Post by GKnoll Post by Steve Barber Post by GKnoll Post by Steve Barber Post by GKnoll Post by Steve Barber Post by GKnoll
There are two things going on in this audio...
In the foreground, we hear speech, the "hold everything secure...."
In the background, we hear loud static impulses. Those static impulses
were matched, with a correlation coefficient of about .8, to two test
guns shots fired in Dealey Plaza.
Listen to the audio a couple of time...
First, focus on the foreground speech. ('hold everything secure...")
Then, focus on the background impulses. (ignore the speech)
Awwww...whatsa matter, Franky/Mike? You aren't getting enough attention
from anyone so now you resort to posting more threads?
You chastised and berated me last year for starting new threads when we
were posting about the 12:28 c-1 transmission. LOLOL! You are one
Steve, you are the one who is sounding desperate.
We can go round and and round about this. I'm not desperate. You are.
You think that you are more intelligent than two Nobel Prize winners and a
slew of some of America's most distinguished scientists(at the time) and
that you can prove the "shots" are were recorded by an open mic, so you
are now relying on a "click" among a ton of clicks during the open
microphone sequence, trying desperately to prove that there are gunshots
on the Dictabelt, in spite of the fact that the motorcycle with the stuck
open mic wasn't in Dealey Plaza!
Steve, I am not desperate I know FOR A FACT that the shots are on that
'fraid so. You believe that you are hearing something on the recording
that isn't there. You believe that you hear someone telling Murray Jackson
to keep his mic off. You don't even realize just how absurd, ludicrous and
ridiculous your theory is. But go ahead and live in denial. It's what
blows your hair back.
Do you even realize how absurd the things you are saying are? I have
given you ample opportunity to post an audio clip supporting what you
think are the words spoken. You have not done so. The reason you have
not done so is because you know what will happen if you do. I, on the
other hand, have been posting the phrase and I am going to do it again.
The phrase is "Murray keep your mic off"
I am not afraid of the evidence, you are.
Here it is again...
This clip plays "murray keep your mic off" at several different speeds
This is why I say, with confidence, that you are the one who is
desperate. You are not posting any evidence and you are relying on your
15 minutes of fame to have people reading these posts to just accept
your word. That is what a desperate person does.
There you go again... I'm telling you that I have evidence, right now,
that I will present that proves you are in wrong. The last two words,
which you say are "mic off" contains three syllables, not two. You can
deny this till the world ends, but it's a fact. I have played my MP3's for
numerous people. Though they cannot make out what is being said(which is
understandable) all of them said--adamantly-- that they are hearing 3
syllables, not two as in "mic off". I simply do not trust you, after the
fiasco last year when I was trying to show you that the last two words are
3 syllables. You then took one of my MP3's, which I had applied filtering
to, and tried using it against me. The problem is that you have failed at
disproving that there are 3 syllables and there you goes you entire
theory. Since the preceding portion of the transmission made by F.G.
Woodrow(38) is buried under motorcycle noise and possibly poor reception
making it impossible for anyone to decipher it(regardless of what you say
it is--which doesn't amount to a hill of beans) making it subjective. I
could just as easily say that an officer is saying " I'll have fries with
that" or anything else I want. I said it before, I'll say it again. If you
tried to pawn this off as proof of what you say is being said, it would be
thrown out of the courtroom because it isn't legible. Only two words are
legible, and they are not what you say they are--and I don't care if you
have Tony Marsh's blessing or not. When the time is right, I will post my
proof that you are wrong, only this time, it will not be posted in the
newsgroup, it will be posted where EVERYONE in the universe can hear it.
You can scrap any and all of the MP3's I sent you because they are
absolutely inferior, so don't bother using them against me--not even the
one that you are using that I made and sent to you. It's worthless now,
but it's all I had to work with at the time, so I had to share what I had.
Before I sign off here, I am going to challenge you to post an MP3 or
MP3's whichever you want--of the last two words of Woodrow's transmission
that you say are the words "Mic off". Don't use any of the garbage that
you have on your Google Drive. I want everyone to know that we are, in
fact, on the same page as far as the last two words of the Woodrow
transmission. Do not try any funny business like posting garbage quality,
you have access to better quality now. The ball's in your court. If you
don't agree to do what I have suggested as a challenge, I will take that
to mean that you admit defeat.
Post by GKnoll Post by Steve Barber Post by GKnoll
The problem I am having is finding the right way to get this out. I do
not have an ongoing investigation that I can call up and say "hey
fellows, here is something that I found..." And it is too important to
just dump into this forum full of people who do not really want to know
the truth of what happened. Marsh is no help. And you and ODell are no help.
To me, and I am speaking only for me, you aren't worth helping.
I am going to translate this for you, you are afraid to help me, because
you do not know what I know and how I am going to respond. Just like
with the "Murray keep your mic off" episode. You were not expecting what
Please. Stop flattering yourself.
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber Post by GKnoll
Do you think that you are more intelligent than those two Nobel Prize
Winners? after all you are the one who discovered the hold cross talk?
Of course you don't. And neither do I. This has nothing to do with
intelligence. It has to do with investigation.
Post by GKnoll
The advantage I have over you is I understand what BBN did. NAS got a
little to big for their britches and they failed to analyze what BBN
did. They got hung up on what W&A did.
I understand what BBN did, too. They gave Robert Blakey what he wanted,
receiving world wide acclaim in the process. You guys fell for it hook,
line and sinker.
No you don't. If you did you would have been searching the tape for
evidence that would have supported their interpretation.