and not having a name. Do you think you can
at least provide your real name for once? For crying out loud!

I will not "admit" anything because I didn't make the mistake!

You need to explain why it is that you have a problem with me slowing down
the tempo of the speech without changing the pitch, and running it through
a program on audacity that eliminates a lot of the accompanying
noise--without altering anything to do with the speech--and only
eliminates the background noise. What you want to do is play the
recording at normal speed, therefore eliminating anyone from being able to
actually decipher the speech that you so boldly claim is what you say it
is. I, on the other hand, am trying to help the listener hear, clearly,
what the words are. You don't want anyone to hear it slowed. So explain
why it is that you refuse to help the listener with this speech!
Post by GKnoll
Any honest analysis of the evidence I presented would leave no doubt that
the man in Zapruder. I have absolutely no doubt that if a unbiased panel
of photographic experts were to evaluate those photos for the markers I
have presented, it would be accepted as fact that Zapruder is the man in
the walkway.
Speaking of never admitting when you are wrong...look who's talking!
You.
Post by GKnoll
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 GKnoll
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
(12:32:39)
Link to "Murray, keep your mic off.......all right" The word "Murray" is
heard at 2 seconds into the audio.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1TIa7EkAi5lZVlGWEVsMlNzbDQ/view
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
off".
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1TIa7EkAi5leDBYTXVjSk1CTlU/view
g***@gmail.com
2018-06-17 01:03:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
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 GKnoll
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 GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
Post by g***@gmail.com
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.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
neither?
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
the tape?
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
ignored it.
BBN was the first to recognize it as a "loud click followed by faint
speech".
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
click?
Has anyone ever duplicated it experimentally?
Post by GKnoll
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
their case.
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
Channel 2.
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
is nothing.
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
other clicks.
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.
What is your problem? You are always making false accusations!
Post by GKnoll
You are afraid of the message and so you are attacking the messenger.
I am afraid of nothing, oh nameless one. Quit flattering yourself.
Yes you are. You are afraid of being wrong. You are afraid that you might
lose credibility. You are afraid of many things. That is why you are
always rude.
Nothing whatsoever to do with "being wrong". You brought this all on
yourself! I have no respect for you because of the things that you did
several months ago when we were arguing over the 12:28 transmission. You
just look up those posts and read through them! It is a lot more than just
your accusation that I was "snooping" into your Gmail account. That's not
half of it!
I further have no respect for you because you keep your true identity from
everyone, going by several name aliases, "Mike Rago" (being only one of
them) There are other names that others saw you posting under in here.
[I] am 'rude' "? This is what I mean when I say stop flattering
yourself. You don't mean a thing to me! Period. If you find something on
the police recording that proves whatever it is that you are trying to
prove GO FOR IT! All I see in your is a lot of projecting!
Post by GKnoll
You think that if someone points out something about you that you disagree
with that they are flattering themselves. What does that say about you?
(This is a rhetorical question, you do not have to answer it, but you can
if you want).
That isn't even close to what I am saying.
Post by GKnoll
Steve, you do not have all the facts.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
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
fact.
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
google drive.
Don't insult my intelligence!
I am giving you the benefit of the doubt.
You insulted my (and everyone elses') intelligence when you said that
you were "not expecting [me] to answer the question regarding McAdams"
when you posted your "rhetorical question". Don't give e that crap.
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
I am going to repeat...what is your problem? Why are you always rude?
I am going to repeat. Why are you always making false accusations?!
Post by GKnoll
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.
The same is said for you, oh nameless one. I'm not wrong, I can prove it,
but no one gives a damn but you, and I'm not wasting my time trying to
prove anything to you.
You can prove what? That the world is flat?
No, that's something would try to do.
I'm talking about the 12:28 transmission. Your "Murray, keep your mic
off" nonsense. I have stated what I believe it to be, and I can prove that
I am right. But, I am not going to waste anymore time trying to do so,
because you won't ever admit that I am right and you are wrong. You have
made this abundantly clear. This is what I am talking about when I say
that all I see with you is a lot of projecting. You say that I am so
afraid that someone is going to prove me wrong, when it is you who is
afraid of being proved wrong. Your hostility towards me is as clear as a
bell in just about every comment you post here regarding me. This *isn't*
about *me*. This is about someone (you) saying they hear someone saying
something that isn't being said at all. I am the only one who has
challenged you on this, and you have a cow whenever I say that you are
wrong. Don't preach to me.
Post by GKnoll
You are wrong. Just like you were wrong about the "Murray, keep your mic
off." You said you could prove that and we all know how that turned out.
The only thing you proved was that you will not admit when you have made a
mistake.
No, I am not wrong. I haven't made any mistake. You are the only person
who hears what you say you hear: "Murray, keep your mic off". A totally
and absolutely ridiculous claim. Not one person in this newsgroup except
myself challenged you. You aren't ready to accept a challenge with anyone
whenever they do challenge you, and this has happened regarding other
topics, like the Hester couple and some of your other "photographic"
things. But that is another topic. All kinds of evidence to prove you
wrong that others posted here when you were arguing about Mr. Hester's
neck tie vs. Zapruder's bow tie, claiming that the man seen in the Bell
film and Bond stills isn't HEster it's Zapruder and blah, blah, blah. I
only bring this up because people have dealt with your arguments before,
and you will not admit when you're wrong, and that topic is proof of it.
Regarding Charles Hester or Zapruder I do not admit I was wrong about that
because I am not wrong about that. No one ever presented any evidence to
show that I was wrong. It is Zapruder in the walkway and the person in
that walkway is wearing a bow tie and is also wearing a hat. I have no
problem getting into that again. Even Marsh admitted seeing a hat on the
person in the walkway in Bond 4.
Here is an extreme blowup of the figure in Bond-4. There are many points
of comparision that match Zapruder. Most obvious, is the indication he was
wearing a hat and glasses. Since the image is self-explanatory I will not
dwell on it.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/ApHYfTaCJ2Dg5qCw6
Here is a crop from the Towner photo. It shows Beatrice Hester rushing to
the shelter. The man trailing behind is Zapruder, (not Charles, Charles is
inside the shelter.) The man in the ellispe looks to be waring a hat, has
a rickety kind of gait, and has what appears to be a "hunchback" but it is
not a "hunchback" it is Zapruders camera bag which he had thrown over his
shoulder.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/gggoegtgk4LitFH18
Thanks for confirming what I said in my post.
Once again, you cannot admit that you made a mistake.
Once again, you cannot admit that you don't know what you're talking
about. I'll admit that I am mistaken, if I accept what the accuser is
claiming is my mistake. So far, you're batting zero regarding the Hester's
and the 12:28 transmission. Andy by the way, you are really good at
projecting.
Again, you cannot admit you made a mistake. Period.
What the hell is your first name, so that I can address you? I am sick
and tired of talking to you and not having a name. Do you think you can
at least provide your real name for once? For crying out loud!
I will not "admit" anything because I didn't make the mistake!
You need to explain why it is that you have a problem with me slowing down
the tempo of the speech without changing the pitch, and running it through
a program on audacity that eliminates a lot of the accompanying
noise--without altering anything to do with the speech--and only
eliminates the background noise. What you want to do is play the
recording at normal speed, therefore eliminating anyone from being able to
actually decipher the speech that you so boldly claim is what you say it
is. I, on the other hand, am trying to help the listener hear, clearly,
what the words are. You don't want anyone to hear it slowed. So explain
why it is that you refuse to help the listener with this speech!
Here is an audio clip that YOU made. It leaves little doubt that the words
spoken are "Murray, keep your mic off".

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1TIa7EkAi5leDBYTXVjSk1CTlU/view
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Any honest analysis of the evidence I presented would leave no doubt that
the man in Zapruder. I have absolutely no doubt that if a unbiased panel
of photographic experts were to evaluate those photos for the markers I
have presented, it would be accepted as fact that Zapruder is the man in
the walkway.
Speaking of never admitting when you are wrong...look who's talking!
You.
Post by GKnoll
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 GKnoll
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
(12:32:39)
Link to "Murray, keep your mic off.......all right" The word "Murray" is
heard at 2 seconds into the audio.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1TIa7EkAi5lZVlGWEVsMlNzbDQ/view
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
off".
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1TIa7EkAi5leDBYTXVjSk1CTlU/view
Steve Barber
2018-06-17 20:30:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by g***@gmail.com
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 GKnoll
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 GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
Post by g***@gmail.com
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.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
neither?
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
the tape?
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
ignored it.
BBN was the first to recognize it as a "loud click followed by faint
speech".
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
click?
Has anyone ever duplicated it experimentally?
Post by GKnoll
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
their case.
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
Channel 2.
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
is nothing.
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
other clicks.
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.
What is your problem? You are always making false accusations!
Post by GKnoll
You are afraid of the message and so you are attacking the messenger.
I am afraid of nothing, oh nameless one. Quit flattering yourself.
Yes you are. You are afraid of being wrong. You are afraid that you might
lose credibility. You are afraid of many things. That is why you are
always rude.
Nothing whatsoever to do with "being wrong". You brought this all on
yourself! I have no respect for you because of the things that you did
several months ago when we were arguing over the 12:28 transmission. You
just look up those posts and read through them! It is a lot more than just
your accusation that I was "snooping" into your Gmail account. That's not
half of it!
I further have no respect for you because you keep your true identity from
everyone, going by several name aliases, "Mike Rago" (being only one of
them) There are other names that others saw you posting under in here.
[I] am 'rude' "? This is what I mean when I say stop flattering
yourself. You don't mean a thing to me! Period. If you find something on
the police recording that proves whatever it is that you are trying to
prove GO FOR IT! All I see in your is a lot of projecting!
Post by GKnoll
You think that if someone points out something about you that you disagree
with that they are flattering themselves. What does that say about you?
(This is a rhetorical question, you do not have to answer it, but you can
if you want).
That isn't even close to what I am saying.
Post by GKnoll
Steve, you do not have all the facts.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
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
fact.
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
google drive.
Don't insult my intelligence!
I am giving you the benefit of the doubt.
You insulted my (and everyone elses') intelligence when you said that
you were "not expecting [me] to answer the question regarding McAdams"
when you posted your "rhetorical question". Don't give e that crap.
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
I am going to repeat...what is your problem? Why are you always rude?
I am going to repeat. Why are you always making false accusations?!
Post by GKnoll
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.
The same is said for you, oh nameless one. I'm not wrong, I can prove it,
but no one gives a damn but you, and I'm not wasting my time trying to
prove anything to you.
You can prove what? That the world is flat?
No, that's something would try to do.
I'm talking about the 12:28 transmission. Your "Murray, keep your mic
off" nonsense. I have stated what I believe it to be, and I can prove that
I am right. But, I am not going to waste anymore time trying to do so,
because you won't ever admit that I am right and you are wrong. You have
made this abundantly clear. This is what I am talking about when I say
that all I see with you is a lot of projecting. You say that I am so
afraid that someone is going to prove me wrong, when it is you who is
afraid of being proved wrong. Your hostility towards me is as clear as a
bell in just about every comment you post here regarding me. This *isn't*
about *me*. This is about someone (you) saying they hear someone saying
something that isn't being said at all. I am the only one who has
challenged you on this, and you have a cow whenever I say that you are
wrong. Don't preach to me.
Post by GKnoll
You are wrong. Just like you were wrong about the "Murray, keep your mic
off." You said you could prove that and we all know how that turned out.
The only thing you proved was that you will not admit when you have made a
mistake.
No, I am not wrong. I haven't made any mistake. You are the only person
who hears what you say you hear: "Murray, keep your mic off". A totally
and absolutely ridiculous claim. Not one person in this newsgroup except
myself challenged you. You aren't ready to accept a challenge with anyone
whenever they do challenge you, and this has happened regarding other
topics, like the Hester couple and some of your other "photographic"
things. But that is another topic. All kinds of evidence to prove you
wrong that others posted here when you were arguing about Mr. Hester's
neck tie vs. Zapruder's bow tie, claiming that the man seen in the Bell
film and Bond stills isn't HEster it's Zapruder and blah, blah, blah. I
only bring this up because people have dealt with your arguments before,
and you will not admit when you're wrong, and that topic is proof of it.
Regarding Charles Hester or Zapruder I do not admit I was wrong about that
because I am not wrong about that. No one ever presented any evidence to
show that I was wrong. It is Zapruder in the walkway and the person in
that walkway is wearing a bow tie and is also wearing a hat. I have no
problem getting into that again. Even Marsh admitted seeing a hat on the
person in the walkway in Bond 4.
Here is an extreme blowup of the figure in Bond-4. There are many points
of comparision that match Zapruder. Most obvious, is the indication he was
wearing a hat and glasses. Since the image is self-explanatory I will not
dwell on it.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/ApHYfTaCJ2Dg5qCw6
Here is a crop from the Towner photo. It shows Beatrice Hester rushing to
the shelter. The man trailing behind is Zapruder, (not Charles, Charles is
inside the shelter.) The man in the ellispe looks to be waring a hat, has
a rickety kind of gait, and has what appears to be a "hunchback" but it is
not a "hunchback" it is Zapruders camera bag which he had thrown over his
shoulder.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/gggoegtgk4LitFH18
Thanks for confirming what I said in my post.
Once again, you cannot admit that you made a mistake.
Once again, you cannot admit that you don't know what you're talking
about. I'll admit that I am mistaken, if I accept what the accuser is
claiming is my mistake. So far, you're batting zero regarding the Hester's
and the 12:28 transmission. Andy by the way, you are really good at
projecting.
Again, you cannot admit you made a mistake. Period.
What the hell is your first name, so that I can address you? I am sick
and tired of talking to you and not having a name. Do you think you can
at least provide your real name for once? For crying out loud!
I will not "admit" anything because I didn't make the mistake!
You need to explain why it is that you have a problem with me slowing down
the tempo of the speech without changing the pitch, and running it through
a program on audacity that eliminates a lot of the accompanying
noise--without altering anything to do with the speech--and only
eliminates the background noise. What you want to do is play the
recording at normal speed, therefore eliminating anyone from being able to
actually decipher the speech that you so boldly claim is what you say it
is. I, on the other hand, am trying to help the listener hear, clearly,
what the words are. You don't want anyone to hear it slowed. So explain
why it is that you refuse to help the listener with this speech!
Here is an audio clip that YOU made. It leaves little doubt that the words
spoken are "Murray, keep your mic off".
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1TIa7EkAi5leDBYTXVjSk1CTlU/view
Are you going to tell me(us) your name or not? If not, why not?

Are you going to answer my question?

You need to explain why it is that you have a problem with me slowing
down the tempo of the speech without changing the pitch, and running it
through a program on audacity that eliminates a lot of the accompanying
noise--without altering anything to do with the speech--and only
eliminates the background noise.
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Any honest analysis of the evidence I presented would leave no doubt that
the man in Zapruder. I have absolutely no doubt that if a unbiased panel
of photographic experts were to evaluate those photos for the markers I
have presented, it would be accepted as fact that Zapruder is the man in
the walkway.
Speaking of never admitting when you are wrong...look who's talking!
You.
Post by GKnoll
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 GKnoll
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
(12:32:39)
Link to "Murray, keep your mic off.......all right" The word "Murray" is
heard at 2 seconds into the audio.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1TIa7EkAi5lZVlGWEVsMlNzbDQ/view
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
off".
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1TIa7EkAi5leDBYTXVjSk1CTlU/view
g***@gmail.com
2018-06-17 20:28:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
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 GKnoll
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 GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
Post by g***@gmail.com
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.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
neither?
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
the tape?
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
ignored it.
BBN was the first to recognize it as a "loud click followed by faint
speech".
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
click?
Has anyone ever duplicated it experimentally?
Post by GKnoll
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
their case.
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
Channel 2.
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
is nothing.
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
other clicks.
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.
What is your problem? You are always making false accusations!
Post by GKnoll
You are afraid of the message and so you are attacking the messenger.
I am afraid of nothing, oh nameless one. Quit flattering yourself.
Yes you are. You are afraid of being wrong. You are afraid that you might
lose credibility. You are afraid of many things. That is why you are
always rude.
Nothing whatsoever to do with "being wrong". You brought this all on
yourself! I have no respect for you because of the things that you did
several months ago when we were arguing over the 12:28 transmission. You
just look up those posts and read through them! It is a lot more than just
your accusation that I was "snooping" into your Gmail account. That's not
half of it!
I further have no respect for you because you keep your true identity from
everyone, going by several name aliases, "Mike Rago" (being only one of
them) There are other names that others saw you posting under in here.
[I] am 'rude' "? This is what I mean when I say stop flattering
yourself. You don't mean a thing to me! Period. If you find something on
the police recording that proves whatever it is that you are trying to
prove GO FOR IT! All I see in your is a lot of projecting!
Post by GKnoll
You think that if someone points out something about you that you disagree
with that they are flattering themselves. What does that say about you?
(This is a rhetorical question, you do not have to answer it, but you can
if you want).
That isn't even close to what I am saying.
Post by GKnoll
Steve, you do not have all the facts.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
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
fact.
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
google drive.
Don't insult my intelligence!
I am giving you the benefit of the doubt.
You insulted my (and everyone elses') intelligence when you said that
you were "not expecting [me] to answer the question regarding McAdams"
when you posted your "rhetorical question". Don't give e that crap.
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
I am going to repeat...what is your problem? Why are you always rude?
I am going to repeat. Why are you always making false accusations?!
Post by GKnoll
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.
The same is said for you, oh nameless one. I'm not wrong, I can prove it,
but no one gives a damn but you, and I'm not wasting my time trying to
prove anything to you.
You can prove what? That the world is flat?
No, that's something would try to do.
I'm talking about the 12:28 transmission. Your "Murray, keep your mic
off" nonsense. I have stated what I believe it to be, and I can prove that
I am right. But, I am not going to waste anymore time trying to do so,
because you won't ever admit that I am right and you are wrong. You have
made this abundantly clear. This is what I am talking about when I say
that all I see with you is a lot of projecting. You say that I am so
afraid that someone is going to prove me wrong, when it is you who is
afraid of being proved wrong. Your hostility towards me is as clear as a
bell in just about every comment you post here regarding me. This *isn't*
about *me*. This is about someone (you) saying they hear someone saying
something that isn't being said at all. I am the only one who has
challenged you on this, and you have a cow whenever I say that you are
wrong. Don't preach to me.
Post by GKnoll
You are wrong. Just like you were wrong about the "Murray, keep your mic
off." You said you could prove that and we all know how that turned out.
The only thing you proved was that you will not admit when you have made a
mistake.
No, I am not wrong. I haven't made any mistake. You are the only person
who hears what you say you hear: "Murray, keep your mic off". A totally
and absolutely ridiculous claim. Not one person in this newsgroup except
myself challenged you. You aren't ready to accept a challenge with anyone
whenever they do challenge you, and this has happened regarding other
topics, like the Hester couple and some of your other "photographic"
things. But that is another topic. All kinds of evidence to prove you
wrong that others posted here when you were arguing about Mr. Hester's
neck tie vs. Zapruder's bow tie, claiming that the man seen in the Bell
film and Bond stills isn't HEster it's Zapruder and blah, blah, blah. I
only bring this up because people have dealt with your arguments before,
and you will not admit when you're wrong, and that topic is proof of it.
Regarding Charles Hester or Zapruder I do not admit I was wrong about that
because I am not wrong about that. No one ever presented any evidence to
show that I was wrong. It is Zapruder in the walkway and the person in
that walkway is wearing a bow tie and is also wearing a hat. I have no
problem getting into that again. Even Marsh admitted seeing a hat on the
person in the walkway in Bond 4.
Here is an extreme blowup of the figure in Bond-4. There are many points
of comparision that match Zapruder. Most obvious, is the indication he was
wearing a hat and glasses. Since the image is self-explanatory I will not
dwell on it.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/ApHYfTaCJ2Dg5qCw6
Here is a crop from the Towner photo. It shows Beatrice Hester rushing to
the shelter. The man trailing behind is Zapruder, (not Charles, Charles is
inside the shelter.) The man in the ellispe looks to be waring a hat, has
a rickety kind of gait, and has what appears to be a "hunchback" but it is
not a "hunchback" it is Zapruders camera bag which he had thrown over his
shoulder.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/gggoegtgk4LitFH18
Thanks for confirming what I said in my post.
Once again, you cannot admit that you made a mistake.
Once again, you cannot admit that you don't know what you're talking
about. I'll admit that I am mistaken, if I accept what the accuser is
claiming is my mistake. So far, you're batting zero regarding the Hester's
and the 12:28 transmission. Andy by the way, you are really good at
projecting.
Again, you cannot admit you made a mistake. Period.
What the hell is your first name, so that I can address you? I am sick
and tired of talking to you and not having a name. Do you think you can
at least provide your real name for once? For crying out loud!
I will not "admit" anything because I didn't make the mistake!
You need to explain why it is that you have a problem with me slowing down
the tempo of the speech without changing the pitch, and running it through
a program on audacity that eliminates a lot of the accompanying
noise--without altering anything to do with the speech--and only
eliminates the background noise. What you want to do is play the
recording at normal speed, therefore eliminating anyone from being able to
actually decipher the speech that you so boldly claim is what you say it
is. I, on the other hand, am trying to help the listener hear, clearly,
what the words are. You don't want anyone to hear it slowed. So explain
why it is that you refuse to help the listener with this speech!
Post by GKnoll
Any honest analysis of the evidence I presented would leave no doubt that
the man in Zapruder. I have absolutely no doubt that if a unbiased panel
of photographic experts were to evaluate those photos for the markers I
have presented, it would be accepted as fact that Zapruder is the man in
the walkway.
Speaking of never admitting when you are wrong...look who's talking!
You.
Show me the necktie in the photo I posted. And do not say it is pixelated.
That is a cop-out. If the necktie is there the pixelation will make it
more obvious. So show me the necktie?
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 GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
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
(12:32:39)
Link to "Murray, keep your mic off.......all right" The word "Murray" is
heard at 2 seconds into the audio.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1TIa7EkAi5lZVlGWEVsMlNzbDQ/view
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
off".
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1TIa7EkAi5leDBYTXVjSk1CTlU/view
Mark
2018-06-08 22:25:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
Post by g***@gmail.com
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.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
neither?
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
the tape?
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
ignored it.
BBN was the first to recognize it as a "loud click followed by faint
speech".
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
click?
Has anyone ever duplicated it experimentally?
Post by GKnoll
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
their case.
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
Channel 2.
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
is nothing.
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
other clicks.
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.
Fairly serious charge, tho I doubt if McAdams takes it seriously because
he knows it's false. But if it is "a common problem" which you "always
have to deal with" then show us examples.

Mark
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-11 01:43:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
Post by g***@gmail.com
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.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
neither?
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
the tape?
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
ignored it.
BBN was the first to recognize it as a "loud click followed by faint
speech".
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
click?
Has anyone ever duplicated it experimentally?
Post by GKnoll
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
their case.
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
Channel 2.
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
is nothing.
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
other clicks.
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.
Fairly serious charge, tho I doubt if McAdams takes it seriously because
he knows it's false. But if it is "a common problem" which you "always
have to deal with" then show us examples.
Mark
You must be new here. This is old news. When you go into a new group it
is advised that you read some of the old messages.
GKnoll
2018-06-13 03:11:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
Post by g***@gmail.com
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.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
neither?
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
the tape?
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
ignored it.
BBN was the first to recognize it as a "loud click followed by faint
speech".
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
click?
Has anyone ever duplicated it experimentally?
Post by GKnoll
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
their case.
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
Channel 2.
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
is nothing.
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
other clicks.
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.
Fairly serious charge, tho I doubt if McAdams takes it seriously because
he knows it's false. But if it is "a common problem" which you "always
have to deal with" then show us examples.
Mark
I have been keeping track since you made your post.

Here is a screenshot of my mail folder. It shows that McAdams posted 3 of
my posts this morning at about 8:00 AM. Those posts are in yellow. Steves
replies to those posts are in red, which were posted a 5:00 PM on the same
day. Its not 4 hours but it is extremely fast by McAdams standards. How
often do you get one of your replies posted the same day?

https://photos.app.goo.gl/7cq4WsmPT57XaD57A
Mark
2018-06-14 00:59:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GKnoll
Post by Mark
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
Post by g***@gmail.com
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.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
neither?
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
the tape?
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
ignored it.
BBN was the first to recognize it as a "loud click followed by faint
speech".
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
click?
Has anyone ever duplicated it experimentally?
Post by GKnoll
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
their case.
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
Channel 2.
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
is nothing.
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
other clicks.
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.
Fairly serious charge, tho I doubt if McAdams takes it seriously because
he knows it's false. But if it is "a common problem" which you "always
have to deal with" then show us examples.
Mark
I have been keeping track since you made your post.
Here is a screenshot of my mail folder. It shows that McAdams posted 3 of
my posts this morning at about 8:00 AM. Those posts are in yellow. Steves
replies to those posts are in red, which were posted a 5:00 PM on the same
day. Its not 4 hours but it is extremely fast by McAdams standards. How
often do you get one of your replies posted the same day?
https://photos.app.goo.gl/7cq4WsmPT57XaD57A
No, that's not 4 hours. It varies. If I post early am after waking up, say
before 8, it's often published late that afternoon or night. I assume it
has to do with how much traffic has to be dealt with on a given day. Mark
GKnoll
2018-06-14 19:26:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark
Post by GKnoll
Post by Mark
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
Post by g***@gmail.com
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.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
neither?
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
the tape?
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
ignored it.
BBN was the first to recognize it as a "loud click followed by faint
speech".
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
click?
Has anyone ever duplicated it experimentally?
Post by GKnoll
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
their case.
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
Channel 2.
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
is nothing.
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
other clicks.
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.
Fairly serious charge, tho I doubt if McAdams takes it seriously because
he knows it's false. But if it is "a common problem" which you "always
have to deal with" then show us examples.
Mark
I have been keeping track since you made your post.
Here is a screenshot of my mail folder. It shows that McAdams posted 3 of
my posts this morning at about 8:00 AM. Those posts are in yellow. Steves
replies to those posts are in red, which were posted a 5:00 PM on the same
day. Its not 4 hours but it is extremely fast by McAdams standards. How
often do you get one of your replies posted the same day?
https://photos.app.goo.gl/7cq4WsmPT57XaD57A
No, that's not 4 hours. It varies. If I post early am after waking up, say
before 8, it's often published late that afternoon or night. I assume it
has to do with how much traffic has to be dealt with on a given day. Mark
Well, there you go. It almost never happens to me that way. 99% of the
time I have to wait a day.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-15 13:58:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark
Post by GKnoll
Post by Mark
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
Post by g***@gmail.com
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.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
neither?
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
the tape?
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
ignored it.
BBN was the first to recognize it as a "loud click followed by faint
speech".
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
click?
Has anyone ever duplicated it experimentally?
Post by GKnoll
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
their case.
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
Channel 2.
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
is nothing.
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
other clicks.
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.
Fairly serious charge, tho I doubt if McAdams takes it seriously because
he knows it's false. But if it is "a common problem" which you "always
have to deal with" then show us examples.
Mark
I have been keeping track since you made your post.
Here is a screenshot of my mail folder. It shows that McAdams posted 3 of
my posts this morning at about 8:00 AM. Those posts are in yellow. Steves
replies to those posts are in red, which were posted a 5:00 PM on the same
day. Its not 4 hours but it is extremely fast by McAdams standards. How
often do you get one of your replies posted the same day?
https://photos.app.goo.gl/7cq4WsmPT57XaD57A
No, that's not 4 hours. It varies. If I post early am after waking up, say
before 8, it's often published late that afternoon or night. I assume it
has to do with how much traffic has to be dealt with on a given day. Mark
Please be courteous. McAdams is in a different time zone and you should
not expect him to get up at 4AM just to read your posts.

Lucky if he gets up at 10AM. He doesn't have to go to work any more so he
should be allowed to get up whenever he wants.
Mark
2018-06-16 16:28:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Mark
Post by GKnoll
Post by Mark
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
Post by g***@gmail.com
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.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
neither?
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
the tape?
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
ignored it.
BBN was the first to recognize it as a "loud click followed by faint
speech".
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
click?
Has anyone ever duplicated it experimentally?
Post by GKnoll
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
their case.
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
Channel 2.
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
is nothing.
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
other clicks.
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.
Fairly serious charge, tho I doubt if McAdams takes it seriously because
he knows it's false. But if it is "a common problem" which you "always
have to deal with" then show us examples.
Mark
I have been keeping track since you made your post.
Here is a screenshot of my mail folder. It shows that McAdams posted 3 of
my posts this morning at about 8:00 AM. Those posts are in yellow. Steves
replies to those posts are in red, which were posted a 5:00 PM on the same
day. Its not 4 hours but it is extremely fast by McAdams standards. How
often do you get one of your replies posted the same day?
https://photos.app.goo.gl/7cq4WsmPT57XaD57A
No, that's not 4 hours. It varies. If I post early am after waking up, say
before 8, it's often published late that afternoon or night. I assume it
has to do with how much traffic has to be dealt with on a given day. Mark
Please be courteous. McAdams is in a different time zone and you should
not expect him to get up at 4AM just to read your posts.
Lucky if he gets up at 10AM. He doesn't have to go to work any more so he
should be allowed to get up whenever he wants.
Tony, no one takes you seriously anymore. And on a newsgroup that you
apparently live to post on, that's a huge, self-inflicted wound.

Mark
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-14 03:41:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GKnoll
Post by Mark
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
Post by g***@gmail.com
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.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
neither?
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
the tape?
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
ignored it.
BBN was the first to recognize it as a "loud click followed by faint
speech".
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
click?
Has anyone ever duplicated it experimentally?
Post by GKnoll
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
their case.
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
Channel 2.
    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
is nothing.
Post by GKnoll
    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
other clicks.
    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.
Fairly serious charge, tho I doubt if McAdams takes it seriously because
he knows it's false.  But if it is "a common problem" which you "always
have to deal with" then show us examples.
Mark
I have been keeping track since you made your post.
Here is a screenshot of my mail folder. It shows that McAdams posted 3
of my posts this morning at about 8:00 AM. Those posts are in yellow.
Steves replies to those posts are in red, which were posted a 5:00 PM on
the same day. Its not 4 hours but it is extremely fast by McAdams
standards. How often do you get one of your replies posted the same day?
Sometimes McAdams accidentally posts a reply to my messages before he
posts my messages.
Or posts his reply to my message then deletes my message.
Post by GKnoll
https://photos.app.goo.gl/7cq4WsmPT57XaD57A
Mark
2018-06-15 00:57:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
Post by Mark
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
Post by g***@gmail.com
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.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
neither?
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
the tape?
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
ignored it.
BBN was the first to recognize it as a "loud click followed
by faint
speech".
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
click?
Has anyone ever duplicated it experimentally?
Post by GKnoll
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
their case.
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
Channel 2.
    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
is nothing.
Post by GKnoll
    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
other clicks.
    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.
Fairly serious charge, tho I doubt if McAdams takes it seriously because
he knows it's false.  But if it is "a common problem" which you "always
have to deal with" then show us examples.
Mark
I have been keeping track since you made your post.
Here is a screenshot of my mail folder. It shows that McAdams posted 3
of my posts this morning at about 8:00 AM. Those posts are in yellow.
Steves replies to those posts are in red, which were posted a 5:00 PM on
the same day. Its not 4 hours but it is extremely fast by McAdams
standards. How often do you get one of your replies posted the same day?
Sometimes McAdams accidentally posts a reply to my messages before he
posts my messages.
Or posts his reply to my message then deletes my message.
Post by GKnoll
https://photos.app.goo.gl/7cq4WsmPT57XaD57A
Yeah, right. There's no crying in beesaball or a newsgroup.

Mark
John McAdams
2018-06-15 01:00:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mark
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
I have been keeping track since you made your post.
Here is a screenshot of my mail folder. It shows that McAdams posted 3
of my posts this morning at about 8:00 AM. Those posts are in yellow.
Steves replies to those posts are in red, which were posted a 5:00 PM on
the same day. Its not 4 hours but it is extremely fast by McAdams
standards. How often do you get one of your replies posted the same day?
Sometimes McAdams accidentally posts a reply to my messages before he
posts my messages.
Or posts his reply to my message then deletes my message.
Post by GKnoll
https://photos.app.goo.gl/7cq4WsmPT57XaD57A
Yeah, right. There's no crying in beesaball or a newsgroup.
I have told Tony two or three times that what he is claiming is
literally impossible.

When I am foolish enough to reply to a message of his, I have my copy
of Agent read it off the server. But being on the server, it's been
fed out to multiple other servers, and is already all over the net.

Then, having done that, I can reply.

This is like Tony believing that Republican gerrymandering elected
Trump. It doesn't matter how illogical something is. If Tony wants
to believe it, nothing can correct him.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-16 05:20:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by Mark
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
I have been keeping track since you made your post.
Here is a screenshot of my mail folder. It shows that McAdams posted 3
of my posts this morning at about 8:00 AM. Those posts are in yellow.
Steves replies to those posts are in red, which were posted a 5:00 PM on
the same day. Its not 4 hours but it is extremely fast by McAdams
standards. How often do you get one of your replies posted the same day?
Sometimes McAdams accidentally posts a reply to my messages before he
posts my messages.
Or posts his reply to my message then deletes my message.
Post by GKnoll
https://photos.app.goo.gl/7cq4WsmPT57XaD57A
Yeah, right. There's no crying in beesaball or a newsgroup.
I have told Tony two or three times that what he is claiming is
literally impossible.
What do you claim is impossible?
Post by John McAdams
When I am foolish enough to reply to a message of his, I have my copy
of Agent read it off the server. But being on the server, it's been
fed out to multiple other servers, and is already all over the net.
I send my messages directly to your serve, not to Google.
Post by John McAdams
Then, having done that, I can reply.
This is like Tony believing that Republican gerrymandering elected
Trump. It doesn't matter how illogical something is. If Tony wants
to believe it, nothing can correct him.
What the show.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
bigdog
2018-06-10 17:54:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
Post by g***@gmail.com
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.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
neither?
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
the tape?
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
ignored it.
BBN was the first to recognize it as a "loud click followed by faint
speech".
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
click?
Has anyone ever duplicated it experimentally?
Post by GKnoll
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
their case.
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
Channel 2.
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
is nothing.
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
other clicks.
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.
It is my experience that the amount of time it takes for my posts to show
up varies greatly. Believe it or not, McAdams does have a life outside of
this newsgroup. He gets to the posts when time allows and that is going to
vary. One thing I have noticed is that he tends to post all of a posters
replies at the same time so all of your posts that are queued up will
often show up at the same time. I especially notice this with Marsh's
posts because there are so many of them. It's not unusual for me to go
through the threads with new replies and find all of the new stuff is from
Marsh.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-11 14:19:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
Post by g***@gmail.com
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.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
neither?
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
the tape?
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
ignored it.
BBN was the first to recognize it as a "loud click followed by faint
speech".
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
click?
Has anyone ever duplicated it experimentally?
Post by GKnoll
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
their case.
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
Channel 2.
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
is nothing.
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
other clicks.
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.
It is my experience that the amount of time it takes for my posts to show
up varies greatly. Believe it or not, McAdams does have a life outside of
this newsgroup. He gets to the posts when time allows and that is going to
I dispute that. He does not work. He only has this newsgroup.
Post by bigdog
vary. One thing I have noticed is that he tends to post all of a posters
replies at the same time so all of your posts that are queued up will
often show up at the same time. I especially notice this with Marsh's
posts because there are so many of them. It's not unusual for me to go
through the threads with new replies and find all of the new stuff is from
Marsh.
Sometimes he splits the load and answers or posts the easy ones and takes
more time to look for things to use as excuses to not reply to or to
reject mine. So by the time he goes back to mine he many have a bunch that
he can't figure out how to justify deleting so he posts them en masse.
n***@gmail.com
2018-06-05 22:14:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
Post by g***@gmail.com
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.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
neither?
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
the tape?
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
ignored it.
BBN was the first to recognize it as a "loud click followed by faint
speech".
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
click?
Has anyone ever duplicated it experimentally?
Post by GKnoll
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
their case.
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
Channel 2.
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.
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.
Well done, Steve. More "noise" from the CT alternate world. Mark Florio
Steve Barber
2018-06-06 19:42:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
Post by g***@gmail.com
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.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
neither?
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
the tape?
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
ignored it.
BBN was the first to recognize it as a "loud click followed by faint
speech".
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
click?
Has anyone ever duplicated it experimentally?
Post by GKnoll
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
their case.
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
Channel 2.
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.
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.
Well done, Steve. More "noise" from the CT alternate world. Mark Florio
Thank you, Mark.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-06 14:54:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
Post by g***@gmail.com
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.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
neither?
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
the tape?
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
ignored it.
BBN was the first to recognize it as a "loud click followed by faint
speech".
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
click?
Has anyone ever duplicated it experimentally?
Post by GKnoll
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
their case.
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
Channel 2.
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
What do you call it? A buzz? Let's waste months nitpicking about how to
define it instead of admitting that it exists. Brilliant tactic.
Post by Steve Barber
everything secure..."? Listen to all the clicks that follow it! Listen
to many extremely audible ""clicks" throughout the open mic sequence.
Lots of clicks. Most of them are other unites trying and unable to get
into the channel. Even the notorious morse code "V" signal. But why are
there different pitches and for the V the pitch goes down at the end. Can
you identify which unit is which by the pitch?
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
I think his point is that it comes right before the important crosstalk.
Post by Steve Barber
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
Not because of the click. No one saw that as a clue.
Post by Steve Barber
are taking place right in that section. There was no reason for the Ramsey
panel to mention the "click". Why should they? Explain.
Thoroughness.
They did not address any criticism.
g***@gmail.com
2018-06-07 01:18:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by g***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
Post by g***@gmail.com
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.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
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
neither?
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
the tape?