Discussion:
THE DICTABELT DEBACLE
(too old to reply)
BOZ
2018-05-16 02:15:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
https://jfk007.com/1053-2/
Steve Barber
2018-05-17 14:11:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
https://jfk007.com/1053-2/
The last section re: Don Thomas, is spot on. Thomas, to this day, spreads
his absolute lies regarding what he claims is "crosstalk", knowing fully
well that it isn't crosstalk. It was Micheal o'Dell who convinced Thomas
that he was using inferior copies of the police recordings when Thomas
wrote his peer reviewed paper in 2001. After Michael presented Thomas with
the facts--that the channel two recording was useless as a timing tool to
prove the HSCA's claim that H.B. McLain had the open mic was correct.
(This was nearly twenty years after the Ramsey panel Report in 1982).

After Michael O'Dell convinced Don Thomas he was wrong, Thomas conceded.
Apparently, Thomas couldn't admit complete defeat, so, he invented his
"crosstalk" theory, based primarily on the transcript written by James C.
Bowles) DPD Communications Supervisor at the time of the assassination
(See the transcript in Larry Sneed's excellent book "No More Silence").
Thomas was/is wrong, again, and several members of the Ramsey panel
regrouped performed a study on Thomas' conclusions, wrote a detailed
report regarding Thomas' theory, and Micheal O'Dell aided in proving
Thomas wrong with the 2003 Ramsey panel. You can read the report here:
http://jfk-records.com/ScienceAndJustice_45%284%29_207-226%282005%29.pdf

I also wrote an article(which was featured in Bugliosi's Reclaiming
History) which you can read here, regarding heterodyne tones (beep tones)
that accompany the speech which Thomas claims is crosstalk on channel 1.
The fact that there are heterodyne tones accompanying the speech that
Thomas says is crosstalk proves that it isn't crosstalk at all. Which you
can read here:
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2007/07/of-crosstalk-and-bells-rebuttal-to-don.html

To this day, Thomas speaks at JFK conspiracy conferences spreading his
untruth regarding the speech on channel 1 which he claims is crosstalk.
Thomas believes that the "gunshots" are on the channel 1 Dictabelt, but
that there are five--not four gunshots-- and he supports the conclusions
reached by the acoustics experts for the HSCA.
GKnoll
2018-05-18 00:18:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve Barber
Post by BOZ
https://jfk007.com/1053-2/
The last section re: Don Thomas, is spot on. Thomas, to this day, spreads
his absolute lies regarding what he claims is "crosstalk", knowing fully
well that it isn't crosstalk. It was Micheal o'Dell who convinced Thomas
that he was using inferior copies of the police recordings when Thomas
wrote his peer reviewed paper in 2001. After Michael presented Thomas with
the facts--that the channel two recording was useless as a timing tool to
prove the HSCA's claim that H.B. McLain had the open mic was correct.
(This was nearly twenty years after the Ramsey panel Report in 1982).
After Michael O'Dell convinced Don Thomas he was wrong, Thomas conceded.
Apparently, Thomas couldn't admit complete defeat, so, he invented his
"crosstalk" theory, based primarily on the transcript written by James C.
Bowles) DPD Communications Supervisor at the time of the assassination
(See the transcript in Larry Sneed's excellent book "No More Silence").
Thomas was/is wrong, again, and several members of the Ramsey panel
regrouped performed a study on Thomas' conclusions, wrote a detailed
report regarding Thomas' theory, and Micheal O'Dell aided in proving
http://jfk-records.com/ScienceAndJustice_45%284%29_207-226%282005%29.pdf
I also wrote an article(which was featured in Bugliosi's Reclaiming
History) which you can read here, regarding heterodyne tones (beep tones)
that accompany the speech which Thomas claims is crosstalk on channel 1.
The fact that there are heterodyne tones accompanying the speech that
Thomas says is crosstalk proves that it isn't crosstalk at all. Which you
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2007/07/of-crosstalk-and-bells-rebuttal-to-don.html
To this day, Thomas speaks at JFK conspiracy conferences spreading his
untruth regarding the speech on channel 1 which he claims is crosstalk.
Thomas believes that the "gunshots" are on the channel 1 Dictabelt, but
that there are five--not four gunshots-- and he supports the conclusions
reached by the acoustics experts for the HSCA.
The so called "acoustic experts" have formed a clique. And it is very
hard to penetrate this clique. They are a small group who are hell bent
on pushing through the false theory that the man behind the fence shown
in the Moorman photo (and I think first identified by Josiah Thompson in
his book "Six Seconds In Dallas") fired the shot that we all see
striking the Presdient on Zapruder frame 313. There is not a single
piece of evidence that supports that shot came from the knoll, quite the
contrary, every single piece of evidence we have shows that the shot at
frame 313 could not have been fired by that man at that time.

Their theory is 100% dependent upon the interpretation made by Weiss and
Aschkenasy.

No one has been able to confirm the interpretation of Weiss and
Aschkenasy. Robert Berkovitz was the first and he showed that their
interpretation could not be correct, Speaking of debacles, the CourtTV
experience was a debacle within a debacle. When Berkovitz could not
confirm the W&A result, Don Thomas thought that Robert Berkovitz made a
mistake. Berkovitz sent Thomas his program. Thomas concluded based on
his running of the Berkovitz's program that Berkovitz made a mistake
when he(Berkovitz) applied a correction factor to the tape. Because
Thomas got a better correlation (still much less than the .77
correlation W&A published) when he did not apply a correction factor, he
jumped to the (false) conclusion that the tape Berkovitz was working
with was one that had already been corrected for tape speed. To make
matters worse, Thomas contacted Michael O'Dell and O'Dell told Thomas
that, yes the tape that Berkovitz used was already tape speed corrected.
This feed Thomas's ego, and reinforced in Thomas that the W&A was right.
All of that is wrong. When one looks at the Thomas correlation(the one
he thinks confirms W&A) it is dead-nuts obvious that his correlation is
wrong.

The second person who analyzed the W&A interpreation was Michael O'Dell
in his paper "Replicationg Weiss and Aschkenay". He did not confirm it,
far from it. O'Dell determined that one needed correction factors of at
least 10% on the tape that Berkovitz used get matches to the echoes that
W&A published in their report. This is obviously contradicts what Thomas
thought he found during the CourtTV. The tape that Thomas thought was
already tape speed corrected, was not.

The key problem for those who believe that shots do exist on the tape is
the W&A interpretation and the cliques refusal to follow the evidence
which contradicts that interpretation.

The evidence is there which points to the truth of what happened in this
case, but the acoustic experts have stopped listening.
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-19 01:25:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by BOZ
https://jfk007.com/1053-2/
The last section re: Don Thomas, is spot on. Thomas, to this day, spreads
his absolute lies regarding what he claims is "crosstalk", knowing fully
well that it isn't crosstalk. It was Micheal o'Dell who convinced Thomas
that he was using inferior copies of the police recordings when Thomas
wrote his peer reviewed paper in 2001. After Michael presented Thomas with
the facts--that the channel two recording was useless as a timing tool to
prove the HSCA's claim that H.B. McLain had the open mic was correct.
(This was nearly twenty years after the Ramsey panel Report in 1982).
   After Michael O'Dell convinced Don Thomas he was wrong, Thomas
conceded.
Apparently, Thomas couldn't admit complete defeat, so, he invented his
"crosstalk" theory, based primarily on the transcript written by James C.
Bowles) DPD Communications Supervisor at the time of the assassination
(See the transcript in Larry Sneed's excellent book "No More Silence").
Thomas was/is wrong, again, and several members of the Ramsey panel
regrouped performed a study on Thomas' conclusions, wrote a detailed
report regarding Thomas' theory, and Micheal O'Dell aided in proving
http://jfk-records.com/ScienceAndJustice_45%284%29_207-226%282005%29.pdf
  I also wrote an article(which was featured in Bugliosi's Reclaiming
History) which you can read here, regarding heterodyne tones (beep tones)
that accompany the speech which Thomas claims is crosstalk on channel 1.
The fact that there are heterodyne tones accompanying the speech that
Thomas says is crosstalk proves that it isn't crosstalk at all.  Which
you
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2007/07/of-crosstalk-and-bells-rebuttal-to-don.html
   To this day, Thomas speaks at JFK conspiracy conferences spreading his
untruth regarding the speech on channel 1 which he claims is crosstalk.
Thomas believes that the "gunshots" are on the channel 1 Dictabelt, but
that there are five--not four gunshots-- and he supports the conclusions
reached by the acoustics experts for the HSCA.
The so called "acoustic experts" have formed a clique. And it is very
hard to penetrate this clique. They are a small group who are hell bent
on pushing through the false theory that the man behind the fence shown
in the Moorman photo (and I think first identified by Josiah Thompson in
his book "Six Seconds In Dallas") fired the shot that we all see
striking the Presdient on Zapruder frame 313. There is not a single
piece of evidence that supports that shot came from the knoll, quite the
contrary, every single piece of evidence we have shows that the shot at
frame 313 could not have been fired by that man at that time.
Their theory is 100% dependent upon the interpretation made by Weiss and
Aschkenasy.
Not exactly. I did my own independent study.
Post by GKnoll
No one has been able to confirm the interpretation of Weiss and
I did.
Post by GKnoll
Aschkenasy. Robert Berkovitz was the first and he showed that their
He's not an acoustical scientist. Neither is Steve Barber. He didn't
even go to college.
Post by GKnoll
interpretation could not be correct, Speaking of debacles, the CourtTV
experience was a debacle within a debacle. When Berkovitz could not
confirm the W&A result, Don Thomas thought that Robert Berkovitz made a
mistake. Berkovitz sent Thomas his program. Thomas concluded based on
his running of the Berkovitz's program that Berkovitz made a mistake
when he(Berkovitz) applied a correction factor to the tape. Because
Thomas got a better correlation (still much less than the .77
correlation W&A published) when he did not apply a correction factor, he
jumped to the (false) conclusion that the tape Berkovitz was working
with was one that had already been corrected for tape speed. To make
matters worse, Thomas contacted Michael O'Dell and O'Dell told Thomas
that, yes the tape that Berkovitz used was already tape speed corrected.
This feed Thomas's ego, and reinforced in Thomas that the W&A was right.
All of that is wrong. When one looks at the Thomas correlation(the one
he thinks confirms W&A) it is dead-nuts obvious that his correlation is
wrong.
The second person who analyzed the W&A interpreation was Michael O'Dell
in his paper "Replicationg Weiss and Aschkenay". He did not confirm it,
far from it. O'Dell determined that one needed correction factors of at
least 10% on the tape that Berkovitz used get matches to the echoes that
W&A published in their report. This is obviously contradicts what Thomas
thought he found during the CourtTV. The tape that Thomas thought was
already tape speed corrected, was not.
Who? Is he the guy who invented "Going to the hospital"?
Post by GKnoll
The key problem for those who believe that shots do exist on the tape is
the W&A interpretation and the cliques refusal to follow the evidence
which contradicts that interpretation.
Such as? False information fed by the cover-up? Lies by the DPD to cover
up their mistakes?
Post by GKnoll
The evidence is there which points to the truth of what happened in this
case, but the acoustic experts have stopped listening.
They offered to do more work and the Justice department said they had no
more wmoney to do any more stories. Seems they had to spend that $50,000
on defending CIA agents accused of torturing babies.
OHLeeRedux
2018-05-19 20:14:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
6:25 PMAnthony Marsh
- show quoted text -
Not exactly. I did my own independent study.



I am literally LOL.

Was that before or after you left school teaching?

[Please respond and keep this going, Anthony, because this is the funniest
damned thing I've seen all year and it can only get better.]
g***@gmail.com
2018-05-19 20:18:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by BOZ
https://jfk007.com/1053-2/
The last section re: Don Thomas, is spot on. Thomas, to this day, spreads
his absolute lies regarding what he claims is "crosstalk", knowing fully
well that it isn't crosstalk. It was Micheal o'Dell who convinced Thomas
that he was using inferior copies of the police recordings when Thomas
wrote his peer reviewed paper in 2001. After Michael presented Thomas with
the facts--that the channel two recording was useless as a timing tool to
prove the HSCA's claim that H.B. McLain had the open mic was correct.
(This was nearly twenty years after the Ramsey panel Report in 1982).
   After Michael O'Dell convinced Don Thomas he was wrong, Thomas
conceded.
Apparently, Thomas couldn't admit complete defeat, so, he invented his
"crosstalk" theory, based primarily on the transcript written by James C.
Bowles) DPD Communications Supervisor at the time of the assassination
(See the transcript in Larry Sneed's excellent book "No More Silence").
Thomas was/is wrong, again, and several members of the Ramsey panel
regrouped performed a study on Thomas' conclusions, wrote a detailed
report regarding Thomas' theory, and Micheal O'Dell aided in proving
http://jfk-records.com/ScienceAndJustice_45%284%29_207-226%282005%29.pdf
  I also wrote an article(which was featured in Bugliosi's Reclaiming
History) which you can read here, regarding heterodyne tones (beep tones)
that accompany the speech which Thomas claims is crosstalk on channel 1.
The fact that there are heterodyne tones accompanying the speech that
Thomas says is crosstalk proves that it isn't crosstalk at all.  Which
you
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2007/07/of-crosstalk-and-bells-rebuttal-to-don.html
   To this day, Thomas speaks at JFK conspiracy conferences spreading his
untruth regarding the speech on channel 1 which he claims is crosstalk.
Thomas believes that the "gunshots" are on the channel 1 Dictabelt, but
that there are five--not four gunshots-- and he supports the conclusions
reached by the acoustics experts for the HSCA.
The so called "acoustic experts" have formed a clique. And it is very
hard to penetrate this clique. They are a small group who are hell bent
on pushing through the false theory that the man behind the fence shown
in the Moorman photo (and I think first identified by Josiah Thompson in
his book "Six Seconds In Dallas") fired the shot that we all see
striking the Presdient on Zapruder frame 313. There is not a single
piece of evidence that supports that shot came from the knoll, quite the
contrary, every single piece of evidence we have shows that the shot at
frame 313 could not have been fired by that man at that time.
Their theory is 100% dependent upon the interpretation made by Weiss and
Aschkenasy.
Not exactly. I did my own independent study.
Post by GKnoll
No one has been able to confirm the interpretation of Weiss and
I did.
No you did not. We have been through this a 100 times. You did not even
look at the knoll shot.

Lets see your results.

You did not publish any results because you could not confirm their work.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
Aschkenasy. Robert Berkovitz was the first and he showed that their
He's not an acoustical scientist. Neither is Steve Barber. He didn't
even go to college.
Marsh, you are living in a dream world.

You are losing what little credibility you might have left...


Here is Robert Berkovitz's resume.

http://www.sens.com/resumes/berkovitz.htm

Education:

University of Illinois, Urbana 1952-1955
History of Art, Philosophy



Professional Experience:

1999 to present Chairman, Sensimetrics Corporation

1987-1998 President, Sensimetrics Corporation

1985-1987 Manager, Audiometer Development Group, Belmont, MA

1985-1987 Consultant, The Dietrich Group, Waltham, MA

1982-1987 Consultant, Bolt Beranek & Newman, Inc.

1974-1982 Director of Research, Teledyne Acoustic Research, Norwood, MA

1970-1974 Head, Advertising and Comm., Dolby Laboratories,
Inc. London, England

1967-1970 Director of Communications, Acoustic Research, Inc.
Cambridge, MA

1966-1967 Education Project Director, American Can Co., New
York, NY

1965-1966 Operations Manager, Mattes Electronics, Inc. Chicago,
IL

1963-1965 Manager, Consumer Product Development, Jensen Mfg.
Co., Chicago, IL

1962-1963 Product Development Manager, Dynaco, Inc. Santa
Monica, CA

1961-1962 Operations Manager, Transis-Tronics, Inc. Santa
Monica, CA

1958-1961 Manager, Product Development, Allied Radio
Corporation, Chicago, IL

1956-1957 Art Director, Encyclopedia Britannica, Chicago, IL

1954-1956 Illustration Editor, Spencer Press, Champion, IL

Publications:

Allison, R. and R. Berkovitz (1970) "The sound field in home listening
rooms." Journal Audio Eng. Soc., 20: 459-469.

Berkovitz, R. McIntosh, D. (1974) "A sixteen-channel digital time delay
system," presented at the 1974 AES Technical

Meeting, Los Angeles.

Berkovitz, R. and B.E. Edvardsen (1976). "Listener sensitivity to phase
shift in music reproduction," presented at the

1976 AES Technical Meeting, New York (AES Preprint No. 1294).

Berkovitz, R. and T. Schultz (1977) "Use of computers in the study of
room acoustics." Journal of the Acoustical

Society of America, 64: 41(S)

Berkovitz, R. (1978) "Loudspeaker measurements weighted by psychoacoustic
modelling." Invited presentation at the

Joint Meeting of the Acoustical Society of Japan and the
Acoustical Society of America (96th Meeting), Journal
of the Acoustical Society of America, 64: I (S)

Berkovtiz, R. and G. Abbott (1981) "Loudspeaker evaluation by biophysical
modelling." Presented at 1981 AES

Technical Meeting, New York, (AES Preprint No. 1711).

Stevens, K.N., R. Berkovitz, G. Kidd, Jr. and D.M. Green (1987) "Calibration
of ear canals for audiometry at high
frequencies." Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
81, (2), 470-484.

Berkovitz, R. (1988) "Control of localization in music recording and
reproduction." Presented at CHABA symposium,

"Sound Localization by Human," National Academy of Sciences,
Washington D.C. October 1988.

Berkovitz, R. and K.N. Stevens (1988) "Experimental assessment of a method
for calibration of ear canals at high

frequencies." Presented by joint Meeting of the Acoustical
Society of America and the Acoustical Society of
Japan, Honolulu, 1988.



Patents

US 3,718,773 (1970) Four channel recording and reproducing
system. (Quadraphonics Corp.).

US 3,949,325 (1974) Audio Equalizer for large rooms (Dolby
Laboratories, Inc.)

US 4,039,755 (1976) Auditorium simulator economics on delay
bandwidth. (Acoustic Research, Inc.)

US 4,074,083 (1975) Stereophonic sound system particularly
useful in a cinema. (Dolby Laboratories, Inc.)

US 4,105,864 (1976) Stereo and spaciousness reverberation
system using random access memory. (Acoustic

Research, Inc.)

US 4,130,726 (1977) Loudspeaker system equalization. (Acoustic
Research, Inc.)

UK 1,546,122 (1976) Difference test equalizer based on subjective
spectral comparison. (Acoustic Research, Inc.)

US 4,458,362 (1982) Automatic time-domain equalization of
audio signals. (Acoustic Research, Inc.)
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
interpretation could not be correct, Speaking of debacles, the CourtTV
experience was a debacle within a debacle. When Berkovitz could not
confirm the W&A result, Don Thomas thought that Robert Berkovitz made a
mistake. Berkovitz sent Thomas his program. Thomas concluded based on
his running of the Berkovitz's program that Berkovitz made a mistake
when he(Berkovitz) applied a correction factor to the tape. Because
Thomas got a better correlation (still much less than the .77
correlation W&A published) when he did not apply a correction factor, he
jumped to the (false) conclusion that the tape Berkovitz was working
with was one that had already been corrected for tape speed. To make
matters worse, Thomas contacted Michael O'Dell and O'Dell told Thomas
that, yes the tape that Berkovitz used was already tape speed corrected.
This feed Thomas's ego, and reinforced in Thomas that the W&A was right.
All of that is wrong. When one looks at the Thomas correlation(the one
he thinks confirms W&A) it is dead-nuts obvious that his correlation is
wrong.
The second person who analyzed the W&A interpreation was Michael O'Dell
in his paper "Replicationg Weiss and Aschkenay". He did not confirm it,
far from it. O'Dell determined that one needed correction factors of at
least 10% on the tape that Berkovitz used get matches to the echoes that
W&A published in their report. This is obviously contradicts what Thomas
thought he found during the CourtTV. The tape that Thomas thought was
already tape speed corrected, was not.
Who? Is he the guy who invented "Going to the hospital"?
Post by GKnoll
The key problem for those who believe that shots do exist on the tape is
the W&A interpretation and the cliques refusal to follow the evidence
which contradicts that interpretation.
Such as? False information fed by the cover-up? Lies by the DPD to cover
up their mistakes?
How is what they did any different from what you are doing?

You said you confimed W&A's work, and you didn't.

You said Robert Berkovitz was not a acoustic's expert and he was.

And I am not really sure what you are trying to say about Michael ODell.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
The evidence is there which points to the truth of what happened in this
case, but the acoustic experts have stopped listening.
They offered to do more work and the Justice department said they had no
more wmoney to do any more stories. Seems they had to spend that $50,000
on defending CIA agents accused of torturing babies.
You are just proving my case Marsh.
g***@gmail.com
2018-05-19 20:19:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by BOZ
https://jfk007.com/1053-2/
The last section re: Don Thomas, is spot on. Thomas, to this day, spreads
his absolute lies regarding what he claims is "crosstalk", knowing fully
well that it isn't crosstalk. It was Micheal o'Dell who convinced Thomas
that he was using inferior copies of the police recordings when Thomas
wrote his peer reviewed paper in 2001. After Michael presented Thomas with
the facts--that the channel two recording was useless as a timing tool to
prove the HSCA's claim that H.B. McLain had the open mic was correct.
(This was nearly twenty years after the Ramsey panel Report in 1982).
   After Michael O'Dell convinced Don Thomas he was wrong, Thomas
conceded.
Apparently, Thomas couldn't admit complete defeat, so, he invented his
"crosstalk" theory, based primarily on the transcript written by James C.
Bowles) DPD Communications Supervisor at the time of the assassination
(See the transcript in Larry Sneed's excellent book "No More Silence").
Thomas was/is wrong, again, and several members of the Ramsey panel
regrouped performed a study on Thomas' conclusions, wrote a detailed
report regarding Thomas' theory, and Micheal O'Dell aided in proving
http://jfk-records.com/ScienceAndJustice_45%284%29_207-226%282005%29.pdf
  I also wrote an article(which was featured in Bugliosi's Reclaiming
History) which you can read here, regarding heterodyne tones (beep tones)
that accompany the speech which Thomas claims is crosstalk on channel 1.
The fact that there are heterodyne tones accompanying the speech that
Thomas says is crosstalk proves that it isn't crosstalk at all.  Which
you
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2007/07/of-crosstalk-and-bells-rebuttal-to-don.html
   To this day, Thomas speaks at JFK conspiracy conferences spreading his
untruth regarding the speech on channel 1 which he claims is crosstalk.
Thomas believes that the "gunshots" are on the channel 1 Dictabelt, but
that there are five--not four gunshots-- and he supports the conclusions
reached by the acoustics experts for the HSCA.
The so called "acoustic experts" have formed a clique. And it is very
hard to penetrate this clique. They are a small group who are hell bent
on pushing through the false theory that the man behind the fence shown
in the Moorman photo (and I think first identified by Josiah Thompson in
his book "Six Seconds In Dallas") fired the shot that we all see
striking the Presdient on Zapruder frame 313. There is not a single
piece of evidence that supports that shot came from the knoll, quite the
contrary, every single piece of evidence we have shows that the shot at
frame 313 could not have been fired by that man at that time.
Their theory is 100% dependent upon the interpretation made by Weiss and
Aschkenasy.
Not exactly. I did my own independent study.
Post by GKnoll
No one has been able to confirm the interpretation of Weiss and
I did.
Post by GKnoll
Aschkenasy. Robert Berkovitz was the first and he showed that their
He's not an acoustical scientist. Neither is Steve Barber. He didn't
even go to college.
You do realize that Robert Berkovitz worked for BBN , don't you?

Resume of Robert Berkovitz

Education:

University of Illinois, Urbana 1952-1955 History of Art, Philosophy



Professional Experience:

1999 to present Chairman, Sensimetrics Corporation

1987-1998 President, Sensimetrics Corporation

1985-1987 Manager, Audiometer Development Group, Belmont, MA

1985-1987 Consultant, The Dietrich Group, Waltham, MA

1982-1987 Consultant, Bolt Beranek & Newman, Inc.

1974-1982 Director of Research, Teledyne Acoustic Research, Norwood, MA

1970-1974 Head, Advertising and Comm., Dolby Laboratories, Inc. London, England

1967-1970 Director of Communications, Acoustic Research, Inc. Cambridge, MA

1966-1967 Education Project Director, American Can Co., New York, NY

1965-1966 Operations Manager, Mattes Electronics, Inc. Chicago, IL

1963-1965 Manager, Consumer Product Development, Jensen Mfg. Co., Chicago, IL

1962-1963 Product Development Manager, Dynaco, Inc. Santa Monica, CA

1961-1962 Operations Manager, Transis-Tronics, Inc. Santa Monica, CA

1958-1961 Manager, Product Development, Allied Radio Corporation, Chicago, IL

1956-1957 Art Director, Encyclopedia Britannica, Chicago, IL

1954-1956 Illustration Editor, Spencer Press, Champion, IL



Publications:

Allison, R. and R. Berkovitz (1970) "The sound field in home listening rooms." Journal Audio Eng. Soc., 20: 459-469.

Berkovitz, R. McIntosh, D. (1974) "A sixteen-channel digital time delay system," presented at the 1974 AES Technical

Meeting, Los Angeles.

Berkovitz, R. and B.E. Edvardsen (1976). "Listener sensitivity to phase shift in music reproduction," presented at the

1976 AES Technical Meeting, New York (AES Preprint No. 1294).

Berkovitz, R. and T. Schultz (1977) "Use of computers in the study of room acoustics." Journal of the Acoustical

Society of America, 64: 41(S)

Berkovitz, R. (1978) "Loudspeaker measurements weighted by psychoacoustic modelling." Invited presentation at the

Joint Meeting of the Acoustical Society of Japan and the Acoustical Society of America (96th Meeting), Journal

of the Acoustical Society of America, 64: I (S)

Berkovtiz, R. and G. Abbott (1981) "Loudspeaker evaluation by biophysical modelling." Presented at 1981 AES

Technical Meeting, New York, (AES Preprint No. 1711).

Stevens, K.N., R. Berkovitz, G. Kidd, Jr. and D.M. Green (1987) "Calibration of ear canals for audiometry at high

frequencies." Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 81, (2), 470-484.

Berkovitz, R. (1988) "Control of localization in music recording and reproduction." Presented at CHABA symposium,

"Sound Localization by Human," National Academy of Sciences, Washington D.C. October 1988.

Berkovitz, R. and K.N. Stevens (1988) "Experimental assessment of a method for calibration of ear canals at high

frequencies." Presented by joint Meeting of the Acoustical Society of America and the Acoustical Society of

Japan, Honolulu, 1988.



Patents

US 3,718,773 (1970) Four channel recording and reproducing system. (Quadraphonics Corp.).

US 3,949,325 (1974) Audio Equalizer for large rooms (Dolby Laboratories, Inc.)

US 4,039,755 (1976) Auditorium simulator economics on delay bandwidth. (Acoustic Research, Inc.)

US 4,074,083 (1975) Stereophonic sound system particularly useful in a cinema. (Dolby Laboratories, Inc.)

US 4,105,864 (1976) Stereo and spaciousness reverberation system using random access memory. (Acoustic

Research, Inc.)

US 4,130,726 (1977) Loudspeaker system equalization. (Acoustic Research, Inc.)

UK 1,546,122 (1976) Difference test equalizer based on subjective spectral comparison. (Acoustic Research, Inc.)

US 4,458,362 (1982) Automatic time-domain equalization of audio signals. (Acoustic Research, Inc.)
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
interpretation could not be correct, Speaking of debacles, the CourtTV
experience was a debacle within a debacle. When Berkovitz could not
confirm the W&A result, Don Thomas thought that Robert Berkovitz made a
mistake. Berkovitz sent Thomas his program. Thomas concluded based on
his running of the Berkovitz's program that Berkovitz made a mistake
when he(Berkovitz) applied a correction factor to the tape. Because
Thomas got a better correlation (still much less than the .77
correlation W&A published) when he did not apply a correction factor, he
jumped to the (false) conclusion that the tape Berkovitz was working
with was one that had already been corrected for tape speed. To make
matters worse, Thomas contacted Michael O'Dell and O'Dell told Thomas
that, yes the tape that Berkovitz used was already tape speed corrected.
This feed Thomas's ego, and reinforced in Thomas that the W&A was right.
All of that is wrong. When one looks at the Thomas correlation(the one
he thinks confirms W&A) it is dead-nuts obvious that his correlation is
wrong.
The second person who analyzed the W&A interpreation was Michael O'Dell
in his paper "Replicationg Weiss and Aschkenay". He did not confirm it,
far from it. O'Dell determined that one needed correction factors of at
least 10% on the tape that Berkovitz used get matches to the echoes that
W&A published in their report. This is obviously contradicts what Thomas
thought he found during the CourtTV. The tape that Thomas thought was
already tape speed corrected, was not.
Who? Is he the guy who invented "Going to the hospital"?
Post by GKnoll
The key problem for those who believe that shots do exist on the tape is
the W&A interpretation and the cliques refusal to follow the evidence
which contradicts that interpretation.
Such as? False information fed by the cover-up? Lies by the DPD to cover
up their mistakes?
Post by GKnoll
The evidence is there which points to the truth of what happened in this
case, but the acoustic experts have stopped listening.
They offered to do more work and the Justice department said they had no
more wmoney to do any more stories. Seems they had to spend that $50,000
on defending CIA agents accused of torturing babies.
odellm
2018-05-20 01:38:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by BOZ
https://jfk007.com/1053-2/
The last section re: Don Thomas, is spot on. Thomas, to this day, spreads
his absolute lies regarding what he claims is "crosstalk", knowing fully
well that it isn't crosstalk. It was Micheal o'Dell who convinced Thomas
that he was using inferior copies of the police recordings when Thomas
wrote his peer reviewed paper in 2001. After Michael presented Thomas with
the facts--that the channel two recording was useless as a timing tool to
prove the HSCA's claim that H.B. McLain had the open mic was correct.
(This was nearly twenty years after the Ramsey panel Report in 1982).
After Michael O'Dell convinced Don Thomas he was wrong, Thomas conceded.
Apparently, Thomas couldn't admit complete defeat, so, he invented his
"crosstalk" theory, based primarily on the transcript written by James C.
Bowles) DPD Communications Supervisor at the time of the assassination
(See the transcript in Larry Sneed's excellent book "No More Silence").
Thomas was/is wrong, again, and several members of the Ramsey panel
regrouped performed a study on Thomas' conclusions, wrote a detailed
report regarding Thomas' theory, and Micheal O'Dell aided in proving
http://jfk-records.com/ScienceAndJustice_45%284%29_207-226%282005%29.pdf
I also wrote an article(which was featured in Bugliosi's Reclaiming
History) which you can read here, regarding heterodyne tones (beep tones)
that accompany the speech which Thomas claims is crosstalk on channel 1.
The fact that there are heterodyne tones accompanying the speech that
Thomas says is crosstalk proves that it isn't crosstalk at all. Which you
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2007/07/of-crosstalk-and-bells-rebuttal-to-don.html
To this day, Thomas speaks at JFK conspiracy conferences spreading his
untruth regarding the speech on channel 1 which he claims is crosstalk.
Thomas believes that the "gunshots" are on the channel 1 Dictabelt, but
that there are five--not four gunshots-- and he supports the conclusions
reached by the acoustics experts for the HSCA.
The so called "acoustic experts" have formed a clique. And it is very
So who do you think is in this clique?
Post by GKnoll
hard to penetrate this clique. They are a small group who are hell bent
on pushing through the false theory that the man behind the fence shown
in the Moorman photo (and I think first identified by Josiah Thompson in
his book "Six Seconds In Dallas") fired the shot that we all see
striking the Presdient on Zapruder frame 313. There is not a single
piece of evidence that supports that shot came from the knoll, quite the
contrary, every single piece of evidence we have shows that the shot at
frame 313 could not have been fired by that man at that time.
Their theory is 100% dependent upon the interpretation made by Weiss and
Aschkenasy.
No one has been able to confirm the interpretation of Weiss and
Aschkenasy. Robert Berkovitz was the first and he showed that their
interpretation could not be correct, Speaking of debacles, the CourtTV
experience was a debacle within a debacle. When Berkovitz could not
confirm the W&A result, Don Thomas thought that Robert Berkovitz made a
mistake. Berkovitz sent Thomas his program. Thomas concluded based on
his running of the Berkovitz's program that Berkovitz made a mistake
when he(Berkovitz) applied a correction factor to the tape. Because
Thomas got a better correlation (still much less than the .77
correlation W&A published) when he did not apply a correction factor, he
jumped to the (false) conclusion that the tape Berkovitz was working
with was one that had already been corrected for tape speed. To make
matters worse, Thomas contacted Michael O'Dell and O'Dell told Thomas
that, yes the tape that Berkovitz used was already tape speed corrected.
This feed Thomas's ego, and reinforced in Thomas that the W&A was right.
All of that is wrong. When one looks at the Thomas correlation(the one
he thinks confirms W&A) it is dead-nuts obvious that his correlation is
wrong.
Why do you do this? You're writing as if you know about things you can't
possibly know. You don't know what private communications took place
there, or what was happening on Thomas' head. Naturally, it's not
correct.
Post by GKnoll
The second person who analyzed the W&A interpreation was Michael O'Dell
in his paper "Replicationg Weiss and Aschkenay". He did not confirm it,
far from it. O'Dell determined that one needed correction factors of at
least 10% on the tape that Berkovitz used get matches to the echoes that
I did no such thing. There is no statement even close to that in my
article, and there's nothing in it that could be reasonably inferred to
mean it. Correction factor of at least 10%? You made that up, it didn't
come from me.

Michael
John McAdams
2018-05-20 01:57:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Post by BOZ
https://jfk007.com/1053-2/
Why do you do this? You're writing as if you know about things you can't
possibly know. You don't know what private communications took place
there, or what was happening on Thomas' head. Naturally, it's not
correct.
Post by GKnoll
The second person who analyzed the W&A interpreation was Michael O'Dell
in his paper "Replicationg Weiss and Aschkenay". He did not confirm it,
far from it. O'Dell determined that one needed correction factors of at
least 10% on the tape that Berkovitz used get matches to the echoes that
I did no such thing. There is no statement even close to that in my
article, and there's nothing in it that could be reasonably inferred to
mean it. Correction factor of at least 10%? You made that up, it didn't
come from me.
Your post reminds me of this (with Gknoll being the Columbia
professor):



.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-21 14:59:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Post by BOZ
https://jfk007.com/1053-2/
Why do you do this? You're writing as if you know about things you can't
possibly know. You don't know what private communications took place
there, or what was happening on Thomas' head. Naturally, it's not
correct.
Post by GKnoll
The second person who analyzed the W&A interpreation was Michael O'Dell
in his paper "Replicationg Weiss and Aschkenay". He did not confirm it,
far from it. O'Dell determined that one needed correction factors of at
least 10% on the tape that Berkovitz used get matches to the echoes that
I did no such thing. There is no statement even close to that in my
article, and there's nothing in it that could be reasonably inferred to
mean it. Correction factor of at least 10%? You made that up, it didn't
come from me.
Your post reminds me of this (with Gknoll being the Columbia
http://youtu.be/sXJ8tKRlW3E
.John
Why do you allow your minions to argue with each other? Be careful, they
might accidentally tell the truth some time. You need to do a better job
of corralling them.
Post by John McAdams
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
OHLeeRedux
2018-05-22 02:17:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Post by BOZ
https://jfk007.com/1053-2/
Why do you do this? You're writing as if you know about things you can't
possibly know. You don't know what private communications took place
there, or what was happening on Thomas' head. Naturally, it's not
correct.
Post by GKnoll
The second person who analyzed the W&A interpreation was Michael O'Dell
in his paper "Replicationg Weiss and Aschkenay". He did not confirm it,
far from it. O'Dell determined that one needed correction factors of at
least 10% on the tape that Berkovitz used get matches to the echoes that
I did no such thing. There is no statement even close to that in my
article, and there's nothing in it that could be reasonably inferred to
mean it. Correction factor of at least 10%? You made that up, it didn't
come from me.
Your post reminds me of this (with Gknoll being the Columbia
http://youtu.be/sXJ8tKRlW3E
.John
Why do you allow your minions to argue with each other? Be careful, they
might accidentally tell the truth some time. You need to do a better job
of corralling them.
WITCH HUNT

You need to get a Twitter account, Anthony. Then you could be just like
your hero, President Trump.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
odellm
2018-05-21 20:23:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Post by BOZ
https://jfk007.com/1053-2/
Why do you do this? You're writing as if you know about things you can't
possibly know. You don't know what private communications took place
there, or what was happening on Thomas' head. Naturally, it's not
correct.
Post by GKnoll
The second person who analyzed the W&A interpreation was Michael O'Dell
in his paper "Replicationg Weiss and Aschkenay". He did not confirm it,
far from it. O'Dell determined that one needed correction factors of at
least 10% on the tape that Berkovitz used get matches to the echoes that
I did no such thing. There is no statement even close to that in my
article, and there's nothing in it that could be reasonably inferred to
mean it. Correction factor of at least 10%? You made that up, it didn't
come from me.
Your post reminds me of this (with Gknoll being the Columbia
http://youtu.be/sXJ8tKRlW3E
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
That guy is sooooo annoying.
GKnoll
2018-05-22 22:32:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by odellm
Post by John McAdams
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Post by BOZ
https://jfk007.com/1053-2/
Why do you do this? You're writing as if you know about things you can't
possibly know. You don't know what private communications took place
there, or what was happening on Thomas' head. Naturally, it's not
correct.
Post by GKnoll
The second person who analyzed the W&A interpreation was Michael O'Dell
in his paper "Replicationg Weiss and Aschkenay". He did not confirm it,
far from it. O'Dell determined that one needed correction factors of at
least 10% on the tape that Berkovitz used get matches to the echoes that
I did no such thing. There is no statement even close to that in my
article, and there's nothing in it that could be reasonably inferred to
mean it. Correction factor of at least 10%? You made that up, it didn't
come from me.
Your post reminds me of this (with Gknoll being the Columbia
http://youtu.be/sXJ8tKRlW3E
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
That guy is sooooo annoying.
I am annoying because I know where you made your mistakes and I am
waiting for you to admit them.
odellm
2018-05-23 03:18:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Post by John McAdams
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Post by BOZ
https://jfk007.com/1053-2/
Why do you do this? You're writing as if you know about things you can't
possibly know. You don't know what private communications took place
there, or what was happening on Thomas' head. Naturally, it's not
correct.
Post by GKnoll
The second person who analyzed the W&A interpreation was Michael O'Dell
in his paper "Replicationg Weiss and Aschkenay". He did not confirm it,
far from it. O'Dell determined that one needed correction factors of at
least 10% on the tape that Berkovitz used get matches to the echoes that
I did no such thing. There is no statement even close to that in my
article, and there's nothing in it that could be reasonably inferred to
mean it. Correction factor of at least 10%? You made that up, it didn't
come from me.
Your post reminds me of this (with Gknoll being the Columbia
http://youtu.be/sXJ8tKRlW3E
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
That guy is sooooo annoying.
I am annoying because I know where you made your mistakes and I am
waiting for you to admit them.
Yeah, that must be it. :-)

Michael
GKnoll
2018-05-24 14:32:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Post by John McAdams
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Post by BOZ
https://jfk007.com/1053-2/
Why do you do this? You're writing as if you know about things you can't
possibly know. You don't know what private communications took place
there, or what was happening on Thomas' head. Naturally, it's not
correct.
Post by GKnoll
The second person who analyzed the W&A interpreation was Michael O'Dell
in his paper "Replicationg Weiss and Aschkenay". He did not confirm it,
far from it. O'Dell determined that one needed correction factors of at
least 10% on the tape that Berkovitz used get matches to the echoes that
I did no such thing. There is no statement even close to that in my
article, and there's nothing in it that could be reasonably inferred to
mean it. Correction factor of at least 10%? You made that up, it didn't
come from me.
Your post reminds me of this (with Gknoll being the Columbia
http://youtu.be/sXJ8tKRlW3E
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
That guy is sooooo annoying.
I am annoying because I know where you made your mistakes and I am
waiting for you to admit them.
Yeah, that must be it. :-)
Michael
Lets focus on something that you do freely admit, that you did confirm
to Don Thomas that the tape that Berkovitz used was made from a playback
made by the FBI and NRC in 1982 with the 60 Hz speed correction built in.

It is very easy to show that is also not the case, in other words,the
tape used by Berkovitz was not speed corrected by the FBI and did not
come from a speed corrected version.

The tape that Robert Berkovitz used DID NOT and COULD NOT have been made
from the FBI NRC playback.

According to Don Thomas, you confirmed that the tape used by Robert
Berkovitz during the Court-TV program was a playback made by the FBI for
the NRC, which the FBI corrected for speed. However, it is easy to show
that this is not case as well.

Here again is Don' quote, but I am putting the emphasis on the NRC playback

https://photos.app.goo.gl/tMKpw4x7kUYvWxap8

[quote]

It turned out that the playback used by Sensimetrics was not the Dallas
police recording from 1963, BUT A PLAYBACK MADE BY THE FBI AND NRC PANEL
WITH 60 Hz SPEED CORRECTION BUILT IN. Without any correction for speed,
the Sensimetrics program demonstrated that the test shot and the suspect
pattern do match. Just to be sure, I notified my colleague Michael O'Dell
WHO CONFIRMED THAT THE RECORDING WAS THE 1982 NRC PLAYBACK and that the
patterns do match. Anyone, can download the Sensimetrics program from the
Court-TV website and confirm the match for oneself. Just set the speed
adjustment to the zero setting.

[end quote]

According to what Don Thomas said, both you and Don think the tape
Berkovitz used was from the FBI speed corrected version. That is not
correct. And here is why...

The tape that Berkovitz used was the one that BBN had made from the
original Dictabelt recording AND TO WHICH BBN APPLIED AN ADAPTIVE FILTER
AS WELL AS A 1 KHz to 3.2 KHz BANDPASS FILTER.

Anyone who knows what they are looking at, can readily tell that the
tape is the BBN filtered version.

And here is the kicker...

ACCORDING TO BBN, THE FILTERS REMOVED THE HUM.

Here is what BBN said about that

[BBN quote]

The adaptive filtering algorithm, when applied to the entire 5-minute
segment of transmission, was not so effective . Figures 6 and 7 show the
effect of filtering the waveform from 130 to 150 sec (overlapping the
period for which the unprocessed waveform is shown in Fig . 4) . THE
ADAPTIVE FILTERING REMOVED HUM AND SOME LOW-FREQUENCY NOISE COMPONENTS.,
but the overall effect was not dramatic .

[end BBN quote]

It is easy to see from looking at the tape Berkovitz used, that there is
much less noise than on the FBI tape.

The FBI could not have used the "Berkovitz" tape to time correct the
file using the 60 Hz hum, because the original hum had been removed from
that tape. The FBI used an unfiltered version to attempt to correct the
speed using the 60 Hz hum.

And this is consistent with what the "NRC Repository for Audio Files of
the JFK Assassination" tells us, ie the FBI playback was made using the
original Dictabelt recording.

Link to NRC Repository for Audio Files
https://www.nap.edu/resource/JFK_audio/

Finally, here is what Robert Berkovitz said in his report

[robert berkovitz quote]

Three different copies of the Channel 1 recording were available to us
in our work....

???HSC??? shows part of the waveform from a copy of the recording used by
BBN and WA and subsequently examined by the NAS committee. We digitized
the waveform from the analog tape and concluded, after comparing our
computer screen displays to the illustrations in the BBN and WA reports,
that the NAS copy was essentially identical to the recording depicted by
BBN and WA, showing the effects of the digital filtering they had applied
to the DPD original.

???DPD??? is from a copy of the recording made by James Bowles of the Dallas
Police Department.

???FBI??? is from the copy of the Channel 1 recording made by the F.B.I.
during the NAS review. This copy exhibits significant defects not
present in the other two recordings.

The distinctive appearance and sound of the HSC recording can be
attributed at least in part to the digital filtering applied to the
recording before analysis.

The recorded outputs from both filters for the full 5 minutes were
compared, examined, and plotted on a scale where 5 in. equals 1/10 sec. ???

One filter was an adaptive filter, whose function is described in the
BBN report.

One property of periodic components is that, given sufficient past
history, they can be predicted; indeed, a perfectly periodic signal can
be predicted perfectly. The filter ???learns??? from the past history of the
signal, estimates the signal for the next time period, and subtracts its
estimate from the input. What is left are those portions of the signal
that the filter cannot estimate, i.e., the random components.

[end Berkovitz quote]

Why do I call it a clique? Because none of you, not you, not Barber, not
Marsh and not Thomas will admit it when you are wrong about something,
even when you are OBVIOUSLY wrong about something.
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-25 14:23:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GKnoll
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Post by John McAdams
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Post by BOZ
https://jfk007.com/1053-2/
Why do you do this?  You're writing as if you know about things
you can't
possibly know.  You don't know what private communications took place
there, or what was happening on Thomas' head.  Naturally, it's not
correct.
Post by GKnoll
The second person who analyzed the W&A interpreation was Michael O'Dell
in his paper "Replicationg Weiss and Aschkenay". He did not confirm it,
far from it. O'Dell determined that one needed correction factors of at
least 10% on the tape that Berkovitz used get matches to the echoes that
I did no such thing.  There is no statement even close to that in my
article, and there's nothing in it that could be reasonably inferred to
mean it.  Correction factor of at least 10%?  You made that up, it
didn't
come from me.
Your post reminds me of this (with Gknoll being the Columbia
http://youtu.be/sXJ8tKRlW3E
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
That guy is sooooo annoying.
I am annoying because I know where you made your mistakes and I am
waiting for you to admit them.
Yeah, that must be it.  :-)
Michael
Lets focus on something that you do freely admit, that you did confirm
to Don Thomas that the tape that Berkovitz used was made from a playback
made by the FBI and NRC in 1982 with the 60 Hz speed correction built in.
It is very easy to show that is also not the case, in other words,the
tape used by Berkovitz was not speed corrected by the FBI and did not
come from a speed corrected version.
The tape that Robert Berkovitz used DID NOT and COULD NOT have been made
from the FBI NRC playback.
According to Don Thomas, you confirmed that the tape used by Robert
Berkovitz during the Court-TV program was a playback made by the FBI for
the NRC, which the FBI corrected for speed. However, it is easy to show
that this is not case as well.
Here again is Don' quote, but I am putting the emphasis on the NRC playback
https://photos.app.goo.gl/tMKpw4x7kUYvWxap8
[quote]
It turned out that the playback used by Sensimetrics was not the Dallas
police recording from 1963, BUT A PLAYBACK MADE BY THE FBI AND NRC PANEL
WITH 60 Hz SPEED CORRECTION BUILT IN. Without any correction for speed,
the Sensimetrics program demonstrated that the test shot and the suspect
pattern do match. Just to be sure, I notified my colleague Michael
O'Dell WHO CONFIRMED THAT THE RECORDING WAS THE 1982 NRC PLAYBACK and
that the patterns do match. Anyone, can download the Sensimetrics
program from the Court-TV website and confirm the match for oneself.
Just set the speed adjustment to the zero setting.
[end quote]
According to what Don Thomas said, both you and Don think the tape
Berkovitz used was from the FBI speed corrected version. That is not
correct. And here is why...
The tape that Berkovitz used was the one that BBN had made from the
original Dictabelt recording AND TO WHICH BBN APPLIED AN ADAPTIVE FILTER
AS WELL AS A 1 KHz to 3.2 KHz BANDPASS FILTER.
Anyone who knows what they are looking at, can readily tell that the
tape is the BBN filtered version.
And here is the kicker...
ACCORDING TO BBN, THE FILTERS REMOVED THE HUM.
Here is what BBN said about that
[BBN quote]
The adaptive filtering algorithm, when applied to the entire 5-minute
segment of transmission, was not so effective . Figures 6 and 7 show the
effect of filtering the waveform from 130 to 150 sec (overlapping the
period for which the unprocessed waveform is shown in Fig . 4) . THE
ADAPTIVE FILTERING REMOVED HUM AND SOME LOW-FREQUENCY NOISE COMPONENTS.,
but the overall effect was not dramatic .
[end BBN quote]
It is easy to see from looking at the tape Berkovitz used, that there is
much less noise than on the FBI tape.
The FBI could not have used the "Berkovitz" tape to time correct the
file using the 60 Hz hum, because the original hum had been removed from
that tape. The FBI used an unfiltered version to attempt to correct the
speed using the 60 Hz hum.
And this is consistent with what the "NRC Repository for Audio Files of
the JFK Assassination" tells us, ie the FBI playback was made using the
original Dictabelt recording.
Link to NRC Repository for Audio Files
https://www.nap.edu/resource/JFK_audio/
Finally, here is what Robert Berkovitz said in his report
[robert berkovitz quote]
Three different copies of the Channel 1 recording were available to us
in our work....
???HSC??? shows part of the waveform from a copy of the recording used
by BBN and WA and subsequently examined by the NAS committee.  We
digitized the waveform from the analog tape and concluded, after
comparing our computer screen displays to the illustrations in the BBN
and WA reports, that the NAS copy was essentially identical to the
recording depicted by BBN and WA, showing the effects of the digital
filtering they had applied to the DPD original.
???DPD??? is from a copy of the recording made by James Bowles of the
Dallas Police Department.
???FBI??? is from the copy of the Channel 1 recording made by the F.B.I.
during the NAS review.  This copy exhibits significant defects not
present in the other two recordings.
The distinctive appearance and sound of the HSC recording can be
attributed at least in part to the digital filtering applied to the
recording before analysis.
The recorded outputs from both filters for the full 5 minutes were
compared, examined, and plotted on a scale where 5 in. equals 1/10 sec. ???
One filter was an adaptive filter, whose function is described in the
BBN report.
One property of periodic components is that, given sufficient past
history, they can be predicted; indeed, a perfectly periodic signal can
be predicted perfectly. The filter ???learns??? from the past history of
the signal, estimates the signal for the next time period, and subtracts
its estimate from the input.  What is left are those portions of the
signal that the filter cannot estimate, i.e., the random components.
[end Berkovitz quote]
Why do I call it a clique? Because none of you, not you, not Barber, not
Marsh and not Thomas will admit it when you are wrong about something,
even when you are OBVIOUSLY wrong about something.
You are not allowed to attack your fellow minions.
odellm
2018-05-25 18:37:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Post by John McAdams
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Post by BOZ
https://jfk007.com/1053-2/
Why do you do this? You're writing as if you know about things you can't
possibly know. You don't know what private communications took place
there, or what was happening on Thomas' head. Naturally, it's not
correct.
Post by GKnoll
The second person who analyzed the W&A interpreation was Michael O'Dell
in his paper "Replicationg Weiss and Aschkenay". He did not confirm it,
far from it. O'Dell determined that one needed correction factors of at
least 10% on the tape that Berkovitz used get matches to the echoes that
I did no such thing. There is no statement even close to that in my
article, and there's nothing in it that could be reasonably inferred to
mean it. Correction factor of at least 10%? You made that up, it didn't
come from me.
Your post reminds me of this (with Gknoll being the Columbia
http://youtu.be/sXJ8tKRlW3E
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
That guy is sooooo annoying.
I am annoying because I know where you made your mistakes and I am
waiting for you to admit them.
Yeah, that must be it. :-)
Michael
Lets focus on something that you do freely admit, that you did confirm
to Don Thomas that the tape that Berkovitz used was made from a playback
made by the FBI and NRC in 1982 with the 60 Hz speed correction built in.
No. That the speed is the same as the FBI playback. I don't care if the
copy actually came from that source. Only the speed is the issue.

Just for you, I'm going to partially quote the email I wrote to Berkovitz.

"Don wrote me a couple of weeks ago and said that he found a signficant
match to the W&A pattern by using a speed correction factor of 1.0 instead
of 0.95. I checked his claim and confirmed that a speed correction of 1.0
produces a correlation coefficient of 0.4193. Of course that raises the
question of whether 1.0 is a proper value to use so I checked the HSC.WAV
clip and compared it to the recordings we have. I found that it precisely
matches the playback speed of the 1981 FBI produced copy of the dictabelt,
which was already speed corrected, so it appears 1.0 would be the right
value."

Note two things, both of which I've said and with which you've told me I'm
wrong.

One, I never said that 1.0 is the right speed because of the correlation.
I said that with 1.0 you get that correlation, but the reason 1.0 is right
is something else.

Two, the something else is that 1.0 matches the speed of the speed
corrected FBI dictabelt. Not that it comes from that copy, just that it
matches the same speed.

That's right from the email I wrote in Dec. 2003 when I first explained the
issue to Berkovitz.

It really doesn't matter how you want to interpret the words in Don's
book, or what he actually wrote. What I've told you is what happened.
Post by GKnoll
It is very easy to show that is also not the case, in other words,the
tape used by Berkovitz was not speed corrected by the FBI and did not
come from a speed corrected version.
The tape that Robert Berkovitz used DID NOT and COULD NOT have been made
from the FBI NRC playback.
According to Don Thomas, you confirmed that the tape used by Robert
Berkovitz during the Court-TV program was a playback made by the FBI for
the NRC, which the FBI corrected for speed. However, it is easy to show
that this is not case as well.
Here again is Don' quote, but I am putting the emphasis on the NRC playback
https://photos.app.goo.gl/tMKpw4x7kUYvWxap8
[quote]
It turned out that the playback used by Sensimetrics was not the Dallas
police recording from 1963, BUT A PLAYBACK MADE BY THE FBI AND NRC PANEL
WITH 60 Hz SPEED CORRECTION BUILT IN. Without any correction for speed,
the Sensimetrics program demonstrated that the test shot and the suspect
pattern do match. Just to be sure, I notified my colleague Michael O'Dell
WHO CONFIRMED THAT THE RECORDING WAS THE 1982 NRC PLAYBACK and that the
patterns do match. Anyone, can download the Sensimetrics program from the
Court-TV website and confirm the match for oneself. Just set the speed
adjustment to the zero setting.
[end quote]
According to what Don Thomas said, both you and Don think the tape
Berkovitz used was from the FBI speed corrected version. That is not
correct. And here is why...
The tape that Berkovitz used was the one that BBN had made from the
original Dictabelt recording AND TO WHICH BBN APPLIED AN ADAPTIVE FILTER
AS WELL AS A 1 KHz to 3.2 KHz BANDPASS FILTER.
Anyone who knows what they are looking at, can readily tell that the
tape is the BBN filtered version.
And here is the kicker...
ACCORDING TO BBN, THE FILTERS REMOVED THE HUM.
Here is what BBN said about that
[BBN quote]
The adaptive filtering algorithm, when applied to the entire 5-minute
segment of transmission, was not so effective . Figures 6 and 7 show the
effect of filtering the waveform from 130 to 150 sec (overlapping the
period for which the unprocessed waveform is shown in Fig . 4) . THE
ADAPTIVE FILTERING REMOVED HUM AND SOME LOW-FREQUENCY NOISE COMPONENTS.,
but the overall effect was not dramatic .
[end BBN quote]
It is easy to see from looking at the tape Berkovitz used, that there is
much less noise than on the FBI tape.
The FBI could not have used the "Berkovitz" tape to time correct the
file using the 60 Hz hum, because the original hum had been removed from
that tape. The FBI used an unfiltered version to attempt to correct the
speed using the 60 Hz hum.
And this is consistent with what the "NRC Repository for Audio Files of
the JFK Assassination" tells us, ie the FBI playback was made using the
original Dictabelt recording.
Link to NRC Repository for Audio Files
https://www.nap.edu/resource/JFK_audio/
Finally, here is what Robert Berkovitz said in his report
[robert berkovitz quote]
Three different copies of the Channel 1 recording were available to us
in our work....
???HSC??? shows part of the waveform from a copy of the recording used by
BBN and WA and subsequently examined by the NAS committee. We digitized
the waveform from the analog tape and concluded, after comparing our
computer screen displays to the illustrations in the BBN and WA reports,
that the NAS copy was essentially identical to the recording depicted by
BBN and WA, showing the effects of the digital filtering they had applied
to the DPD original.
???DPD??? is from a copy of the recording made by James Bowles of the Dallas
Police Department.
???FBI??? is from the copy of the Channel 1 recording made by the F.B.I.
during the NAS review. This copy exhibits significant defects not
present in the other two recordings.
The distinctive appearance and sound of the HSC recording can be
attributed at least in part to the digital filtering applied to the
recording before analysis.
The recorded outputs from both filters for the full 5 minutes were
compared, examined, and plotted on a scale where 5 in. equals 1/10 sec. ???
One filter was an adaptive filter, whose function is described in the
BBN report.
One property of periodic components is that, given sufficient past
history, they can be predicted; indeed, a perfectly periodic signal can
be predicted perfectly. The filter ???learns??? from the past history of the
signal, estimates the signal for the next time period, and subtracts its
estimate from the input. What is left are those portions of the signal
that the filter cannot estimate, i.e., the random components.
[end Berkovitz quote]
Why do I call it a clique? Because none of you, not you, not Barber, not
Marsh and not Thomas will admit it when you are wrong about something,
even when you are OBVIOUSLY wrong about something.
Look in the mirror. Now's your chance to prove you aren't describing
yourself.

Michael
GKnoll
2018-05-25 23:35:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Post by John McAdams
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Post by BOZ
https://jfk007.com/1053-2/
Why do you do this? You're writing as if you know about things you can't
possibly know. You don't know what private communications took place
there, or what was happening on Thomas' head. Naturally, it's not
correct.
Post by GKnoll
The second person who analyzed the W&A interpreation was Michael O'Dell
in his paper "Replicationg Weiss and Aschkenay". He did not confirm it,
far from it. O'Dell determined that one needed correction factors of at
least 10% on the tape that Berkovitz used get matches to the echoes that
I did no such thing. There is no statement even close to that in my
article, and there's nothing in it that could be reasonably inferred to
mean it. Correction factor of at least 10%? You made that up, it didn't
come from me.
Your post reminds me of this (with Gknoll being the Columbia
http://youtu.be/sXJ8tKRlW3E
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
That guy is sooooo annoying.
I am annoying because I know where you made your mistakes and I am
waiting for you to admit them.
Yeah, that must be it. :-)
Michael
Lets focus on something that you do freely admit, that you did confirm
to Don Thomas that the tape that Berkovitz used was made from a playback
made by the FBI and NRC in 1982 with the 60 Hz speed correction built in.
No. That the speed is the same as the FBI playback. I don't care if the
copy actually came from that source. Only the speed is the issue.
Just for you, I'm going to partially quote the email I wrote to Berkovitz.
"Don wrote me a couple of weeks ago and said that he found a signficant
match to the W&A pattern by using a speed correction factor of 1.0 instead
of 0.95. I checked his claim and confirmed that a speed correction of 1.0
produces a correlation coefficient of 0.4193. Of course that raises the
question of whether 1.0 is a proper value to use so I checked the HSC.WAV
clip and compared it to the recordings we have. I found that it precisely
matches the playback speed of the 1981 FBI produced copy of the dictabelt,
which was already speed corrected, so it appears 1.0 would be the right
value."
Note two things, both of which I've said and with which you've told me I'm
wrong.
One, I never said that 1.0 is the right speed because of the correlation.
I said that with 1.0 you get that correlation, but the reason 1.0 is right
is something else.
Two, the something else is that 1.0 matches the speed of the speed
corrected FBI dictabelt. Not that it comes from that copy, just that it
matches the same speed.
That's right from the email I wrote in Dec. 2003 when I first explained the
issue to Berkovitz.
It really doesn't matter how you want to interpret the words in Don's
book, or what he actually wrote. What I've told you is what happened.
The issue is what Don said. Thats what started all this.

Regarding the technical matter of whether the Berkovitz tape is at real
time.

NOTE: When I say Berkovitz tape I mean HSC.wav.

The problem is the tape the Berkovitz used should not match the FBI
version if it is the tape that W&A and BBN used.

The tape that W&A and BBN used was not speed corrected. The FBI speed
corrected tape should not equal the BBN filtered tape.

We need more information on what exactly the FBI did to make their
recording. Something does not fit.

According to Linsker and Garvin, in "Synchronization of the acoustic
evidence in the assassination of President Kennedy"

Page 211
"Uses of AC hum for speed determination
We cannot directly use the hum frequencies to determine K(speed
correction factor) for Tracks 1, 2 or 3, because there are multiple hums
that are not all harmonics of a single frequency. These multiple hums
may have been introduced during multiple generations of re-recording
and by acoustic noise that, while driven by a 60 Hz AC, does not itself
have a frequency of 60Hz."

Link
http://www.jfk-records.com/ScienceAndJustice_45(4)_207-226(2005).pdf

Linsker is saying that they could not use 60 cycle hum to determine the
speed correction factors for Tracks 1, 2 and 3. They could use if for
Track 7. After time correcting Track 7 then they could use a different
method, (Pattern Cross Correlation method) to determine the relative
speed difference between the same utterance on Track 1 and Track 7. When
they did that they got a speed correction factor of 1.01 for Track 1.
Relative to Track 7, Track 1 was running about 1% fast.

Again, W&A and BBN tell us that the tape they used was 5% slow RELATIVE
TO STOPWATCH TIME. They also published real time intervals based on
their analysis. When we try to match the Berkovitz tape to those real
time intervals we find they are off by at least a factor of 1.10).

The only evidence for real times, so far, is the evidence published by W&A.
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
It is very easy to show that is also not the case, in other words,the
tape used by Berkovitz was not speed corrected by the FBI and did not
come from a speed corrected version.
The tape that Robert Berkovitz used DID NOT and COULD NOT have been made
from the FBI NRC playback.
According to Don Thomas, you confirmed that the tape used by Robert
Berkovitz during the Court-TV program was a playback made by the FBI for
the NRC, which the FBI corrected for speed. However, it is easy to show
that this is not case as well.
Here again is Don' quote, but I am putting the emphasis on the NRC playback
https://photos.app.goo.gl/tMKpw4x7kUYvWxap8
[quote]
It turned out that the playback used by Sensimetrics was not the Dallas
police recording from 1963, BUT A PLAYBACK MADE BY THE FBI AND NRC PANEL
WITH 60 Hz SPEED CORRECTION BUILT IN. Without any correction for speed,
the Sensimetrics program demonstrated that the test shot and the suspect
pattern do match. Just to be sure, I notified my colleague Michael O'Dell
WHO CONFIRMED THAT THE RECORDING WAS THE 1982 NRC PLAYBACK and that the
patterns do match. Anyone, can download the Sensimetrics program from the
Court-TV website and confirm the match for oneself. Just set the speed
adjustment to the zero setting.
[end quote]
According to what Don Thomas said, both you and Don think the tape
Berkovitz used was from the FBI speed corrected version. That is not
correct. And here is why...
The tape that Berkovitz used was the one that BBN had made from the
original Dictabelt recording AND TO WHICH BBN APPLIED AN ADAPTIVE FILTER
AS WELL AS A 1 KHz to 3.2 KHz BANDPASS FILTER.
Anyone who knows what they are looking at, can readily tell that the
tape is the BBN filtered version.
And here is the kicker...
ACCORDING TO BBN, THE FILTERS REMOVED THE HUM.
Here is what BBN said about that
[BBN quote]
The adaptive filtering algorithm, when applied to the entire 5-minute
segment of transmission, was not so effective . Figures 6 and 7 show the
effect of filtering the waveform from 130 to 150 sec (overlapping the
period for which the unprocessed waveform is shown in Fig . 4) . THE
ADAPTIVE FILTERING REMOVED HUM AND SOME LOW-FREQUENCY NOISE COMPONENTS.,
but the overall effect was not dramatic .
[end BBN quote]
It is easy to see from looking at the tape Berkovitz used, that there is
much less noise than on the FBI tape.
The FBI could not have used the "Berkovitz" tape to time correct the
file using the 60 Hz hum, because the original hum had been removed from
that tape. The FBI used an unfiltered version to attempt to correct the
speed using the 60 Hz hum.
And this is consistent with what the "NRC Repository for Audio Files of
the JFK Assassination" tells us, ie the FBI playback was made using the
original Dictabelt recording.
Link to NRC Repository for Audio Files
https://www.nap.edu/resource/JFK_audio/
Finally, here is what Robert Berkovitz said in his report
[robert berkovitz quote]
Three different copies of the Channel 1 recording were available to us
in our work....
???HSC??? shows part of the waveform from a copy of the recording used by
BBN and WA and subsequently examined by the NAS committee. We digitized
the waveform from the analog tape and concluded, after comparing our
computer screen displays to the illustrations in the BBN and WA reports,
that the NAS copy was essentially identical to the recording depicted by
BBN and WA, showing the effects of the digital filtering they had applied
to the DPD original.
???DPD??? is from a copy of the recording made by James Bowles of the Dallas
Police Department.
???FBI??? is from the copy of the Channel 1 recording made by the F.B.I.
during the NAS review. This copy exhibits significant defects not
present in the other two recordings.
The distinctive appearance and sound of the HSC recording can be
attributed at least in part to the digital filtering applied to the
recording before analysis.
The recorded outputs from both filters for the full 5 minutes were
compared, examined, and plotted on a scale where 5 in. equals 1/10 sec. ???
One filter was an adaptive filter, whose function is described in the
BBN report.
One property of periodic components is that, given sufficient past
history, they can be predicted; indeed, a perfectly periodic signal can
be predicted perfectly. The filter ???learns??? from the past history of the
signal, estimates the signal for the next time period, and subtracts its
estimate from the input. What is left are those portions of the signal
that the filter cannot estimate, i.e., the random components.
[end Berkovitz quote]
Why do I call it a clique? Because none of you, not you, not Barber, not
Marsh and not Thomas will admit it when you are wrong about something,
even when you are OBVIOUSLY wrong about something.
Look in the mirror. Now's your chance to prove you aren't describing
yourself.
I asked you in an different post, if you think that W&A and BBN were
incompetent or just plain lying when they published the REAL TIME
intervals between the peaks on the tape they used. It is obvious that
the interval between those peaks on the Berkovitz tape differ
significantly from the real times published by W&A. They are the only
ones telling us what real times are. So far you have not shown what are
the real times for anything. You have shown that you think the
Berkovitze tape matches the FBI tape. I have shown that the Berkovitz
tape does not match the tape that W&A used. Do you think that they were
lying or are incompetent? Is that what you are implying?


We are just now learning of the contents of the email. Recall, that all
of this , until now, is based on Don Thomas's account, what you said to
Don Thomas, not what you said to Berkovitz.

If I cared to, I could go back and show you where in this thread you
said that you confirmed that the tape that Berkovitz used was made from
a playback of the 1982 FBI and NAS speed corrected file.

Even though you have not come out and said it, I think you are telling
me, that you were wrong about that. Right?

But now you are saying, that the speed of the berkovitz tape does match
the speed of the FBI version, but that the FBI version was not the
source for the berkovitz tape. And because of that the speed correction
factor of 1 is appropriate.

The problem is, as I describe above, if the Berkovitz tape is the one
used by W&A and BBN, it should not be speed corrected.
Post by odellm
Michael
odellm
2018-05-26 23:54:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Post by John McAdams
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Post by BOZ
https://jfk007.com/1053-2/
Why do you do this? You're writing as if you know about things you can't
possibly know. You don't know what private communications took place
there, or what was happening on Thomas' head. Naturally, it's not
correct.
Post by GKnoll
The second person who analyzed the W&A interpreation was Michael O'Dell
in his paper "Replicationg Weiss and Aschkenay". He did not confirm it,
far from it. O'Dell determined that one needed correction factors of at
least 10% on the tape that Berkovitz used get matches to the echoes that
I did no such thing. There is no statement even close to that in my
article, and there's nothing in it that could be reasonably inferred to
mean it. Correction factor of at least 10%? You made that up, it didn't
come from me.
Your post reminds me of this (with Gknoll being the Columbia
http://youtu.be/sXJ8tKRlW3E
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
That guy is sooooo annoying.
I am annoying because I know where you made your mistakes and I am
waiting for you to admit them.
Yeah, that must be it. :-)
Michael
Lets focus on something that you do freely admit, that you did confirm
to Don Thomas that the tape that Berkovitz used was made from a playback
made by the FBI and NRC in 1982 with the 60 Hz speed correction built in.
No. That the speed is the same as the FBI playback. I don't care if the
copy actually came from that source. Only the speed is the issue.
Just for you, I'm going to partially quote the email I wrote to Berkovitz.
"Don wrote me a couple of weeks ago and said that he found a signficant
match to the W&A pattern by using a speed correction factor of 1.0 instead
of 0.95. I checked his claim and confirmed that a speed correction of 1.0
produces a correlation coefficient of 0.4193. Of course that raises the
question of whether 1.0 is a proper value to use so I checked the HSC.WAV
clip and compared it to the recordings we have. I found that it precisely
matches the playback speed of the 1981 FBI produced copy of the dictabelt,
which was already speed corrected, so it appears 1.0 would be the right
value."
Note two things, both of which I've said and with which you've told me I'm
wrong.
One, I never said that 1.0 is the right speed because of the correlation.
I said that with 1.0 you get that correlation, but the reason 1.0 is right
is something else.
Two, the something else is that 1.0 matches the speed of the speed
corrected FBI dictabelt. Not that it comes from that copy, just that it
matches the same speed.
That's right from the email I wrote in Dec. 2003 when I first explained the
issue to Berkovitz.
It really doesn't matter how you want to interpret the words in Don's
book, or what he actually wrote. What I've told you is what happened.
The issue is what Don said. Thats what started all this.
No, the issue is the argument you wanted to base on what Don wrote, which
was dependent on the two things I just addressed.
Post by GKnoll
Regarding the technical matter of whether the Berkovitz tape is at real
time.
NOTE: When I say Berkovitz tape I mean HSC.wav.
The problem is the tape the Berkovitz used should not match the FBI
version if it is the tape that W&A and BBN used.
You have no reason to think that Berkovitz had the actual physical tapes
that W&A and BBN used. There are many copies that run at various speeds.
What matters is the speed of the copy being used, wherever it might have
come from.
Post by GKnoll
The tape that W&A and BBN used was not speed corrected. The FBI speed
corrected tape should not equal the BBN filtered tape.
But it did equal Berkovitz's clip. It is what it is. I see no point in
continuing to debate the question.
Post by GKnoll
We need more information on what exactly the FBI did to make their
recording. Something does not fit.
The only thing not fitting are the preconceived ideas you are imposing.
Post by GKnoll
According to Linsker and Garvin, in "Synchronization of the acoustic
evidence in the assassination of President Kennedy"
Page 211
"Uses of AC hum for speed determination
We cannot directly use the hum frequencies to determine K(speed
correction factor) for Tracks 1, 2 or 3, because there are multiple hums
that are not all harmonics of a single frequency. These multiple hums
may have been introduced during multiple generations of re-recording
and by acoustic noise that, while driven by a 60 Hz AC, does not itself
have a frequency of 60Hz."
Link
http://www.jfk-records.com/ScienceAndJustice_45(4)_207-226(2005).pdf
Linsker is saying that they could not use 60 cycle hum to determine the
speed correction factors for Tracks 1, 2 and 3. They could use if for
Track 7. After time correcting Track 7 then they could use a different
method, (Pattern Cross Correlation method) to determine the relative
speed difference between the same utterance on Track 1 and Track 7. When
they did that they got a speed correction factor of 1.01 for Track 1.
Relative to Track 7, Track 1 was running about 1% fast.
I know that, I helped them do that. What does it have to do with this?
Post by GKnoll
Again, W&A and BBN tell us that the tape they used was 5% slow RELATIVE
TO STOPWATCH TIME. They also published real time intervals based on
their analysis. When we try to match the Berkovitz tape to those real
time intervals we find they are off by at least a factor of 1.10).
Berkovitz did not have BBN's actual tape. He had copies of the channels,
like everyone else. If speed matters to what you are doing you establish
the correct speed of your copy. Its genealogy doesn't give it to you.
Speed can change from dub to dub. That's how it did.
Post by GKnoll
The only evidence for real times, so far, is the evidence published by W&A.
The only evidence you know about. Speed of these tapes is actually
something I know a great deal about, and I know what the correct speeds
are. It happens that the digital FBI copy is very near true speed. It
also happens it's at the same speed as Berkovitz's clip. Those are facts.
I'm sorry if they are inconvenient, but I can't help that and I'm not
going to keep arguing the same thing with you.
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
It is very easy to show that is also not the case, in other words,the
tape used by Berkovitz was not speed corrected by the FBI and did not
come from a speed corrected version.
The tape that Robert Berkovitz used DID NOT and COULD NOT have been made
from the FBI NRC playback.
According to Don Thomas, you confirmed that the tape used by Robert
Berkovitz during the Court-TV program was a playback made by the FBI for
the NRC, which the FBI corrected for speed. However, it is easy to show
that this is not case as well.
Here again is Don' quote, but I am putting the emphasis on the NRC playback
https://photos.app.goo.gl/tMKpw4x7kUYvWxap8
[quote]
It turned out that the playback used by Sensimetrics was not the Dallas
police recording from 1963, BUT A PLAYBACK MADE BY THE FBI AND NRC PANEL
WITH 60 Hz SPEED CORRECTION BUILT IN. Without any correction for speed,
the Sensimetrics program demonstrated that the test shot and the suspect
pattern do match. Just to be sure, I notified my colleague Michael O'Dell
WHO CONFIRMED THAT THE RECORDING WAS THE 1982 NRC PLAYBACK and that the
patterns do match. Anyone, can download the Sensimetrics program from the
Court-TV website and confirm the match for oneself. Just set the speed
adjustment to the zero setting.
[end quote]
According to what Don Thomas said, both you and Don think the tape
Berkovitz used was from the FBI speed corrected version. That is not
correct. And here is why...
The tape that Berkovitz used was the one that BBN had made from the
original Dictabelt recording AND TO WHICH BBN APPLIED AN ADAPTIVE FILTER
AS WELL AS A 1 KHz to 3.2 KHz BANDPASS FILTER.
Anyone who knows what they are looking at, can readily tell that the
tape is the BBN filtered version.
And here is the kicker...
ACCORDING TO BBN, THE FILTERS REMOVED THE HUM.
Here is what BBN said about that
[BBN quote]
The adaptive filtering algorithm, when applied to the entire 5-minute
segment of transmission, was not so effective . Figures 6 and 7 show the
effect of filtering the waveform from 130 to 150 sec (overlapping the
period for which the unprocessed waveform is shown in Fig . 4) . THE
ADAPTIVE FILTERING REMOVED HUM AND SOME LOW-FREQUENCY NOISE COMPONENTS.,
but the overall effect was not dramatic .
[end BBN quote]
It is easy to see from looking at the tape Berkovitz used, that there is
much less noise than on the FBI tape.
The FBI could not have used the "Berkovitz" tape to time correct the
file using the 60 Hz hum, because the original hum had been removed from
that tape. The FBI used an unfiltered version to attempt to correct the
speed using the 60 Hz hum.
And this is consistent with what the "NRC Repository for Audio Files of
the JFK Assassination" tells us, ie the FBI playback was made using the
original Dictabelt recording.
Link to NRC Repository for Audio Files
https://www.nap.edu/resource/JFK_audio/
Finally, here is what Robert Berkovitz said in his report
[robert berkovitz quote]
Three different copies of the Channel 1 recording were available to us
in our work....
???HSC??? shows part of the waveform from a copy of the recording used by
BBN and WA and subsequently examined by the NAS committee. We digitized
the waveform from the analog tape and concluded, after comparing our
computer screen displays to the illustrations in the BBN and WA reports,
that the NAS copy was essentially identical to the recording depicted by
BBN and WA, showing the effects of the digital filtering they had applied
to the DPD original.
???DPD??? is from a copy of the recording made by James Bowles of the Dallas
Police Department.
???FBI??? is from the copy of the Channel 1 recording made by the F.B.I.
during the NAS review. This copy exhibits significant defects not
present in the other two recordings.
The distinctive appearance and sound of the HSC recording can be
attributed at least in part to the digital filtering applied to the
recording before analysis.
The recorded outputs from both filters for the full 5 minutes were
compared, examined, and plotted on a scale where 5 in. equals 1/10 sec. ???
One filter was an adaptive filter, whose function is described in the
BBN report.
One property of periodic components is that, given sufficient past
history, they can be predicted; indeed, a perfectly periodic signal can
be predicted perfectly. The filter ???learns??? from the past history of the
signal, estimates the signal for the next time period, and subtracts its
estimate from the input. What is left are those portions of the signal
that the filter cannot estimate, i.e., the random components.
[end Berkovitz quote]
Why do I call it a clique? Because none of you, not you, not Barber, not
Marsh and not Thomas will admit it when you are wrong about something,
even when you are OBVIOUSLY wrong about something.
Look in the mirror. Now's your chance to prove you aren't describing
yourself.
I asked you in an different post, if you think that W&A and BBN were
incompetent or just plain lying when they published the REAL TIME
intervals between the peaks on the tape they used.
Unlike you, I don't try to get in their head. I wrote the facts. Their
data is wrong. Why it's wrong is another topic.

But as I've pointed out and any reasonable person should notice
(especially because I actually wrote it in there) changing the speed can't
make their data correct. The peaks are not off by the same amount.
Post by GKnoll
It is obvious that
the interval between those peaks on the Berkovitz tape differ
significantly from the real times published by W&A.
See above. Every tape differs from the times published by W&A. Those
aren't the only problems either. I do believe I once wrote an article on
the subject.
Post by GKnoll
They are the only
ones telling us what real times are. So far you have not shown what are
the real times for anything. You have shown that you think the
Berkovitze tape matches the FBI tape. I have shown that the Berkovitz
tape does not match the tape that W&A used. Do you think that they were
lying or are incompetent? Is that what you are implying?
We are just now learning of the contents of the email. Recall, that all
of this , until now, is based on Don Thomas's account, what you said to
Don Thomas, not what you said to Berkovitz.
If I cared to, I could go back and show you where in this thread you
said that you confirmed that the tape that Berkovitz used was made from
a playback of the 1982 FBI and NAS speed corrected file.
Even though you have not come out and said it, I think you are telling
me, that you were wrong about that. Right?
But now you are saying, that the speed of the berkovitz tape does match
the speed of the FBI version, but that the FBI version was not the
source for the berkovitz tape. And because of that the speed correction
factor of 1 is appropriate.
No I'm not saying that. It's not because it came from the FBI copy, or
because it didn't come from it. Which tape it was copied from does not
matter. It's speed is the SAME as the FBI copy, which is the correct
speed.

You have a real problem reading other people's words without them
filtering through your own existing filter. That happens persistently,
including in the email correspondence we've had. This is partly why we
never get past any first basic points. You don't pay attention to what
other people actually say without imposing your twist on it, and can't
acknowledge getting anything wrong. You will never get this stuff right
because you can't correct anything you have wrong.

I think we're done with this.

Michael
GKnoll
2018-05-27 23:41:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Post by John McAdams
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Post by BOZ
https://jfk007.com/1053-2/
Why do you do this? You're writing as if you know about things you can't
possibly know. You don't know what private communications took place
there, or what was happening on Thomas' head. Naturally, it's not
correct.
Post by GKnoll
The second person who analyzed the W&A interpreation was Michael O'Dell
in his paper "Replicationg Weiss and Aschkenay". He did not confirm it,
far from it. O'Dell determined that one needed correction factors of at
least 10% on the tape that Berkovitz used get matches to the echoes that
I did no such thing. There is no statement even close to that in my
article, and there's nothing in it that could be reasonably inferred to
mean it. Correction factor of at least 10%? You made that up, it didn't
come from me.
Your post reminds me of this (with Gknoll being the Columbia
http://youtu.be/sXJ8tKRlW3E
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
That guy is sooooo annoying.
I am annoying because I know where you made your mistakes and I am
waiting for you to admit them.
Yeah, that must be it. :-)
Michael
Lets focus on something that you do freely admit, that you did confirm
to Don Thomas that the tape that Berkovitz used was made from a playback
made by the FBI and NRC in 1982 with the 60 Hz speed correction built in.
No. That the speed is the same as the FBI playback. I don't care if the
copy actually came from that source. Only the speed is the issue.
Just for you, I'm going to partially quote the email I wrote to Berkovitz.
"Don wrote me a couple of weeks ago and said that he found a signficant
match to the W&A pattern by using a speed correction factor of 1.0 instead
of 0.95. I checked his claim and confirmed that a speed correction of 1.0
produces a correlation coefficient of 0.4193. Of course that raises the
question of whether 1.0 is a proper value to use so I checked the HSC.WAV
clip and compared it to the recordings we have. I found that it precisely
matches the playback speed of the 1981 FBI produced copy of the dictabelt,
which was already speed corrected, so it appears 1.0 would be the right
value."
Note two things, both of which I've said and with which you've told me I'm
wrong.
One, I never said that 1.0 is the right speed because of the correlation.
I said that with 1.0 you get that correlation, but the reason 1.0 is right
is something else.
Two, the something else is that 1.0 matches the speed of the speed
corrected FBI dictabelt. Not that it comes from that copy, just that it
matches the same speed.
That's right from the email I wrote in Dec. 2003 when I first explained the
issue to Berkovitz.
It really doesn't matter how you want to interpret the words in Don's
book, or what he actually wrote. What I've told you is what happened.
The issue is what Don said. Thats what started all this.
No, the issue is the argument you wanted to base on what Don wrote, which
was dependent on the two things I just addressed.
Post by GKnoll
Regarding the technical matter of whether the Berkovitz tape is at real
time.
NOTE: When I say Berkovitz tape I mean HSC.wav.
The problem is the tape the Berkovitz used should not match the FBI
version if it is the tape that W&A and BBN used.
You have no reason to think that Berkovitz had the actual physical tapes
that W&A and BBN used. There are many copies that run at various speeds.
What matters is the speed of the copy being used, wherever it might have
come from.
Post by GKnoll
The tape that W&A and BBN used was not speed corrected. The FBI speed
corrected tape should not equal the BBN filtered tape.
But it did equal Berkovitz's clip. It is what it is. I see no point in
continuing to debate the question.
Post by GKnoll
We need more information on what exactly the FBI did to make their
recording. Something does not fit.
The only thing not fitting are the preconceived ideas you are imposing.
Post by GKnoll
According to Linsker and Garvin, in "Synchronization of the acoustic
evidence in the assassination of President Kennedy"
Page 211
"Uses of AC hum for speed determination
We cannot directly use the hum frequencies to determine K(speed
correction factor) for Tracks 1, 2 or 3, because there are multiple hums
that are not all harmonics of a single frequency. These multiple hums
may have been introduced during multiple generations of re-recording
and by acoustic noise that, while driven by a 60 Hz AC, does not itself
have a frequency of 60Hz."
Link
http://www.jfk-records.com/ScienceAndJustice_45(4)_207-226(2005).pdf
Linsker is saying that they could not use 60 cycle hum to determine the
speed correction factors for Tracks 1, 2 and 3. They could use if for
Track 7. After time correcting Track 7 then they could use a different
method, (Pattern Cross Correlation method) to determine the relative
speed difference between the same utterance on Track 1 and Track 7. When
they did that they got a speed correction factor of 1.01 for Track 1.
Relative to Track 7, Track 1 was running about 1% fast.
I know that, I helped them do that. What does it have to do with this?
Post by GKnoll
Again, W&A and BBN tell us that the tape they used was 5% slow RELATIVE
TO STOPWATCH TIME. They also published real time intervals based on
their analysis. When we try to match the Berkovitz tape to those real
time intervals we find they are off by at least a factor of 1.10).
Berkovitz did not have BBN's actual tape. He had copies of the channels,
like everyone else. If speed matters to what you are doing you establish
the correct speed of your copy. Its genealogy doesn't give it to you.
Speed can change from dub to dub. That's how it did.
Post by GKnoll
The only evidence for real times, so far, is the evidence published by W&A.
The only evidence you know about. Speed of these tapes is actually
something I know a great deal about, and I know what the correct speeds
are. It happens that the digital FBI copy is very near true speed. It
also happens it's at the same speed as Berkovitz's clip. Those are facts.
I'm sorry if they are inconvenient, but I can't help that and I'm not
going to keep arguing the same thing with you.
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
It is very easy to show that is also not the case, in other words,the
tape used by Berkovitz was not speed corrected by the FBI and did not
come from a speed corrected version.
The tape that Robert Berkovitz used DID NOT and COULD NOT have been made
from the FBI NRC playback.
According to Don Thomas, you confirmed that the tape used by Robert
Berkovitz during the Court-TV program was a playback made by the FBI for
the NRC, which the FBI corrected for speed. However, it is easy to show
that this is not case as well.
Here again is Don' quote, but I am putting the emphasis on the NRC playback
https://photos.app.goo.gl/tMKpw4x7kUYvWxap8
[quote]
It turned out that the playback used by Sensimetrics was not the Dallas
police recording from 1963, BUT A PLAYBACK MADE BY THE FBI AND NRC PANEL
WITH 60 Hz SPEED CORRECTION BUILT IN. Without any correction for speed,
the Sensimetrics program demonstrated that the test shot and the suspect
pattern do match. Just to be sure, I notified my colleague Michael O'Dell
WHO CONFIRMED THAT THE RECORDING WAS THE 1982 NRC PLAYBACK and that the
patterns do match. Anyone, can download the Sensimetrics program from the
Court-TV website and confirm the match for oneself. Just set the speed
adjustment to the zero setting.
[end quote]
According to what Don Thomas said, both you and Don think the tape
Berkovitz used was from the FBI speed corrected version. That is not
correct. And here is why...
The tape that Berkovitz used was the one that BBN had made from the
original Dictabelt recording AND TO WHICH BBN APPLIED AN ADAPTIVE FILTER
AS WELL AS A 1 KHz to 3.2 KHz BANDPASS FILTER.
Anyone who knows what they are looking at, can readily tell that the
tape is the BBN filtered version.
And here is the kicker...
ACCORDING TO BBN, THE FILTERS REMOVED THE HUM.
Here is what BBN said about that
[BBN quote]
The adaptive filtering algorithm, when applied to the entire 5-minute
segment of transmission, was not so effective . Figures 6 and 7 show the
effect of filtering the waveform from 130 to 150 sec (overlapping the
period for which the unprocessed waveform is shown in Fig . 4) . THE
ADAPTIVE FILTERING REMOVED HUM AND SOME LOW-FREQUENCY NOISE COMPONENTS.,
but the overall effect was not dramatic .
[end BBN quote]
It is easy to see from looking at the tape Berkovitz used, that there is
much less noise than on the FBI tape.
The FBI could not have used the "Berkovitz" tape to time correct the
file using the 60 Hz hum, because the original hum had been removed from
that tape. The FBI used an unfiltered version to attempt to correct the
speed using the 60 Hz hum.
And this is consistent with what the "NRC Repository for Audio Files of
the JFK Assassination" tells us, ie the FBI playback was made using the
original Dictabelt recording.
Link to NRC Repository for Audio Files
https://www.nap.edu/resource/JFK_audio/
Finally, here is what Robert Berkovitz said in his report
[robert berkovitz quote]
Three different copies of the Channel 1 recording were available to us
in our work....
???HSC??? shows part of the waveform from a copy of the recording used by
BBN and WA and subsequently examined by the NAS committee. We digitized
the waveform from the analog tape and concluded, after comparing our
computer screen displays to the illustrations in the BBN and WA reports,
that the NAS copy was essentially identical to the recording depicted by
BBN and WA, showing the effects of the digital filtering they had applied
to the DPD original.
???DPD??? is from a copy of the recording made by James Bowles of the Dallas
Police Department.
???FBI??? is from the copy of the Channel 1 recording made by the F.B.I.
during the NAS review. This copy exhibits significant defects not
present in the other two recordings.
The distinctive appearance and sound of the HSC recording can be
attributed at least in part to the digital filtering applied to the
recording before analysis.
The recorded outputs from both filters for the full 5 minutes were
compared, examined, and plotted on a scale where 5 in. equals 1/10 sec. ???
One filter was an adaptive filter, whose function is described in the
BBN report.
One property of periodic components is that, given sufficient past
history, they can be predicted; indeed, a perfectly periodic signal can
be predicted perfectly. The filter ???learns??? from the past history of the
signal, estimates the signal for the next time period, and subtracts its
estimate from the input. What is left are those portions of the signal
that the filter cannot estimate, i.e., the random components.
[end Berkovitz quote]
Why do I call it a clique? Because none of you, not you, not Barber, not
Marsh and not Thomas will admit it when you are wrong about something,
even when you are OBVIOUSLY wrong about something.
Look in the mirror. Now's your chance to prove you aren't describing
yourself.
I asked you in an different post, if you think that W&A and BBN were
incompetent or just plain lying when they published the REAL TIME
intervals between the peaks on the tape they used.
Unlike you, I don't try to get in their head. I wrote the facts. Their
data is wrong. Why it's wrong is another topic.
But as I've pointed out and any reasonable person should notice
(especially because I actually wrote it in there) changing the speed can't
make their data correct. The peaks are not off by the same amount.
Post by GKnoll
It is obvious that
the interval between those peaks on the Berkovitz tape differ
significantly from the real times published by W&A.
See above. Every tape differs from the times published by W&A. Those
aren't the only problems either. I do believe I once wrote an article on
the subject.
Post by GKnoll
They are the only
ones telling us what real times are. So far you have not shown what are
the real times for anything. You have shown that you think the
Berkovitze tape matches the FBI tape. I have shown that the Berkovitz
tape does not match the tape that W&A used. Do you think that they were
lying or are incompetent? Is that what you are implying?
We are just now learning of the contents of the email. Recall, that all
of this , until now, is based on Don Thomas's account, what you said to
Don Thomas, not what you said to Berkovitz.
If I cared to, I could go back and show you where in this thread you
said that you confirmed that the tape that Berkovitz used was made from
a playback of the 1982 FBI and NAS speed corrected file.
Even though you have not come out and said it, I think you are telling
me, that you were wrong about that. Right?
But now you are saying, that the speed of the berkovitz tape does match
the speed of the FBI version, but that the FBI version was not the
source for the berkovitz tape. And because of that the speed correction
factor of 1 is appropriate.
No I'm not saying that. It's not because it came from the FBI copy, or
because it didn't come from it. Which tape it was copied from does not
matter. It's speed is the SAME as the FBI copy, which is the correct
speed.
You have a real problem reading other people's words without them
filtering through your own existing filter. That happens persistently,
including in the email correspondence we've had. This is partly why we
never get past any first basic points. You don't pay attention to what
other people actually say without imposing your twist on it, and can't
acknowledge getting anything wrong. You will never get this stuff right
because you can't correct anything you have wrong.
I think we're done with this.
Michael
But you really do not know the recording speed of the original Dictabelt.
You think you know, but all of your speed analysis are based on an
assumption, ie that the hum was at 60 Hz. If the hum was not 60 Hz then
your speed estimates are wrong.

I know you did good work with Track 7. I know you calculated the
correction function for that track and I know that you did that by
adjusting the tape speed to match up 60 Hz peaks. You assumed the hum was
60 Hz.

If its not to difficult, try doing the same procedure, but this time try
to match a 57 Hz hum or a 54 Hz hum.
GKnoll
2018-06-09 14:09:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Post by GKnoll
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Post by John McAdams
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Post by BOZ
https://jfk007.com/1053-2/
Why do you do this?  You're writing as if you know about
things you can't
possibly know.  You don't know what private communications
took place
there, or what was happening on Thomas' head.  Naturally, it's
not
correct.
Post by GKnoll
The second person who analyzed the W&A interpreation was Michael O'Dell
in his paper "Replicationg Weiss and Aschkenay". He did not confirm it,
far from it. O'Dell determined that one needed correction factors of at
least 10% on the tape that Berkovitz used get matches to the
echoes that
I did no such thing.  There is no statement even close to that
in my
article, and there's nothing in it that could be reasonably inferred to
mean it.  Correction factor of at least 10%?  You made that
up, it didn't
come from me.
Your post reminds me of this (with Gknoll being the Columbia
http://youtu.be/sXJ8tKRlW3E
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
That guy is sooooo annoying.
I am annoying because I know where you made your mistakes and I am
waiting for you to admit them.
Yeah, that must be it.  :-)
Michael
Lets focus on something that you do freely admit, that you did confirm
to Don Thomas that the tape that Berkovitz used was made from a playback
made by the FBI and NRC in 1982 with the 60 Hz speed correction built in.
No.  That the speed is the same as the FBI playback.  I don't care
if the
copy actually came from that source.  Only the speed is the issue.
Just for you, I'm going to partially quote the email I wrote to Berkovitz.
"Don wrote me a couple of weeks ago and said that he found a signficant
match to the W&A pattern by using a speed correction factor of 1.0 instead
of 0.95.  I checked his claim and confirmed that a speed correction
of 1.0
produces a correlation coefficient of 0.4193.  Of course that raises
the
question of whether 1.0 is a proper value to use so I checked the HSC.WAV
clip and compared it to the recordings we have.  I found that it
precisely
matches the playback speed of the 1981 FBI produced copy of the dictabelt,
which was already speed corrected, so it appears 1.0 would be the right
value."
Note two things, both of which I've said and with which you've told me I'm
wrong.
One, I never said that 1.0 is the right speed because of the correlation.
I said that with 1.0 you get that correlation, but the reason 1.0 is right
is something else.
Two, the something else is that 1.0 matches the speed of the speed
corrected FBI dictabelt.  Not that it comes from that copy, just
that it
matches the same speed.
That's right from the email I wrote in Dec. 2003 when I first explained the
issue to Berkovitz.
It really doesn't matter how you want to interpret the words in Don's
book, or what he actually wrote.  What I've told you is what happened.
The issue is what Don said. Thats what started all this.
No, the issue is the argument you wanted to base on what Don wrote, which
was dependent on the two things I just addressed.
Post by GKnoll
Regarding the technical matter of whether the Berkovitz tape is at real
time.
NOTE: When I say Berkovitz tape I mean HSC.wav.
The problem is the tape the Berkovitz used should not match the FBI
version if it is the tape that W&A and BBN used.
You have no reason to think that Berkovitz had the actual physical tapes
that W&A and BBN used.  There are many copies that run at various speeds.
What matters is the speed of the copy being used, wherever it might have
come from.
Post by GKnoll
The tape that W&A and BBN used was not speed corrected. The FBI speed
corrected tape should not equal the BBN filtered tape.
But it did equal Berkovitz's clip.  It is what it is.  I see no point in
continuing to debate the question.
Post by GKnoll
We need more information on what exactly the FBI did to make their
recording. Something does not fit.
The only thing not fitting are the preconceived ideas you are imposing.
Post by GKnoll
According to Linsker and Garvin, in "Synchronization of the acoustic
evidence in the assassination of President Kennedy"
Page 211
"Uses of AC hum for speed determination
   We cannot directly use the hum frequencies to determine K(speed
correction factor) for Tracks 1, 2 or 3, because there are multiple hums
that are not all harmonics of a single frequency. These multiple hums
may have been introduced during multiple generations of re-recording
and by acoustic noise that, while driven by a 60 Hz AC, does not itself
have a frequency of 60Hz."
Link
http://www.jfk-records.com/ScienceAndJustice_45(4)_207-226(2005).pdf
Linsker is saying that they could not use 60 cycle hum to determine the
speed correction factors for Tracks 1, 2 and 3. They could use if for
Track 7. After time correcting Track 7 then they could use a different
method, (Pattern Cross Correlation method) to determine the relative
speed difference between the same utterance on Track 1 and Track 7. When
they did that they got a speed correction factor of 1.01 for Track 1.
Relative to Track 7, Track 1 was running about 1% fast.
I know that, I helped them do that.  What does it have to do with this?
Post by GKnoll
Again, W&A and BBN tell us that the tape they used was 5% slow RELATIVE
TO STOPWATCH TIME. They also published real time intervals based on
their analysis. When we try to match the Berkovitz tape to those real
time intervals we find they are off by at least a factor of 1.10).
Berkovitz did not have BBN's actual tape.  He had copies of the channels,
like everyone else.  If speed matters to what you are doing you establish
the correct speed of your copy.  Its genealogy doesn't give it to you.
Speed can change from dub to dub.  That's how it did.
Post by GKnoll
The only evidence for real times, so far, is the evidence published by W&A.
The only evidence you know about.  Speed of these tapes is actually
something I know a great deal about, and I know what the correct speeds
are.  It happens that the digital FBI copy is very near true speed.  It
also happens it's at the same speed as Berkovitz's clip.  Those are
facts.
I'm sorry if they are inconvenient, but I can't help that and I'm not
going to keep arguing the same thing with you.
Post by GKnoll
Post by GKnoll
It is very easy to show that is also not the case, in other words,the
tape used by Berkovitz was not speed corrected by the FBI and did not
come from a speed corrected version.
The tape that Robert Berkovitz used DID NOT and COULD NOT have been made
from the FBI NRC playback.
According to Don Thomas, you confirmed that the tape used by Robert
Berkovitz during the Court-TV program was a playback made by the FBI for
the NRC, which the FBI corrected for speed. However, it is easy to show
that this is not case as well.
Here again is Don' quote, but I am putting the emphasis on the NRC playback
https://photos.app.goo.gl/tMKpw4x7kUYvWxap8
[quote]
It turned out that the playback used by Sensimetrics was not the Dallas
police recording from 1963, BUT A PLAYBACK MADE BY THE FBI AND NRC PANEL
WITH 60 Hz SPEED CORRECTION BUILT IN. Without any correction for speed,
the Sensimetrics program demonstrated that the test shot and the suspect
pattern do match. Just to be sure, I notified my colleague Michael O'Dell
WHO CONFIRMED THAT THE RECORDING WAS THE 1982 NRC PLAYBACK and that the
patterns do match. Anyone, can download the Sensimetrics program from the
Court-TV website and confirm the match for oneself. Just set the speed
adjustment to the zero setting.
[end quote]
According to what Don Thomas said, both you and Don think the tape
Berkovitz used was from the FBI speed corrected version. That is not
correct. And here is why...
The tape that Berkovitz used was the one that BBN had made from the
original Dictabelt recording AND TO WHICH BBN APPLIED AN ADAPTIVE FILTER
AS WELL AS A 1 KHz to 3.2 KHz BANDPASS FILTER.
Anyone who knows what they are looking at, can readily tell that the
tape is the BBN filtered version.
And here is the kicker...
ACCORDING TO BBN, THE FILTERS REMOVED THE HUM.
Here is what BBN said about that
[BBN quote]
The adaptive filtering algorithm, when applied to the entire 5-minute
segment of transmission, was not so effective . Figures 6 and 7 show the
effect of filtering the waveform from 130 to 150 sec (overlapping the
period for which the unprocessed waveform is shown in Fig . 4) . THE
ADAPTIVE FILTERING REMOVED HUM AND SOME LOW-FREQUENCY NOISE COMPONENTS.,
but the overall effect was not dramatic .
[end BBN quote]
It is easy to see from looking at the tape Berkovitz used, that there is
much less noise than on the FBI tape.
The FBI could not have used the "Berkovitz" tape to time correct the
file using the 60 Hz hum, because the original hum had been removed from
that tape. The FBI used an unfiltered version to attempt to correct the
speed using the 60 Hz hum.
And this is consistent with what the "NRC Repository for Audio Files of
the JFK Assassination" tells us, ie the FBI playback was made using the
original Dictabelt recording.
Link to NRC Repository for Audio Files
https://www.nap.edu/resource/JFK_audio/
Finally, here is what Robert Berkovitz said in his report
[robert berkovitz quote]
Three different copies of the Channel 1 recording were available to us
in our work....
???HSC??? shows part of the waveform from a copy of the recording used by
BBN and WA and subsequently examined by the NAS committee.  We
digitized
the waveform from the analog tape and concluded, after comparing our
computer screen displays to the illustrations in the BBN and WA reports,
that the NAS copy was essentially identical to the recording depicted by
BBN and WA, showing the effects of the digital filtering they had applied
to the DPD original.
???DPD??? is from a copy of the recording made by James Bowles of the Dallas
Police Department.
???FBI??? is from the copy of the Channel 1 recording made by the F.B.I.
during the NAS review.  This copy exhibits significant defects not
present in the other two recordings.
The distinctive appearance and sound of the HSC recording can be
attributed at least in part to the digital filtering applied to the
recording before analysis.
The recorded outputs from both filters for the full 5 minutes were
compared, examined, and plotted on a scale where 5 in. equals 1/10 sec. ???
One filter was an adaptive filter, whose function is described in the
BBN report.
One property of periodic components is that, given sufficient past
history, they can be predicted; indeed, a perfectly periodic signal can
be predicted perfectly. The filter ???learns??? from the past history of the
signal, estimates the signal for the next time period, and
subtracts its
estimate from the input.  What is left are those portions of the
signal
that the filter cannot estimate, i.e., the random components.
[end Berkovitz quote]
Why do I call it a clique? Because none of you, not you, not Barber, not
Marsh and not Thomas will admit it when you are wrong about something,
even when you are OBVIOUSLY wrong about something.
Look in the mirror.  Now's your chance to prove you aren't describing
yourself.
I asked you in an different post, if you think that W&A and BBN were
incompetent or just plain lying when they published the REAL TIME
intervals between the peaks on the tape they used.
Unlike you, I don't try to get in their head.  I wrote the facts.  Their
data is wrong.  Why it's wrong is another topic.
But as I've pointed out and any reasonable person should notice
(especially because I actually wrote it in there) changing the speed can't
make their data correct.  The peaks are not off by the same amount.
Post by GKnoll
  It is obvious that
the interval between those peaks on the Berkovitz tape differ
significantly from the real times published by W&A.
See above.  Every tape differs from the times published by W&A.  Those
aren't the only problems either.  I do believe I once wrote an article on
the subject.
Post by GKnoll
They are the only
ones telling us what real times are. So far you have not shown what are
the real times for anything. You have shown that you think the
Berkovitze tape matches the FBI tape. I have shown that the Berkovitz
tape does not match the tape that W&A used. Do you think that they were
lying or are incompetent? Is that what you are implying?
We are just now learning of the contents of the email. Recall, that all
of this , until now, is based on Don Thomas's account, what you said to
Don Thomas, not what you said to Berkovitz.
If I cared to, I could go back and show you where in this thread you
said that you confirmed that the tape that Berkovitz used was made from
a playback of the 1982 FBI and NAS speed corrected file.
Even though you have not come out and said it, I think you are telling
me, that you were wrong about that. Right?
But now you are saying, that the speed of the berkovitz tape does match
the speed of the FBI version, but that the FBI version was not the
source for the berkovitz tape. And because of that the speed correction
factor of 1 is appropriate.
No I'm not saying that.  It's not because it came from the FBI copy, or
because it didn't come from it.  Which tape it was copied from does not
matter.  It's speed is the SAME as the FBI copy, which is the correct
speed.
You have a real problem reading other people's words without them
filtering through your own existing filter.  That happens persistently,
including in the email correspondence we've had.  This is partly why we
never get past any first basic points.  You don't pay attention to what
other people actually say without imposing your twist on it, and can't
acknowledge getting anything wrong.  You will never get this stuff right
because you can't correct anything you have wrong.
I think we're done with this.
Michael
But you really do not know the recording speed of the original
Dictabelt. You think you know, but all of your speed analysis are based
on an assumption, ie that the hum was at 60 Hz. If the hum was not 60 Hz
then your speed estimates are wrong.
I know you did good work with Track 7. I know you calculated the
correction function for that track and I know that you did that by
adjusting the tape speed to match up 60 Hz peaks. You assumed the hum
was 60 Hz.
If its not to difficult, try doing the same procedure, but this time try
to match a 57 Hz hum or a 54 Hz hum.
I including a link to another thread about the Gray Audograph. That
thread is relevant to what was discussed in this thread.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/nB2QIEFQivA
odellm
2018-06-14 02:15:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Post by John McAdams
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Post by BOZ
https://jfk007.com/1053-2/
Why do you do this? You're writing as if you know about things you can't
possibly know. You don't know what private communications took place
there, or what was happening on Thomas' head. Naturally, it's not
correct.
Post by GKnoll
The second person who analyzed the W&A interpreation was Michael O'Dell
in his paper "Replicationg Weiss and Aschkenay". He did not confirm it,
far from it. O'Dell determined that one needed correction factors of at
least 10% on the tape that Berkovitz used get matches to the echoes that
I did no such thing. There is no statement even close to that in my
article, and there's nothing in it that could be reasonably inferred to
mean it. Correction factor of at least 10%? You made that up, it didn't
come from me.
Your post reminds me of this (with Gknoll being the Columbia
http://youtu.be/sXJ8tKRlW3E
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
That guy is sooooo annoying.
I am annoying because I know where you made your mistakes and I am
waiting for you to admit them.
Yeah, that must be it. :-)
Michael
Lets focus on something that you do freely admit, that you did confirm
to Don Thomas that the tape that Berkovitz used was made from a playback
made by the FBI and NRC in 1982 with the 60 Hz speed correction built in.
No. That the speed is the same as the FBI playback. I don't care if the
copy actually came from that source. Only the speed is the issue.
Just for you, I'm going to partially quote the email I wrote to Berkovitz.
"Don wrote me a couple of weeks ago and said that he found a signficant
match to the W&A pattern by using a speed correction factor of 1.0 instead
of 0.95. I checked his claim and confirmed that a speed correction of 1.0
produces a correlation coefficient of 0.4193. Of course that raises the
question of whether 1.0 is a proper value to use so I checked the HSC.WAV
clip and compared it to the recordings we have. I found that it precisely
matches the playback speed of the 1981 FBI produced copy of the dictabelt,
which was already speed corrected, so it appears 1.0 would be the right
value."
Note two things, both of which I've said and with which you've told me I'm
wrong.
One, I never said that 1.0 is the right speed because of the correlation.
I said that with 1.0 you get that correlation, but the reason 1.0 is right
is something else.
Two, the something else is that 1.0 matches the speed of the speed
corrected FBI dictabelt. Not that it comes from that copy, just that it
matches the same speed.
That's right from the email I wrote in Dec. 2003 when I first explained the
issue to Berkovitz.
It really doesn't matter how you want to interpret the words in Don's
book, or what he actually wrote. What I've told you is what happened.
The issue is what Don said. Thats what started all this.
No, the issue is the argument you wanted to base on what Don wrote, which
was dependent on the two things I just addressed.
Post by GKnoll
Regarding the technical matter of whether the Berkovitz tape is at real
time.
NOTE: When I say Berkovitz tape I mean HSC.wav.
The problem is the tape the Berkovitz used should not match the FBI
version if it is the tape that W&A and BBN used.
You have no reason to think that Berkovitz had the actual physical tapes
that W&A and BBN used. There are many copies that run at various speeds.
What matters is the speed of the copy being used, wherever it might have
come from.
Post by GKnoll
The tape that W&A and BBN used was not speed corrected. The FBI speed
corrected tape should not equal the BBN filtered tape.
But it did equal Berkovitz's clip. It is what it is. I see no point in
continuing to debate the question.
Post by GKnoll
We need more information on what exactly the FBI did to make their
recording. Something does not fit.
The only thing not fitting are the preconceived ideas you are imposing.
Post by GKnoll
According to Linsker and Garvin, in "Synchronization of the acoustic
evidence in the assassination of President Kennedy"
Page 211
"Uses of AC hum for speed determination
We cannot directly use the hum frequencies to determine K(speed
correction factor) for Tracks 1, 2 or 3, because there are multiple hums
that are not all harmonics of a single frequency. These multiple hums
may have been introduced during multiple generations of re-recording
and by acoustic noise that, while driven by a 60 Hz AC, does not itself
have a frequency of 60Hz."
Link
http://www.jfk-records.com/ScienceAndJustice_45(4)_207-226(2005).pdf
Linsker is saying that they could not use 60 cycle hum to determine the
speed correction factors for Tracks 1, 2 and 3. They could use if for
Track 7. After time correcting Track 7 then they could use a different
method, (Pattern Cross Correlation method) to determine the relative
speed difference between the same utterance on Track 1 and Track 7. When
they did that they got a speed correction factor of 1.01 for Track 1.
Relative to Track 7, Track 1 was running about 1% fast.
I know that, I helped them do that. What does it have to do with this?
Post by GKnoll
Again, W&A and BBN tell us that the tape they used was 5% slow RELATIVE
TO STOPWATCH TIME. They also published real time intervals based on
their analysis. When we try to match the Berkovitz tape to those real
time intervals we find they are off by at least a factor of 1.10).
Berkovitz did not have BBN's actual tape. He had copies of the channels,
like everyone else. If speed matters to what you are doing you establish
the correct speed of your copy. Its genealogy doesn't give it to you.
Speed can change from dub to dub. That's how it did.
Post by GKnoll
The only evidence for real times, so far, is the evidence published by W&A.
The only evidence you know about. Speed of these tapes is actually
something I know a great deal about, and I know what the correct speeds
are. It happens that the digital FBI copy is very near true speed. It
also happens it's at the same speed as Berkovitz's clip. Those are facts.
I'm sorry if they are inconvenient, but I can't help that and I'm not
going to keep arguing the same thing with you.
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
It is very easy to show that is also not the case, in other words,the
tape used by Berkovitz was not speed corrected by the FBI and did not
come from a speed corrected version.
The tape that Robert Berkovitz used DID NOT and COULD NOT have been made
from the FBI NRC playback.
According to Don Thomas, you confirmed that the tape used by Robert
Berkovitz during the Court-TV program was a playback made by the FBI for
the NRC, which the FBI corrected for speed. However, it is easy to show
that this is not case as well.
Here again is Don' quote, but I am putting the emphasis on the NRC playback
https://photos.app.goo.gl/tMKpw4x7kUYvWxap8
[quote]
It turned out that the playback used by Sensimetrics was not the Dallas
police recording from 1963, BUT A PLAYBACK MADE BY THE FBI AND NRC PANEL
WITH 60 Hz SPEED CORRECTION BUILT IN. Without any correction for speed,
the Sensimetrics program demonstrated that the test shot and the suspect
pattern do match. Just to be sure, I notified my colleague Michael O'Dell
WHO CONFIRMED THAT THE RECORDING WAS THE 1982 NRC PLAYBACK and that the
patterns do match. Anyone, can download the Sensimetrics program from the
Court-TV website and confirm the match for oneself. Just set the speed
adjustment to the zero setting.
[end quote]
According to what Don Thomas said, both you and Don think the tape
Berkovitz used was from the FBI speed corrected version. That is not
correct. And here is why...
The tape that Berkovitz used was the one that BBN had made from the
original Dictabelt recording AND TO WHICH BBN APPLIED AN ADAPTIVE FILTER
AS WELL AS A 1 KHz to 3.2 KHz BANDPASS FILTER.
Anyone who knows what they are looking at, can readily tell that the
tape is the BBN filtered version.
And here is the kicker...
ACCORDING TO BBN, THE FILTERS REMOVED THE HUM.
Here is what BBN said about that
[BBN quote]
The adaptive filtering algorithm, when applied to the entire 5-minute
segment of transmission, was not so effective . Figures 6 and 7 show the
effect of filtering the waveform from 130 to 150 sec (overlapping the
period for which the unprocessed waveform is shown in Fig . 4) . THE
ADAPTIVE FILTERING REMOVED HUM AND SOME LOW-FREQUENCY NOISE COMPONENTS.,
but the overall effect was not dramatic .
[end BBN quote]
It is easy to see from looking at the tape Berkovitz used, that there is
much less noise than on the FBI tape.
The FBI could not have used the "Berkovitz" tape to time correct the
file using the 60 Hz hum, because the original hum had been removed from
that tape. The FBI used an unfiltered version to attempt to correct the
speed using the 60 Hz hum.
And this is consistent with what the "NRC Repository for Audio Files of
the JFK Assassination" tells us, ie the FBI playback was made using the
original Dictabelt recording.
Link to NRC Repository for Audio Files
https://www.nap.edu/resource/JFK_audio/
Finally, here is what Robert Berkovitz said in his report
[robert berkovitz quote]
Three different copies of the Channel 1 recording were available to us
in our work....
???HSC??? shows part of the waveform from a copy of the recording used by
BBN and WA and subsequently examined by the NAS committee. We digitized
the waveform from the analog tape and concluded, after comparing our
computer screen displays to the illustrations in the BBN and WA reports,
that the NAS copy was essentially identical to the recording depicted by
BBN and WA, showing the effects of the digital filtering they had applied
to the DPD original.
???DPD??? is from a copy of the recording made by James Bowles of the Dallas
Police Department.
???FBI??? is from the copy of the Channel 1 recording made by the F.B.I.
during the NAS review. This copy exhibits significant defects not
present in the other two recordings.
The distinctive appearance and sound of the HSC recording can be
attributed at least in part to the digital filtering applied to the
recording before analysis.
The recorded outputs from both filters for the full 5 minutes were
compared, examined, and plotted on a scale where 5 in. equals 1/10 sec. ???
One filter was an adaptive filter, whose function is described in the
BBN report.
One property of periodic components is that, given sufficient past
history, they can be predicted; indeed, a perfectly periodic signal can
be predicted perfectly. The filter ???learns??? from the past history of the
signal, estimates the signal for the next time period, and subtracts its
estimate from the input. What is left are those portions of the signal
that the filter cannot estimate, i.e., the random components.
[end Berkovitz quote]
Why do I call it a clique? Because none of you, not you, not Barber, not
Marsh and not Thomas will admit it when you are wrong about something,
even when you are OBVIOUSLY wrong about something.
Look in the mirror. Now's your chance to prove you aren't describing
yourself.
I asked you in an different post, if you think that W&A and BBN were
incompetent or just plain lying when they published the REAL TIME
intervals between the peaks on the tape they used.
Unlike you, I don't try to get in their head. I wrote the facts. Their
data is wrong. Why it's wrong is another topic.
But as I've pointed out and any reasonable person should notice
(especially because I actually wrote it in there) changing the speed can't
make their data correct. The peaks are not off by the same amount.
Post by GKnoll
It is obvious that
the interval between those peaks on the Berkovitz tape differ
significantly from the real times published by W&A.
See above. Every tape differs from the times published by W&A. Those
aren't the only problems either. I do believe I once wrote an article on
the subject.
Post by GKnoll
They are the only
ones telling us what real times are. So far you have not shown what are
the real times for anything. You have shown that you think the
Berkovitze tape matches the FBI tape. I have shown that the Berkovitz
tape does not match the tape that W&A used. Do you think that they were
lying or are incompetent? Is that what you are implying?
We are just now learning of the contents of the email. Recall, that all
of this , until now, is based on Don Thomas's account, what you said to
Don Thomas, not what you said to Berkovitz.
If I cared to, I could go back and show you where in this thread you
said that you confirmed that the tape that Berkovitz used was made from
a playback of the 1982 FBI and NAS speed corrected file.
Even though you have not come out and said it, I think you are telling
me, that you were wrong about that. Right?
But now you are saying, that the speed of the berkovitz tape does match
the speed of the FBI version, but that the FBI version was not the
source for the berkovitz tape. And because of that the speed correction
factor of 1 is appropriate.
No I'm not saying that. It's not because it came from the FBI copy, or
because it didn't come from it. Which tape it was copied from does not
matter. It's speed is the SAME as the FBI copy, which is the correct
speed.
You have a real problem reading other people's words without them
filtering through your own existing filter. That happens persistently,
including in the email correspondence we've had. This is partly why we
never get past any first basic points. You don't pay attention to what
other people actually say without imposing your twist on it, and can't
acknowledge getting anything wrong. You will never get this stuff right
because you can't correct anything you have wrong.
I think we're done with this.
Michael
But you really do not know the recording speed of the original Dictabelt.
You think you know, but all of your speed analysis are based on an
assumption, ie that the hum was at 60 Hz. If the hum was not 60 Hz then
your speed estimates are wrong.
I know you did good work with Track 7. I know you calculated the
correction function for that track and I know that you did that by
adjusting the tape speed to match up 60 Hz peaks. You assumed the hum was
60 Hz.
If its not to difficult, try doing the same procedure, but this time try
to match a 57 Hz hum or a 54 Hz hum.
60Hz is the frequency of the power line hum. It is fixed by standard.
There is only the single original power line hum on that Audograph
recording. There are multiple hums on the Bowles copies of channel 1.
This shouldn't be too surprising as the copies are multi generation
copies. The presence of a 57Hz hum there does not mean that Dallas was
using some weird off standard power generation system. There are much
simpler explanations. You are jumping to unsupported conclusions, again.

Michael
John McAdams
2018-06-14 02:18:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
I know you did good work with Track 7. I know you calculated the
correction function for that track and I know that you did that by
adjusting the tape speed to match up 60 Hz peaks. You assumed the hum was
60 Hz.
If its not to difficult, try doing the same procedure, but this time try
to match a 57 Hz hum or a 54 Hz hum.
60Hz is the frequency of the power line hum. It is fixed by standard.
My understanding is that the accuracy of electric clocks is entirely
dependent on the frequency being 60 Hz.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

GKnoll
2018-05-27 23:46:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Post by John McAdams
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Post by BOZ
https://jfk007.com/1053-2/
Why do you do this? You're writing as if you know about things you can't
possibly know. You don't know what private communications took place
there, or what was happening on Thomas' head. Naturally, it's not
correct.
Post by GKnoll
The second person who analyzed the W&A interpreation was Michael O'Dell
in his paper "Replicationg Weiss and Aschkenay". He did not confirm it,
far from it. O'Dell determined that one needed correction factors of at
least 10% on the tape that Berkovitz used get matches to the echoes that
I did no such thing. There is no statement even close to that in my
article, and there's nothing in it that could be reasonably inferred to
mean it. Correction factor of at least 10%? You made that up, it didn't
come from me.
Your post reminds me of this (with Gknoll being the Columbia
http://youtu.be/sXJ8tKRlW3E
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
That guy is sooooo annoying.
I am annoying because I know where you made your mistakes and I am
waiting for you to admit them.
Yeah, that must be it. :-)
Michael
Lets focus on something that you do freely admit, that you did confirm
to Don Thomas that the tape that Berkovitz used was made from a playback
made by the FBI and NRC in 1982 with the 60 Hz speed correction built in.
No. That the speed is the same as the FBI playback. I don't care if the
copy actually came from that source. Only the speed is the issue.
Just for you, I'm going to partially quote the email I wrote to Berkovitz.
"Don wrote me a couple of weeks ago and said that he found a signficant
match to the W&A pattern by using a speed correction factor of 1.0 instead
of 0.95. I checked his claim and confirmed that a speed correction of 1.0
produces a correlation coefficient of 0.4193. Of course that raises the
question of whether 1.0 is a proper value to use so I checked the HSC.WAV
clip and compared it to the recordings we have. I found that it precisely
matches the playback speed of the 1981 FBI produced copy of the dictabelt,
which was already speed corrected, so it appears 1.0 would be the right
value."
Note two things, both of which I've said and with which you've told me I'm
wrong.
One, I never said that 1.0 is the right speed because of the correlation.
I said that with 1.0 you get that correlation, but the reason 1.0 is right
is something else.
Two, the something else is that 1.0 matches the speed of the speed
corrected FBI dictabelt. Not that it comes from that copy, just that it
matches the same speed.
That's right from the email I wrote in Dec. 2003 when I first explained the
issue to Berkovitz.
It really doesn't matter how you want to interpret the words in Don's
book, or what he actually wrote. What I've told you is what happened.
The issue is what Don said. Thats what started all this.
No, the issue is the argument you wanted to base on what Don wrote, which
was dependent on the two things I just addressed.
Post by GKnoll
Regarding the technical matter of whether the Berkovitz tape is at real
time.
NOTE: When I say Berkovitz tape I mean HSC.wav.
The problem is the tape the Berkovitz used should not match the FBI
version if it is the tape that W&A and BBN used.
You have no reason to think that Berkovitz had the actual physical tapes
that W&A and BBN used. There are many copies that run at various speeds.
What matters is the speed of the copy being used, wherever it might have
come from.
Post by GKnoll
The tape that W&A and BBN used was not speed corrected. The FBI speed
corrected tape should not equal the BBN filtered tape.
But it did equal Berkovitz's clip. It is what it is. I see no point in
continuing to debate the question.
Post by GKnoll
We need more information on what exactly the FBI did to make their
recording. Something does not fit.
The only thing not fitting are the preconceived ideas you are imposing.
Post by GKnoll
According to Linsker and Garvin, in "Synchronization of the acoustic
evidence in the assassination of President Kennedy"
Page 211
"Uses of AC hum for speed determination
We cannot directly use the hum frequencies to determine K(speed
correction factor) for Tracks 1, 2 or 3, because there are multiple hums
that are not all harmonics of a single frequency. These multiple hums
may have been introduced during multiple generations of re-recording
and by acoustic noise that, while driven by a 60 Hz AC, does not itself
have a frequency of 60Hz."
Link
http://www.jfk-records.com/ScienceAndJustice_45(4)_207-226(2005).pdf
Linsker is saying that they could not use 60 cycle hum to determine the
speed correction factors for Tracks 1, 2 and 3. They could use if for
Track 7. After time correcting Track 7 then they could use a different
method, (Pattern Cross Correlation method) to determine the relative
speed difference between the same utterance on Track 1 and Track 7. When
they did that they got a speed correction factor of 1.01 for Track 1.
Relative to Track 7, Track 1 was running about 1% fast.
I know that, I helped them do that. What does it have to do with this?
Post by GKnoll
Again, W&A and BBN tell us that the tape they used was 5% slow RELATIVE
TO STOPWATCH TIME. They also published real time intervals based on
their analysis. When we try to match the Berkovitz tape to those real
time intervals we find they are off by at least a factor of 1.10).
Berkovitz did not have BBN's actual tape. He had copies of the channels,
like everyone else. If speed matters to what you are doing you establish
the correct speed of your copy. Its genealogy doesn't give it to you.
Speed can change from dub to dub. That's how it did.
Post by GKnoll
The only evidence for real times, so far, is the evidence published by W&A.
The only evidence you know about. Speed of these tapes is actually
something I know a great deal about, and I know what the correct speeds
are. It happens that the digital FBI copy is very near true speed. It
also happens it's at the same speed as Berkovitz's clip. Those are facts.
I'm sorry if they are inconvenient, but I can't help that and I'm not
going to keep arguing the same thing with you.
No, they are not facts. They are dependent upon your assumption that the
hum on Track 7 had a frequency of 60 Hz.

If the hum was at 57 Hz then your estimates of speed are off by 5 percent.

Here is another quote fron Linsker
[quote]
Page 211
"Uses of AC hum for speed determination
We cannot directly use the hum frequencies to determine K(speed
correction factor) for Tracks 1, 2 or 3, because there are multiple
hums that are not all harmonics of a single frequency. These multiple
hums may have been introduced during multiple generations of
re-recording and by acoustic noise that, while driven by a 60 Hz AC,
does not itself have a frequency of 60Hz.

[For example, acoustic noise from a fan operating at, or slightly lower
than 1725 rpm can generate a hum at or slightly lower than 57.5 Hz, and
it is known that the Bowles recordings were made by acoustic transfer in
open air, rather thatn an electical coupling]

[end quote]

I keep insisting that the only one's who have been talking about real
time is BBN and W&A.
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
It is very easy to show that is also not the case, in other words,the
tape used by Berkovitz was not speed corrected by the FBI and did not
come from a speed corrected version.
The tape that Robert Berkovitz used DID NOT and COULD NOT have been made
from the FBI NRC playback.
According to Don Thomas, you confirmed that the tape used by Robert
Berkovitz during the Court-TV program was a playback made by the FBI for
the NRC, which the FBI corrected for speed. However, it is easy to show
that this is not case as well.
Here again is Don' quote, but I am putting the emphasis on the NRC playback
https://photos.app.goo.gl/tMKpw4x7kUYvWxap8
[quote]
It turned out that the playback used by Sensimetrics was not the Dallas
police recording from 1963, BUT A PLAYBACK MADE BY THE FBI AND NRC PANEL
WITH 60 Hz SPEED CORRECTION BUILT IN. Without any correction for speed,
the Sensimetrics program demonstrated that the test shot and the suspect
pattern do match. Just to be sure, I notified my colleague Michael O'Dell
WHO CONFIRMED THAT THE RECORDING WAS THE 1982 NRC PLAYBACK and that the
patterns do match. Anyone, can download the Sensimetrics program from the
Court-TV website and confirm the match for oneself. Just set the speed
adjustment to the zero setting.
[end quote]
According to what Don Thomas said, both you and Don think the tape
Berkovitz used was from the FBI speed corrected version. That is not
correct. And here is why...
The tape that Berkovitz used was the one that BBN had made from the
original Dictabelt recording AND TO WHICH BBN APPLIED AN ADAPTIVE FILTER
AS WELL AS A 1 KHz to 3.2 KHz BANDPASS FILTER.
Anyone who knows what they are looking at, can readily tell that the
tape is the BBN filtered version.
And here is the kicker...
ACCORDING TO BBN, THE FILTERS REMOVED THE HUM.
Here is what BBN said about that
[BBN quote]
The adaptive filtering algorithm, when applied to the entire 5-minute
segment of transmission, was not so effective . Figures 6 and 7 show the
effect of filtering the waveform from 130 to 150 sec (overlapping the
period for which the unprocessed waveform is shown in Fig . 4) . THE
ADAPTIVE FILTERING REMOVED HUM AND SOME LOW-FREQUENCY NOISE COMPONENTS.,
but the overall effect was not dramatic .
[end BBN quote]
It is easy to see from looking at the tape Berkovitz used, that there is
much less noise than on the FBI tape.
The FBI could not have used the "Berkovitz" tape to time correct the
file using the 60 Hz hum, because the original hum had been removed from
that tape. The FBI used an unfiltered version to attempt to correct the
speed using the 60 Hz hum.
And this is consistent with what the "NRC Repository for Audio Files of
the JFK Assassination" tells us, ie the FBI playback was made using the
original Dictabelt recording.
Link to NRC Repository for Audio Files
https://www.nap.edu/resource/JFK_audio/
Finally, here is what Robert Berkovitz said in his report
[robert berkovitz quote]
Three different copies of the Channel 1 recording were available to us
in our work....
???HSC??? shows part of the waveform from a copy of the recording used by
BBN and WA and subsequently examined by the NAS committee. We digitized
the waveform from the analog tape and concluded, after comparing our
computer screen displays to the illustrations in the BBN and WA reports,
that the NAS copy was essentially identical to the recording depicted by
BBN and WA, showing the effects of the digital filtering they had applied
to the DPD original.
???DPD??? is from a copy of the recording made by James Bowles of the Dallas
Police Department.
???FBI??? is from the copy of the Channel 1 recording made by the F.B.I.
during the NAS review. This copy exhibits significant defects not
present in the other two recordings.
The distinctive appearance and sound of the HSC recording can be
attributed at least in part to the digital filtering applied to the
recording before analysis.
The recorded outputs from both filters for the full 5 minutes were
compared, examined, and plotted on a scale where 5 in. equals 1/10 sec. ???
One filter was an adaptive filter, whose function is described in the
BBN report.
One property of periodic components is that, given sufficient past
history, they can be predicted; indeed, a perfectly periodic signal can
be predicted perfectly. The filter ???learns??? from the past history of the
signal, estimates the signal for the next time period, and subtracts its
estimate from the input. What is left are those portions of the signal
that the filter cannot estimate, i.e., the random components.
[end Berkovitz quote]
Why do I call it a clique? Because none of you, not you, not Barber, not
Marsh and not Thomas will admit it when you are wrong about something,
even when you are OBVIOUSLY wrong about something.
Look in the mirror. Now's your chance to prove you aren't describing
yourself.
I asked you in an different post, if you think that W&A and BBN were
incompetent or just plain lying when they published the REAL TIME
intervals between the peaks on the tape they used.
Unlike you, I don't try to get in their head. I wrote the facts. Their
data is wrong. Why it's wrong is another topic.
But as I've pointed out and any reasonable person should notice
(especially because I actually wrote it in there) changing the speed can't
make their data correct. The peaks are not off by the same amount.
Post by GKnoll
It is obvious that
the interval between those peaks on the Berkovitz tape differ
significantly from the real times published by W&A.
See above. Every tape differs from the times published by W&A. Those
aren't the only problems either. I do believe I once wrote an article on
the subject.
Post by GKnoll
They are the only
ones telling us what real times are. So far you have not shown what are
the real times for anything. You have shown that you think the
Berkovitze tape matches the FBI tape. I have shown that the Berkovitz
tape does not match the tape that W&A used. Do you think that they were
lying or are incompetent? Is that what you are implying?
We are just now learning of the contents of the email. Recall, that all
of this , until now, is based on Don Thomas's account, what you said to
Don Thomas, not what you said to Berkovitz.
If I cared to, I could go back and show you where in this thread you
said that you confirmed that the tape that Berkovitz used was made from
a playback of the 1982 FBI and NAS speed corrected file.
Even though you have not come out and said it, I think you are telling
me, that you were wrong about that. Right?
But now you are saying, that the speed of the berkovitz tape does match
the speed of the FBI version, but that the FBI version was not the
source for the berkovitz tape. And because of that the speed correction
factor of 1 is appropriate.
No I'm not saying that. It's not because it came from the FBI copy, or
because it didn't come from it. Which tape it was copied from does not
matter. It's speed is the SAME as the FBI copy, which is the correct
speed.
You have a real problem reading other people's words without them
filtering through your own existing filter. That happens persistently,
including in the email correspondence we've had. This is partly why we
never get past any first basic points. You don't pay attention to what
other people actually say without imposing your twist on it, and can't
acknowledge getting anything wrong. You will never get this stuff right
because you can't correct anything you have wrong.
I think we're done with this.
Michael
Frankly, I was thinking of your article when I asked if you thought they
were lying. In your article you use the words "falsifying the report",
when talking about the W&A report.

[odell quote]

Someone with a religious devotion to belief in the acoustic evidence might
say that FALSIFYING THE REPORT does not prove there was no shot from the
grassy knoll on the Dictabelt recording. Maybe Weiss & Aschkenasy did the
test correctly and everything got all messed up when the report was
written. True, maybe that happened. Maybe it didn???t. We also can???t
prove there was no shot from the Dal-Tex building, or the overpass, or the
storm drain. We are not often required to prove negatives such as that.
The basis for believing the Weiss & Aschkenasy result is the report. A
hypothetical experiment conducted in private and not written down does not
count.

[odell quote]

In our email exchange you kept insisting that my logic implied that all
peaks had to be echoes. I kept telling that it did not. And it doesn't.
My logic implied that particular set of impulses had to be an echo, not
that all peaks had to be echoes.

I agree that there is not one speed change to make W&A's data correct.
But it does not mean what you think it means.

I am just as confident that there are impulses from shots in this area
of the tape as you are as there are not. I do not think the W&A analysis
is correct either, let me rephrase that, I know the W&A analysis is not
correct.
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-29 15:32:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Post by GKnoll
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Post by John McAdams
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Post by BOZ
https://jfk007.com/1053-2/
Why do you do this?  You're writing as if you know about
things you can't
possibly know.  You don't know what private communications
took place
there, or what was happening on Thomas' head.  Naturally, it's
not
correct.
Post by GKnoll
The second person who analyzed the W&A interpreation was Michael O'Dell
in his paper "Replicationg Weiss and Aschkenay". He did not confirm it,
far from it. O'Dell determined that one needed correction factors of at
least 10% on the tape that Berkovitz used get matches to the
echoes that
I did no such thing.  There is no statement even close to that
in my
article, and there's nothing in it that could be reasonably inferred to
mean it.  Correction factor of at least 10%?  You made that
up, it didn't
come from me.
Your post reminds me of this (with Gknoll being the Columbia
http://youtu.be/sXJ8tKRlW3E
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
That guy is sooooo annoying.
I am annoying because I know where you made your mistakes and I am
waiting for you to admit them.
Yeah, that must be it.  :-)
Michael
Lets focus on something that you do freely admit, that you did confirm
to Don Thomas that the tape that Berkovitz used was made from a playback
made by the FBI and NRC in 1982 with the 60 Hz speed correction built in.
No.  That the speed is the same as the FBI playback.  I don't care
if the
copy actually came from that source.  Only the speed is the issue.
Just for you, I'm going to partially quote the email I wrote to Berkovitz.
"Don wrote me a couple of weeks ago and said that he found a signficant
match to the W&A pattern by using a speed correction factor of 1.0 instead
of 0.95.  I checked his claim and confirmed that a speed correction
of 1.0
produces a correlation coefficient of 0.4193.  Of course that raises
the
question of whether 1.0 is a proper value to use so I checked the HSC.WAV
clip and compared it to the recordings we have.  I found that it
precisely
matches the playback speed of the 1981 FBI produced copy of the dictabelt,
which was already speed corrected, so it appears 1.0 would be the right
value."
Note two things, both of which I've said and with which you've told me I'm
wrong.
One, I never said that 1.0 is the right speed because of the correlation.
I said that with 1.0 you get that correlation, but the reason 1.0 is right
is something else.
Two, the something else is that 1.0 matches the speed of the speed
corrected FBI dictabelt.  Not that it comes from that copy, just
that it
matches the same speed.
That's right from the email I wrote in Dec. 2003 when I first explained the
issue to Berkovitz.
It really doesn't matter how you want to interpret the words in Don's
book, or what he actually wrote.  What I've told you is what happened.
The issue is what Don said. Thats what started all this.
No, the issue is the argument you wanted to base on what Don wrote, which
was dependent on the two things I just addressed.
Post by GKnoll
Regarding the technical matter of whether the Berkovitz tape is at real
time.
NOTE: When I say Berkovitz tape I mean HSC.wav.
The problem is the tape the Berkovitz used should not match the FBI
version if it is the tape that W&A and BBN used.
You have no reason to think that Berkovitz had the actual physical tapes
that W&A and BBN used.  There are many copies that run at various speeds.
What matters is the speed of the copy being used, wherever it might have
come from.
Post by GKnoll
The tape that W&A and BBN used was not speed corrected. The FBI speed
corrected tape should not equal the BBN filtered tape.
But it did equal Berkovitz's clip.  It is what it is.  I see no point in
continuing to debate the question.
Post by GKnoll
We need more information on what exactly the FBI did to make their
recording. Something does not fit.
The only thing not fitting are the preconceived ideas you are imposing.
Post by GKnoll
According to Linsker and Garvin, in "Synchronization of the acoustic
evidence in the assassination of President Kennedy"
Page 211
"Uses of AC hum for speed determination
   We cannot directly use the hum frequencies to determine K(speed
correction factor) for Tracks 1, 2 or 3, because there are multiple hums
that are not all harmonics of a single frequency. These multiple hums
may have been introduced during multiple generations of re-recording
and by acoustic noise that, while driven by a 60 Hz AC, does not itself
have a frequency of 60Hz."
Link
http://www.jfk-records.com/ScienceAndJustice_45(4)_207-226(2005).pdf
Linsker is saying that they could not use 60 cycle hum to determine the
speed correction factors for Tracks 1, 2 and 3. They could use if for
Track 7. After time correcting Track 7 then they could use a different
method, (Pattern Cross Correlation method) to determine the relative
speed difference between the same utterance on Track 1 and Track 7. When
they did that they got a speed correction factor of 1.01 for Track 1.
Relative to Track 7, Track 1 was running about 1% fast.
I know that, I helped them do that.  What does it have to do with this?
Post by GKnoll
Again, W&A and BBN tell us that the tape they used was 5% slow RELATIVE
TO STOPWATCH TIME. They also published real time intervals based on
their analysis. When we try to match the Berkovitz tape to those real
time intervals we find they are off by at least a factor of 1.10).
Berkovitz did not have BBN's actual tape.  He had copies of the channels,
like everyone else.  If speed matters to what you are doing you establish
the correct speed of your copy.  Its genealogy doesn't give it to you.
Speed can change from dub to dub.  That's how it did.
Post by GKnoll
The only evidence for real times, so far, is the evidence published by W&A.
The only evidence you know about.  Speed of these tapes is actually
something I know a great deal about, and I know what the correct speeds
are.  It happens that the digital FBI copy is very near true speed.  It
also happens it's at the same speed as Berkovitz's clip.  Those are
facts.
I'm sorry if they are inconvenient, but I can't help that and I'm not
going to keep arguing the same thing with you.
No, they are not facts. They are dependent upon your assumption that the
hum on Track 7 had a frequency of 60 Hz.
If the hum was at 57 Hz then your estimates of speed are off by 5 percent.
Here is another quote fron Linsker
[quote]
Page 211
 "Uses of AC hum for speed determination
 We cannot directly use the hum frequencies to determine K(speed
 correction factor) for Tracks 1, 2 or 3, because there are multiple
hums that are not all harmonics of a single frequency. These multiple
hums may have been introduced during multiple generations of
re-recording and by acoustic noise that, while driven by a 60 Hz AC,
does not itself have a frequency of 60Hz.
[For example, acoustic noise from a fan operating at, or slightly lower
than 1725 rpm can generate a hum at or slightly lower than 57.5 Hz, and
it is known that the Bowles recordings were made by acoustic transfer in
open air, rather thatn an electical coupling]
[end quote]
I keep insisting that the only one's who have been talking about real
time is BBN and W&A.
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Post by GKnoll
It is very easy to show that is also not the case, in other words,the
tape used by Berkovitz was not speed corrected by the FBI and did not
come from a speed corrected version.
The tape that Robert Berkovitz used DID NOT and COULD NOT have been made
from the FBI NRC playback.
According to Don Thomas, you confirmed that the tape used by Robert
Berkovitz during the Court-TV program was a playback made by the FBI for
the NRC, which the FBI corrected for speed. However, it is easy to show
that this is not case as well.
Here again is Don' quote, but I am putting the emphasis on the NRC playback
https://photos.app.goo.gl/tMKpw4x7kUYvWxap8
[quote]
It turned out that the playback used by Sensimetrics was not the Dallas
police recording from 1963, BUT A PLAYBACK MADE BY THE FBI AND NRC PANEL
WITH 60 Hz SPEED CORRECTION BUILT IN. Without any correction for speed,
the Sensimetrics program demonstrated that the test shot and the suspect
pattern do match. Just to be sure, I notified my colleague Michael O'Dell
WHO CONFIRMED THAT THE RECORDING WAS THE 1982 NRC PLAYBACK and that the
patterns do match. Anyone, can download the Sensimetrics program from the
Court-TV website and confirm the match for oneself. Just set the speed
adjustment to the zero setting.
[end quote]
According to what Don Thomas said, both you and Don think the tape
Berkovitz used was from the FBI speed corrected version. That is not
correct. And here is why...
The tape that Berkovitz used was the one that BBN had made from the
original Dictabelt recording AND TO WHICH BBN APPLIED AN ADAPTIVE FILTER
AS WELL AS A 1 KHz to 3.2 KHz BANDPASS FILTER.
Anyone who knows what they are looking at, can readily tell that the
tape is the BBN filtered version.
And here is the kicker...
ACCORDING TO BBN, THE FILTERS REMOVED THE HUM.
Here is what BBN said about that
[BBN quote]
The adaptive filtering algorithm, when applied to the entire 5-minute
segment of transmission, was not so effective . Figures 6 and 7 show the
effect of filtering the waveform from 130 to 150 sec (overlapping the
period for which the unprocessed waveform is shown in Fig . 4) . THE
ADAPTIVE FILTERING REMOVED HUM AND SOME LOW-FREQUENCY NOISE COMPONENTS.,
but the overall effect was not dramatic .
[end BBN quote]
It is easy to see from looking at the tape Berkovitz used, that there is
much less noise than on the FBI tape.
The FBI could not have used the "Berkovitz" tape to time correct the
file using the 60 Hz hum, because the original hum had been removed from
that tape. The FBI used an unfiltered version to attempt to correct the
speed using the 60 Hz hum.
And this is consistent with what the "NRC Repository for Audio Files of
the JFK Assassination" tells us, ie the FBI playback was made using the
original Dictabelt recording.
Link to NRC Repository for Audio Files
https://www.nap.edu/resource/JFK_audio/
Finally, here is what Robert Berkovitz said in his report
[robert berkovitz quote]
Three different copies of the Channel 1 recording were available to us
in our work....
???HSC??? shows part of the waveform from a copy of the recording used by
BBN and WA and subsequently examined by the NAS committee.  We
digitized
the waveform from the analog tape and concluded, after comparing our
computer screen displays to the illustrations in the BBN and WA reports,
that the NAS copy was essentially identical to the recording depicted by
BBN and WA, showing the effects of the digital filtering they had applied
to the DPD original.
???DPD??? is from a copy of the recording made by James Bowles of the Dallas
Police Department.
???FBI??? is from the copy of the Channel 1 recording made by the F.B.I.
during the NAS review.  This copy exhibits significant defects not
present in the other two recordings.
The distinctive appearance and sound of the HSC recording can be
attributed at least in part to the digital filtering applied to the
recording before analysis.
The recorded outputs from both filters for the full 5 minutes were
compared, examined, and plotted on a scale where 5 in. equals 1/10 sec. ???
One filter was an adaptive filter, whose function is described in the
BBN report.
One property of periodic components is that, given sufficient past
history, they can be predicted; indeed, a perfectly periodic signal can
be predicted perfectly. The filter ???learns??? from the past history of the
signal, estimates the signal for the next time period, and
subtracts its
estimate from the input.  What is left are those portions of the
signal
that the filter cannot estimate, i.e., the random components.
[end Berkovitz quote]
Why do I call it a clique? Because none of you, not you, not Barber, not
Marsh and not Thomas will admit it when you are wrong about something,
even when you are OBVIOUSLY wrong about something.
Look in the mirror.  Now's your chance to prove you aren't describing
yourself.
I asked you in an different post, if you think that W&A and BBN were
incompetent or just plain lying when they published the REAL TIME
intervals between the peaks on the tape they used.
Unlike you, I don't try to get in their head.  I wrote the facts.  Their
data is wrong.  Why it's wrong is another topic.
But as I've pointed out and any reasonable person should notice
(especially because I actually wrote it in there) changing the speed can't
make their data correct.  The peaks are not off by the same amount.
Post by GKnoll
  It is obvious that
the interval between those peaks on the Berkovitz tape differ
significantly from the real times published by W&A.
See above.  Every tape differs from the times published by W&A.  Those
aren't the only problems either.  I do believe I once wrote an article on
the subject.
Post by GKnoll
They are the only
ones telling us what real times are. So far you have not shown what are
the real times for anything. You have shown that you think the
Berkovitze tape matches the FBI tape. I have shown that the Berkovitz
tape does not match the tape that W&A used. Do you think that they were
lying or are incompetent? Is that what you are implying?
We are just now learning of the contents of the email. Recall, that all
of this , until now, is based on Don Thomas's account, what you said to
Don Thomas, not what you said to Berkovitz.
If I cared to, I could go back and show you where in this thread you
said that you confirmed that the tape that Berkovitz used was made from
a playback of the 1982 FBI and NAS speed corrected file.
Even though you have not come out and said it, I think you are telling
me, that you were wrong about that. Right?
But now you are saying, that the speed of the berkovitz tape does match
the speed of the FBI version, but that the FBI version was not the
source for the berkovitz tape. And because of that the speed correction
factor of 1 is appropriate.
No I'm not saying that.  It's not because it came from the FBI copy, or
because it didn't come from it.  Which tape it was copied from does not
matter.  It's speed is the SAME as the FBI copy, which is the correct
speed.
You have a real problem reading other people's words without them
filtering through your own existing filter.  That happens persistently,
including in the email correspondence we've had.  This is partly why we
never get past any first basic points.  You don't pay attention to what
other people actually say without imposing your twist on it, and can't
acknowledge getting anything wrong.  You will never get this stuff right
because you can't correct anything you have wrong.
I think we're done with this.
Michael
Frankly, I was thinking of your article when I asked if you thought they
were lying. In your article you use the words "falsifying the report",
when talking about the W&A report.
[odell quote]
Someone with a religious devotion to belief in the acoustic evidence
might say that FALSIFYING THE REPORT does not prove there was no shot
from the grassy knoll on the Dictabelt recording.  Maybe Weiss &
Aschkenasy did the test correctly and everything got all messed up when
the report was written.  True, maybe that happened.  Maybe it didn???t.
We also can???t prove there was no shot from the Dal-Tex building, or
the overpass, or the storm drain.  We are not often required to prove
negatives such as that. The basis for believing the Weiss & Aschkenasy
result is the report.  A hypothetical experiment conducted in private
and not written down does not count.
[odell quote]
In our email exchange you kept insisting that my logic implied that all
peaks had to be echoes. I kept telling that it did not. And it doesn't.
My logic implied that particular set of impulses had to be an echo, not
that all peaks had to be echoes.
OK, but W&A mainly considered the peaks which were higher than the 80
decibel background noise are probably echoes, but also had to include
the muzzle blast and maybe the shock wave.
Post by GKnoll
I agree that there is not one speed change to make W&A's data correct.
But it does not mean what you think it means.
I am just as confident that there are impulses from shots in this area
of the tape as you are as there are not. I do not think the W&A analysis
is correct either, let me rephrase that, I know the W&A analysis is not
correct.
GKnoll
2018-05-27 23:46:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Post by John McAdams
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Post by BOZ
https://jfk007.com/1053-2/
Why do you do this? You're writing as if you know about things you can't
possibly know. You don't know what private communications took place
there, or what was happening on Thomas' head. Naturally, it's not
correct.
Post by GKnoll
The second person who analyzed the W&A interpreation was Michael O'Dell
in his paper "Replicationg Weiss and Aschkenay". He did not confirm it,
far from it. O'Dell determined that one needed correction factors of at
least 10% on the tape that Berkovitz used get matches to the echoes that
I did no such thing. There is no statement even close to that in my
article, and there's nothing in it that could be reasonably inferred to
mean it. Correction factor of at least 10%? You made that up, it didn't
come from me.
Your post reminds me of this (with Gknoll being the Columbia
http://youtu.be/sXJ8tKRlW3E
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
That guy is sooooo annoying.
I am annoying because I know where you made your mistakes and I am
waiting for you to admit them.
Yeah, that must be it. :-)
Michael
Lets focus on something that you do freely admit, that you did confirm
to Don Thomas that the tape that Berkovitz used was made from a playback
made by the FBI and NRC in 1982 with the 60 Hz speed correction built in.
No. That the speed is the same as the FBI playback. I don't care if the
copy actually came from that source. Only the speed is the issue.
Just for you, I'm going to partially quote the email I wrote to Berkovitz.
"Don wrote me a couple of weeks ago and said that he found a signficant
match to the W&A pattern by using a speed correction factor of 1.0 instead
of 0.95. I checked his claim and confirmed that a speed correction of 1.0
produces a correlation coefficient of 0.4193. Of course that raises the
question of whether 1.0 is a proper value to use so I checked the HSC.WAV
clip and compared it to the recordings we have. I found that it precisely
matches the playback speed of the 1981 FBI produced copy of the dictabelt,
which was already speed corrected, so it appears 1.0 would be the right
value."
Note two things, both of which I've said and with which you've told me I'm
wrong.
One, I never said that 1.0 is the right speed because of the correlation.
I said that with 1.0 you get that correlation, but the reason 1.0 is right
is something else.
Two, the something else is that 1.0 matches the speed of the speed
corrected FBI dictabelt. Not that it comes from that copy, just that it
matches the same speed.
That's right from the email I wrote in Dec. 2003 when I first explained the
issue to Berkovitz.
It really doesn't matter how you want to interpret the words in Don's
book, or what he actually wrote. What I've told you is what happened.
The issue is what Don said. Thats what started all this.
No, the issue is the argument you wanted to base on what Don wrote, which
was dependent on the two things I just addressed.
Post by GKnoll
Regarding the technical matter of whether the Berkovitz tape is at real
time.
NOTE: When I say Berkovitz tape I mean HSC.wav.
The problem is the tape the Berkovitz used should not match the FBI
version if it is the tape that W&A and BBN used.
You have no reason to think that Berkovitz had the actual physical tapes
that W&A and BBN used. There are many copies that run at various speeds.
What matters is the speed of the copy being used, wherever it might have
come from.
Post by GKnoll
The tape that W&A and BBN used was not speed corrected. The FBI speed
corrected tape should not equal the BBN filtered tape.
But it did equal Berkovitz's clip. It is what it is. I see no point in
continuing to debate the question.
Post by GKnoll
We need more information on what exactly the FBI did to make their
recording. Something does not fit.
The only thing not fitting are the preconceived ideas you are imposing.
Post by GKnoll
According to Linsker and Garvin, in "Synchronization of the acoustic
evidence in the assassination of President Kennedy"
Page 211
"Uses of AC hum for speed determination
We cannot directly use the hum frequencies to determine K(speed
correction factor) for Tracks 1, 2 or 3, because there are multiple hums
that are not all harmonics of a single frequency. These multiple hums
may have been introduced during multiple generations of re-recording
and by acoustic noise that, while driven by a 60 Hz AC, does not itself
have a frequency of 60Hz."
Link
http://www.jfk-records.com/ScienceAndJustice_45(4)_207-226(2005).pdf
Linsker is saying that they could not use 60 cycle hum to determine the
speed correction factors for Tracks 1, 2 and 3. They could use if for
Track 7. After time correcting Track 7 then they could use a different
method, (Pattern Cross Correlation method) to determine the relative
speed difference between the same utterance on Track 1 and Track 7. When
they did that they got a speed correction factor of 1.01 for Track 1.
Relative to Track 7, Track 1 was running about 1% fast.
I know that, I helped them do that. What does it have to do with this?
Post by GKnoll
Again, W&A and BBN tell us that the tape they used was 5% slow RELATIVE
TO STOPWATCH TIME. They also published real time intervals based on
their analysis. When we try to match the Berkovitz tape to those real
time intervals we find they are off by at least a factor of 1.10).
Berkovitz did not have BBN's actual tape. He had copies of the channels,
like everyone else. If speed matters to what you are doing you establish
the correct speed of your copy. Its genealogy doesn't give it to you.
Speed can change from dub to dub. That's how it did.
Post by GKnoll
The only evidence for real times, so far, is the evidence published by W&A.
The only evidence you know about. Speed of these tapes is actually
something I know a great deal about, and I know what the correct speeds
are. It happens that the digital FBI copy is very near true speed. It
also happens it's at the same speed as Berkovitz's clip. Those are facts.
I'm sorry if they are inconvenient, but I can't help that and I'm not
going to keep arguing the same thing with you.
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
It is very easy to show that is also not the case, in other words,the
tape used by Berkovitz was not speed corrected by the FBI and did not
come from a speed corrected version.
The tape that Robert Berkovitz used DID NOT and COULD NOT have been made
from the FBI NRC playback.
According to Don Thomas, you confirmed that the tape used by Robert
Berkovitz during the Court-TV program was a playback made by the FBI for
the NRC, which the FBI corrected for speed. However, it is easy to show
that this is not case as well.
Here again is Don' quote, but I am putting the emphasis on the NRC playback
https://photos.app.goo.gl/tMKpw4x7kUYvWxap8
[quote]
It turned out that the playback used by Sensimetrics was not the Dallas
police recording from 1963, BUT A PLAYBACK MADE BY THE FBI AND NRC PANEL
WITH 60 Hz SPEED CORRECTION BUILT IN. Without any correction for speed,
the Sensimetrics program demonstrated that the test shot and the suspect
pattern do match. Just to be sure, I notified my colleague Michael O'Dell
WHO CONFIRMED THAT THE RECORDING WAS THE 1982 NRC PLAYBACK and that the
patterns do match. Anyone, can download the Sensimetrics program from the
Court-TV website and confirm the match for oneself. Just set the speed
adjustment to the zero setting.
[end quote]
According to what Don Thomas said, both you and Don think the tape
Berkovitz used was from the FBI speed corrected version. That is not
correct. And here is why...
The tape that Berkovitz used was the one that BBN had made from the
original Dictabelt recording AND TO WHICH BBN APPLIED AN ADAPTIVE FILTER
AS WELL AS A 1 KHz to 3.2 KHz BANDPASS FILTER.
Anyone who knows what they are looking at, can readily tell that the
tape is the BBN filtered version.
And here is the kicker...
ACCORDING TO BBN, THE FILTERS REMOVED THE HUM.
Here is what BBN said about that
[BBN quote]
The adaptive filtering algorithm, when applied to the entire 5-minute
segment of transmission, was not so effective . Figures 6 and 7 show the
effect of filtering the waveform from 130 to 150 sec (overlapping the
period for which the unprocessed waveform is shown in Fig . 4) . THE
ADAPTIVE FILTERING REMOVED HUM AND SOME LOW-FREQUENCY NOISE COMPONENTS.,
but the overall effect was not dramatic .
[end BBN quote]
It is easy to see from looking at the tape Berkovitz used, that there is
much less noise than on the FBI tape.
The FBI could not have used the "Berkovitz" tape to time correct the
file using the 60 Hz hum, because the original hum had been removed from
that tape. The FBI used an unfiltered version to attempt to correct the
speed using the 60 Hz hum.
And this is consistent with what the "NRC Repository for Audio Files of
the JFK Assassination" tells us, ie the FBI playback was made using the
original Dictabelt recording.
Link to NRC Repository for Audio Files
https://www.nap.edu/resource/JFK_audio/
Finally, here is what Robert Berkovitz said in his report
[robert berkovitz quote]
Three different copies of the Channel 1 recording were available to us
in our work....
???HSC??? shows part of the waveform from a copy of the recording used by
BBN and WA and subsequently examined by the NAS committee. We digitized
the waveform from the analog tape and concluded, after comparing our
computer screen displays to the illustrations in the BBN and WA reports,
that the NAS copy was essentially identical to the recording depicted by
BBN and WA, showing the effects of the digital filtering they had applied
to the DPD original.
???DPD??? is from a copy of the recording made by James Bowles of the Dallas
Police Department.
???FBI??? is from the copy of the Channel 1 recording made by the F.B.I.
during the NAS review. This copy exhibits significant defects not
present in the other two recordings.
The distinctive appearance and sound of the HSC recording can be
attributed at least in part to the digital filtering applied to the
recording before analysis.
The recorded outputs from both filters for the full 5 minutes were
compared, examined, and plotted on a scale where 5 in. equals 1/10 sec. ???
One filter was an adaptive filter, whose function is described in the
BBN report.
One property of periodic components is that, given sufficient past
history, they can be predicted; indeed, a perfectly periodic signal can
be predicted perfectly. The filter ???learns??? from the past history of the
signal, estimates the signal for the next time period, and subtracts its
estimate from the input. What is left are those portions of the signal
that the filter cannot estimate, i.e., the random components.
[end Berkovitz quote]
Why do I call it a clique? Because none of you, not you, not Barber, not
Marsh and not Thomas will admit it when you are wrong about something,
even when you are OBVIOUSLY wrong about something.
Look in the mirror. Now's your chance to prove you aren't describing
yourself.
I asked you in an different post, if you think that W&A and BBN were
incompetent or just plain lying when they published the REAL TIME
intervals between the peaks on the tape they used.
Unlike you, I don't try to get in their head. I wrote the facts. Their
data is wrong. Why it's wrong is another topic.
But as I've pointed out and any reasonable person should notice
(especially because I actually wrote it in there) changing the speed can't
make their data correct. The peaks are not off by the same amount.
Post by GKnoll
It is obvious that
the interval between those peaks on the Berkovitz tape differ
significantly from the real times published by W&A.
See above. Every tape differs from the times published by W&A. Those
aren't the only problems either. I do believe I once wrote an article on
the subject.
Post by GKnoll
They are the only
ones telling us what real times are. So far you have not shown what are
the real times for anything. You have shown that you think the
Berkovitze tape matches the FBI tape. I have shown that the Berkovitz
tape does not match the tape that W&A used. Do you think that they were
lying or are incompetent? Is that what you are implying?
We are just now learning of the contents of the email. Recall, that all
of this , until now, is based on Don Thomas's account, what you said to
Don Thomas, not what you said to Berkovitz.
If I cared to, I could go back and show you where in this thread you
said that you confirmed that the tape that Berkovitz used was made from
a playback of the 1982 FBI and NAS speed corrected file.
Even though you have not come out and said it, I think you are telling
me, that you were wrong about that. Right?
But now you are saying, that the speed of the berkovitz tape does match
the speed of the FBI version, but that the FBI version was not the
source for the berkovitz tape. And because of that the speed correction
factor of 1 is appropriate.
No I'm not saying that. It's not because it came from the FBI copy, or
because it didn't come from it. Which tape it was copied from does not
matter. It's speed is the SAME as the FBI copy, which is the correct
speed.
You have a real problem reading other people's words without them
filtering through your own existing filter. That happens persistently,
including in the email correspondence we've had. This is partly why we
never get past any first basic points. You don't pay attention to what
other people actually say without imposing your twist on it, and can't
acknowledge getting anything wrong. You will never get this stuff right
because you can't correct anything you have wrong.
I think we're done with this.
Michael
I have already calculated the correction factors for a 54 Hz hum for
Track 7.

Here is a link to a plot which shows the correction actors for boty 54
Hz hum and 60 Hz hum.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/GWYJtNOUWim165rc2
GKnoll
2018-05-25 18:32:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Post by John McAdams
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Post by BOZ
https://jfk007.com/1053-2/
Why do you do this? You're writing as if you know about things you can't
possibly know. You don't know what private communications took place
there, or what was happening on Thomas' head. Naturally, it's not
correct.
Post by GKnoll
The second person who analyzed the W&A interpreation was Michael O'Dell
in his paper "Replicationg Weiss and Aschkenay". He did not confirm it,
far from it. O'Dell determined that one needed correction factors of at
least 10% on the tape that Berkovitz used get matches to the echoes that
I did no such thing. There is no statement even close to that in my
article, and there's nothing in it that could be reasonably inferred to
mean it. Correction factor of at least 10%? You made that up, it didn't
come from me.
Your post reminds me of this (with Gknoll being the Columbia
http://youtu.be/sXJ8tKRlW3E
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
That guy is sooooo annoying.
I am annoying because I know where you made your mistakes and I am
waiting for you to admit them.
Yeah, that must be it. :-)
Michael
The tape that Robert Berkovitz used could not have been speed corrected
using the 60 Hz hum, because it was a filtered version of the recording
from which the 60 Hz hum had been removed.

The tape that Robert Berkovitz used DID NOT and COULD NOT have been made
from the FBI NRC playback.

Why?

Because the tape that Berkovitz used was the one that BBN had made from
the original Dictabelt recording and to which BBN applied an ADAPTIVE
filter as well as a 1Khz to 3.2 Khz BANDPASS filter.

And here is the kicker...

Those filters removed the 60 Hz hum.

Here is what BBN said about that

[BBN quote]

The adaptive filtering algorithm, when applied to the entire 5-minute
segment of transmission, was not so effective . Figures 6 and 7 show the
effect of filtering the waveform from 130 to 150 sec (overlapping the
period for which the unprocessed waveform is shown in Fig . 4) . THE
ADAPTIVE FILTERING REMOVED HUM AND SOME LOW-FREQUENCY NOISE COMPONENTS.,
but the overall effect was not dramatic .

[end BBN quote]

The FBI could not have used the "Berkovitz" tape to time correct the file
using the 60 Hz hum, because the original hum had been removed from that
tape. The FBI used an unfiltered version to attempt to correct the speed
using the 60 Hz hum.

And this is consistent with what the "NRC Repository for Audio Files of
the JFK Assassination" tells us, ie the FBI playback was made using the
original Dictabelt recording.

Link to NRC Repository for Audio Files
https://www.nap.edu/resource/JFK_audio/
GKnoll
2018-05-21 01:52:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by BOZ
https://jfk007.com/1053-2/
The last section re: Don Thomas, is spot on. Thomas, to this day, spreads
his absolute lies regarding what he claims is "crosstalk", knowing fully
well that it isn't crosstalk. It was Micheal o'Dell who convinced Thomas
that he was using inferior copies of the police recordings when Thomas
wrote his peer reviewed paper in 2001. After Michael presented Thomas with
the facts--that the channel two recording was useless as a timing tool to
prove the HSCA's claim that H.B. McLain had the open mic was correct.
(This was nearly twenty years after the Ramsey panel Report in 1982).
After Michael O'Dell convinced Don Thomas he was wrong, Thomas conceded.
Apparently, Thomas couldn't admit complete defeat, so, he invented his
"crosstalk" theory, based primarily on the transcript written by James C.
Bowles) DPD Communications Supervisor at the time of the assassination
(See the transcript in Larry Sneed's excellent book "No More Silence").
Thomas was/is wrong, again, and several members of the Ramsey panel
regrouped performed a study on Thomas' conclusions, wrote a detailed
report regarding Thomas' theory, and Micheal O'Dell aided in proving
http://jfk-records.com/ScienceAndJustice_45%284%29_207-226%282005%29.pdf
I also wrote an article(which was featured in Bugliosi's Reclaiming
History) which you can read here, regarding heterodyne tones (beep tones)
that accompany the speech which Thomas claims is crosstalk on channel 1.
The fact that there are heterodyne tones accompanying the speech that
Thomas says is crosstalk proves that it isn't crosstalk at all. Which you
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2007/07/of-crosstalk-and-bells-rebuttal-to-don.html
To this day, Thomas speaks at JFK conspiracy conferences spreading his
untruth regarding the speech on channel 1 which he claims is crosstalk.
Thomas believes that the "gunshots" are on the channel 1 Dictabelt, but
that there are five--not four gunshots-- and he supports the conclusions
reached by the acoustics experts for the HSCA.
The so called "acoustic experts" have formed a clique. And it is very
So who do you think is in this clique?
Post by GKnoll
hard to penetrate this clique. They are a small group who are hell bent
on pushing through the false theory that the man behind the fence shown
in the Moorman photo (and I think first identified by Josiah Thompson in
his book "Six Seconds In Dallas") fired the shot that we all see
striking the Presdient on Zapruder frame 313. There is not a single
piece of evidence that supports that shot came from the knoll, quite the
contrary, every single piece of evidence we have shows that the shot at
frame 313 could not have been fired by that man at that time.
Their theory is 100% dependent upon the interpretation made by Weiss and
Aschkenasy.
No one has been able to confirm the interpretation of Weiss and
Aschkenasy. Robert Berkovitz was the first and he showed that their
interpretation could not be correct, Speaking of debacles, the CourtTV
experience was a debacle within a debacle. When Berkovitz could not
confirm the W&A result, Don Thomas thought that Robert Berkovitz made a
mistake. Berkovitz sent Thomas his program. Thomas concluded based on
his running of the Berkovitz's program that Berkovitz made a mistake
when he(Berkovitz) applied a correction factor to the tape. Because
Thomas got a better correlation (still much less than the .77
correlation W&A published) when he did not apply a correction factor, he
jumped to the (false) conclusion that the tape Berkovitz was working
with was one that had already been corrected for tape speed. To make
matters worse, Thomas contacted Michael O'Dell and O'Dell told Thomas
that, yes the tape that Berkovitz used was already tape speed corrected.
This feed Thomas's ego, and reinforced in Thomas that the W&A was right.
All of that is wrong. When one looks at the Thomas correlation(the one
he thinks confirms W&A) it is dead-nuts obvious that his correlation is
wrong.
Why do you do this? You're writing as if you know about things you can't
possibly know. You don't know what private communications took place
there, or what was happening on Thomas' head. Naturally, it's not
correct.
Here is what Don Thomas wrote about it....

https://photos.app.goo.gl/tMKpw4x7kUYvWxap8

[quote]

It turned out that the playback used by Sensimetrics was not the Dallas
police recording from 1963, but a playback made by the FBI and NRC panel
in 1982 with a 60 Hz speed correction built in. Without any correction for
speed, the Sensimetrics program demonstrated that the test shot and the
suspect pattern do match. Just to be sure, I notified my colleague Michael
O'Dell who confirmed that the recording was the 1982 NRC playback and that
the patterns do match. Anyone, can download the Sensimetrics program from
the Court-TV website and confirm the match for oneself. Just set the speed
adjustment to the zero setting.

[end quote]

That is what he wrote. But he was obviously wrong. All one has to do is
look at his correlation to see that. Anyone, who understood where the
pattern was and where the impulses were relative to that pattern would see
immediately that what Don Thomas was a match was not a match.
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
The second person who analyzed the W&A interpreation was Michael O'Dell
in his paper "Replicationg Weiss and Aschkenay". He did not confirm it,
far from it. O'Dell determined that one needed correction factors of at
least 10% on the tape that Berkovitz used get matches to the echoes that
I did no such thing. There is no statement even close to that in my
article, and there's nothing in it that could be reasonably inferred to
mean it. Correction factor of at least 10%? You made that up, it didn't
come from me.
Here is Figure 12 from your paper. In that table you show the correlation
from the db.wav file to the delay times for the echoes published by W&A in
Table 4 of their report. The % column in your Figure 12 shows the
percentage that you had to multiply the peaks in db.wav to match the
published values in W&A's table 4. A quick look at the percent column in
your Figure 12 shows that you had to apply a correction factor of a least
110 percent to db.wav to match the W&A published values. That corresponds
to a minimum correction factor of 1.10 and is applicable when one
recording is running 10% slow relative to a second recording. In this case
the second recording is the values published by W&A in their table 4. You
may not realize it, but you confirmed that the correlation that Don Thomas
got with zero correction factor during the CourtTV era could not have been
right.

Here is a link to your Figure 12.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/zwxU85ctSspdTD2F2


Here is a link to the correlation that Don Thomas got during the CourtTV
experience.

It is obvious to anyone looking at this correlation that it is not
correct. The impulses inside the black ellipse should be under the black
dots to the right of that ellipse. Don used a zero time correction factor.
You have to apply a correction factor of about 1.10 to get those impulses
inside the ellipse to move to the right far enough so they line up under
the black dots. When you did what you did in your "Replicating ...."
article, you found you had to use 110% to correlate the db.wav to the W&A
published echoes.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/ul3tN2oPDNPwFFbx2
Post by odellm
Michael
odellm
2018-05-21 20:23:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by BOZ
https://jfk007.com/1053-2/
The last section re: Don Thomas, is spot on. Thomas, to this day, spreads
his absolute lies regarding what he claims is "crosstalk", knowing fully
well that it isn't crosstalk. It was Micheal o'Dell who convinced Thomas
that he was using inferior copies of the police recordings when Thomas
wrote his peer reviewed paper in 2001. After Michael presented Thomas with
the facts--that the channel two recording was useless as a timing tool to
prove the HSCA's claim that H.B. McLain had the open mic was correct.
(This was nearly twenty years after the Ramsey panel Report in 1982).
After Michael O'Dell convinced Don Thomas he was wrong, Thomas conceded.
Apparently, Thomas couldn't admit complete defeat, so, he invented his
"crosstalk" theory, based primarily on the transcript written by James C.
Bowles) DPD Communications Supervisor at the time of the assassination
(See the transcript in Larry Sneed's excellent book "No More Silence").
Thomas was/is wrong, again, and several members of the Ramsey panel
regrouped performed a study on Thomas' conclusions, wrote a detailed
report regarding Thomas' theory, and Micheal O'Dell aided in proving
http://jfk-records.com/ScienceAndJustice_45%284%29_207-226%282005%29.pdf
I also wrote an article(which was featured in Bugliosi's Reclaiming
History) which you can read here, regarding heterodyne tones (beep tones)
that accompany the speech which Thomas claims is crosstalk on channel 1.
The fact that there are heterodyne tones accompanying the speech that
Thomas says is crosstalk proves that it isn't crosstalk at all. Which you
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2007/07/of-crosstalk-and-bells-rebuttal-to-don.html
To this day, Thomas speaks at JFK conspiracy conferences spreading his
untruth regarding the speech on channel 1 which he claims is crosstalk.
Thomas believes that the "gunshots" are on the channel 1 Dictabelt, but
that there are five--not four gunshots-- and he supports the conclusions
reached by the acoustics experts for the HSCA.
The so called "acoustic experts" have formed a clique. And it is very
So who do you think is in this clique?
You didn't answer this one.
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
hard to penetrate this clique. They are a small group who are hell bent
on pushing through the false theory that the man behind the fence shown
in the Moorman photo (and I think first identified by Josiah Thompson in
his book "Six Seconds In Dallas") fired the shot that we all see
striking the Presdient on Zapruder frame 313. There is not a single
piece of evidence that supports that shot came from the knoll, quite the
contrary, every single piece of evidence we have shows that the shot at
frame 313 could not have been fired by that man at that time.
Their theory is 100% dependent upon the interpretation made by Weiss and
Aschkenasy.
No one has been able to confirm the interpretation of Weiss and
Aschkenasy. Robert Berkovitz was the first and he showed that their
interpretation could not be correct, Speaking of debacles, the CourtTV
experience was a debacle within a debacle. When Berkovitz could not
confirm the W&A result, Don Thomas thought that Robert Berkovitz made a
mistake. Berkovitz sent Thomas his program. Thomas concluded based on
his running of the Berkovitz's program that Berkovitz made a mistake
when he(Berkovitz) applied a correction factor to the tape. Because
Thomas got a better correlation (still much less than the .77
correlation W&A published) when he did not apply a correction factor, he
jumped to the (false) conclusion that the tape Berkovitz was working
with was one that had already been corrected for tape speed. To make
matters worse, Thomas contacted Michael O'Dell and O'Dell told Thomas
that, yes the tape that Berkovitz used was already tape speed corrected.
This feed Thomas's ego, and reinforced in Thomas that the W&A was right.
All of that is wrong. When one looks at the Thomas correlation(the one
he thinks confirms W&A) it is dead-nuts obvious that his correlation is
wrong.
Why do you do this? You're writing as if you know about things you can't
possibly know. You don't know what private communications took place
there, or what was happening on Thomas' head. Naturally, it's not
correct.
Here is what Don Thomas wrote about it....
https://photos.app.goo.gl/tMKpw4x7kUYvWxap8
[quote]
It turned out that the playback used by Sensimetrics was not the Dallas
police recording from 1963, but a playback made by the FBI and NRC panel
in 1982 with a 60 Hz speed correction built in. Without any correction for
speed, the Sensimetrics program demonstrated that the test shot and the
suspect pattern do match. Just to be sure, I notified my colleague Michael
O'Dell who confirmed that the recording was the 1982 NRC playback and that
the patterns do match. Anyone, can download the Sensimetrics program from
the Court-TV website and confirm the match for oneself. Just set the speed
adjustment to the zero setting.
[end quote]
That is what he wrote. But he was obviously wrong. All one has to do is
look at his correlation to see that. Anyone, who understood where the
pattern was and where the impulses were relative to that pattern would see
immediately that what Don Thomas was a match was not a match.
I know what he wrote, and what happened. But the point concerned what you
wrote.

GKNOLL: "...he jumped to the (false) conclusion that the tape Berkovitz
was working with was one that had already been corrected for tape speed."

Nobody jumped to a conclusion, and it wasn't false. We actually had all
the recordings, including Berkovitz's own clip. The observation that his
clip was already at the right speed wasn't based on how the result came
out. It was based on comparing it to the other tracks to see which one he
used.

GKNOLL: "This feed Thomas's ego, and reinforced in Thomas that the W&A was
right."

You have no knowledge of what was happening in Don Thomas' head. He
didn't say those things. You made them up. I seriously doubt my agreeing
with a factual observation had any affect on his ego. And he already
thought W&A were right. He's never stopped thinking they were right.

GKNOLL: "All of that is wrong. When one looks at the Thomas
correlation(the one he thinks confirms W&A) it is dead-nuts obvious that
his correlation is wrong."

The issue was that Berkovitz used the wrong speed, hence Berkovitz's
conclusion was invalid. When I told him, Berkovitz didn't dispute that.
He knew what happened.

That does not mean that the actual result confirmed W&A. The score wasn't
that high, and the program wasn't a complete reconstruction of the W&A
method. But that's not the point.
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
The second person who analyzed the W&A interpreation was Michael O'Dell
in his paper "Replicationg Weiss and Aschkenay". He did not confirm it,
far from it. O'Dell determined that one needed correction factors of at
least 10% on the tape that Berkovitz used get matches to the echoes that
I did no such thing. There is no statement even close to that in my
article, and there's nothing in it that could be reasonably inferred to
mean it. Correction factor of at least 10%? You made that up, it didn't
come from me.
Here is Figure 12 from your paper. In that table you show the correlation
from the db.wav file to the delay times for the echoes published by W&A in
Table 4 of their report. The % column in your Figure 12 shows the
percentage that you had to multiply the peaks in db.wav to match the
published values in W&A's table 4. A quick look at the percent column in
your Figure 12 shows that you had to apply a correction factor of a least
110 percent to db.wav to match the W&A published values. That corresponds
to a minimum correction factor of 1.10 and is applicable when one
recording is running 10% slow relative to a second recording. In this case
the second recording is the values published by W&A in their table 4. You
may not realize it, but you confirmed that the correlation that Don Thomas
got with zero correction factor during the CourtTV era could not have been
right.
Here is a link to your Figure 12.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/zwxU85ctSspdTD2F2
Typically, you misunderstand what that's about. I was comparing the
published values used by W&A for their measurement of the dictabelt peaks
to the actual peaks on the dictabelt. The point being that the numbers
they used to represent the dictabelt pattern, didn't actually match the
dictabelt. It's only about measuring the dictabelt pattern itself.

None of that has anything to do with how much you'd have to change the
speed to get an echo correlation. You might match the dictabelt
measurement exactly and still not get any echo correlation. The
percentages are there to show that simply changing the tape speed won't
fix it. They aren't all off by the same amount. Changing it by 10% won't
fix it.
Post by GKnoll
Here is a link to the correlation that Don Thomas got during the CourtTV
experience.
It is obvious to anyone looking at this correlation that it is not
correct. The impulses inside the black ellipse should be under the black
dots to the right of that ellipse. Don used a zero time correction factor.
You have to apply a correction factor of about 1.10 to get those impulses
inside the ellipse to move to the right far enough so they line up under
the black dots. When you did what you did in your "Replicating ...."
article, you found you had to use 110% to correlate the db.wav to the W&A
published echoes.
No, a 10% change would not make the wav file match the W&A numbers, as I
said above. If that's what you think it said then you've misunderstood
it.

And that's got nothing to do with an echo correlation.
Post by GKnoll
https://photos.app.goo.gl/ul3tN2oPDNPwFFbx2
Post by odellm
Michael
Michael
GKnoll
2018-05-22 22:36:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by BOZ
https://jfk007.com/1053-2/
The last section re: Don Thomas, is spot on. Thomas, to this day, spreads
his absolute lies regarding what he claims is "crosstalk", knowing fully
well that it isn't crosstalk. It was Micheal o'Dell who convinced Thomas
that he was using inferior copies of the police recordings when Thomas
wrote his peer reviewed paper in 2001. After Michael presented Thomas with
the facts--that the channel two recording was useless as a timing tool to
prove the HSCA's claim that H.B. McLain had the open mic was correct.
(This was nearly twenty years after the Ramsey panel Report in 1982).
After Michael O'Dell convinced Don Thomas he was wrong, Thomas conceded.
Apparently, Thomas couldn't admit complete defeat, so, he invented his
"crosstalk" theory, based primarily on the transcript written by James C.
Bowles) DPD Communications Supervisor at the time of the assassination
(See the transcript in Larry Sneed's excellent book "No More Silence").
Thomas was/is wrong, again, and several members of the Ramsey panel
regrouped performed a study on Thomas' conclusions, wrote a detailed
report regarding Thomas' theory, and Micheal O'Dell aided in proving
http://jfk-records.com/ScienceAndJustice_45%284%29_207-226%282005%29.pdf
I also wrote an article(which was featured in Bugliosi's Reclaiming
History) which you can read here, regarding heterodyne tones (beep tones)
that accompany the speech which Thomas claims is crosstalk on channel 1.
The fact that there are heterodyne tones accompanying the speech that
Thomas says is crosstalk proves that it isn't crosstalk at all. Which you
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2007/07/of-crosstalk-and-bells-rebuttal-to-don.html
To this day, Thomas speaks at JFK conspiracy conferences spreading his
untruth regarding the speech on channel 1 which he claims is crosstalk.
Thomas believes that the "gunshots" are on the channel 1 Dictabelt, but
that there are five--not four gunshots-- and he supports the conclusions
reached by the acoustics experts for the HSCA.
The so called "acoustic experts" have formed a clique. And it is very
So who do you think is in this clique?
You didn't answer this one.
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
hard to penetrate this clique. They are a small group who are hell bent
on pushing through the false theory that the man behind the fence shown
in the Moorman photo (and I think first identified by Josiah Thompson in
his book "Six Seconds In Dallas") fired the shot that we all see
striking the Presdient on Zapruder frame 313. There is not a single
piece of evidence that supports that shot came from the knoll, quite the
contrary, every single piece of evidence we have shows that the shot at
frame 313 could not have been fired by that man at that time.
Their theory is 100% dependent upon the interpretation made by Weiss and
Aschkenasy.
No one has been able to confirm the interpretation of Weiss and
Aschkenasy. Robert Berkovitz was the first and he showed that their
interpretation could not be correct, Speaking of debacles, the CourtTV
experience was a debacle within a debacle. When Berkovitz could not
confirm the W&A result, Don Thomas thought that Robert Berkovitz made a
mistake. Berkovitz sent Thomas his program. Thomas concluded based on
his running of the Berkovitz's program that Berkovitz made a mistake
when he(Berkovitz) applied a correction factor to the tape. Because
Thomas got a better correlation (still much less than the .77
correlation W&A published) when he did not apply a correction factor, he
jumped to the (false) conclusion that the tape Berkovitz was working
with was one that had already been corrected for tape speed. To make
matters worse, Thomas contacted Michael O'Dell and O'Dell told Thomas
that, yes the tape that Berkovitz used was already tape speed corrected.
This feed Thomas's ego, and reinforced in Thomas that the W&A was right.
All of that is wrong. When one looks at the Thomas correlation(the one
he thinks confirms W&A) it is dead-nuts obvious that his correlation is
wrong.
Why do you do this? You're writing as if you know about things you can't
possibly know. You don't know what private communications took place
there, or what was happening on Thomas' head. Naturally, it's not
correct.
Here is what Don Thomas wrote about it....
https://photos.app.goo.gl/tMKpw4x7kUYvWxap8
[quote]
It turned out that the playback used by Sensimetrics was not the Dallas
police recording from 1963, but a playback made by the FBI and NRC panel
in 1982 with a 60 Hz speed correction built in. Without any correction for
speed, the Sensimetrics program demonstrated that the test shot and the
suspect pattern do match. Just to be sure, I notified my colleague Michael
O'Dell who confirmed that the recording was the 1982 NRC playback and that
the patterns do match. Anyone, can download the Sensimetrics program from
the Court-TV website and confirm the match for oneself. Just set the speed
adjustment to the zero setting.
[end quote]
That is what he wrote. But he was obviously wrong. All one has to do is
look at his correlation to see that. Anyone, who understood where the
pattern was and where the impulses were relative to that pattern would see
immediately that what Don Thomas was a match was not a match.
I know what he wrote, and what happened. But the point concerned what you
wrote.
GKNOLL: "...he jumped to the (false) conclusion that the tape Berkovitz
was working with was one that had already been corrected for tape speed."
Nobody jumped to a conclusion, and it wasn't false. We actually had all
the recordings, including Berkovitz's own clip. The observation that his
clip was already at the right speed wasn't based on how the result came
out. It was based on comparing it to the other tracks to see which one he
used.
No, that is not what Thomas said. Please pay close attention...

[quote]

I notified my colleague Michael O'Dell who CONFIRMED that the recording
was the 1982 NRC playback and THAT THE PATTERNS DO MATCH. Anyone, can
download the Sensimetrics program from the Court-TV website and confirm
the match for one self"

[unquote]

Don Thomas and you were both talking about the "MATCH". It is clear from
what Don Thomas WROTE that he jumped to the conclusion that the tape was
already corrected for tape speed BECAUSE he got a better correlation
coefficient when there was no tape speed correction applied at all. And
"jump" is the proper word to use. And you agreed with him.

The simple fact is, I do not know what you did to conclude the the file
CourtTV used was already corrected for tape speed, but whatever you did,
it was NOT CORRECT. Why? Because it is easy to see, actually obvious to
anyone who understands what is going on there, that the match IS NOT
CORRECT. It is off by a time correction factor of at least 1.10. And if
the MATCH is not correct, then obviously the tape itself could not have
been at real time. The echoes in the pattern you were comparing to were at
real time (or very close). The impulses in the file were not.
Post by odellm
GKNOLL: "This feed Thomas's ego, and reinforced in Thomas that the W&A was
right."
You have no knowledge of what was happening in Don Thomas' head. He
didn't say those things. You made them up. I seriously doubt my agreeing
with a factual observation had any affect on his ego. And he already
thought W&A were right. He's never stopped thinking they were right.
You are right, I was not there, but I suspect that you agreeing with him,
did feed his ego. Just a few posts ago Steve Barber was telling us how
hard it was for you to convince Don that his cross talk interpretation was
not correct and was not supported by the Chanel 2 record

But the problem is, that BOTH of you were wrong about it and it is obvious
that you were both wrong, and NEITHER of you are willing to correct
this.(the clique)
Post by odellm
GKNOLL: "All of that is wrong. When one looks at the Thomas
correlation(the one he thinks confirms W&A) it is dead-nuts obvious that
his correlation is wrong."
The issue was that Berkovitz used the wrong speed, hence Berkovitz's
conclusion was invalid. When I told him, Berkovitz didn't dispute that.
He knew what happened.
Again, what you are saying now does not fit with what Don Thomas said
about it and what Don is doing to this very day.

You both concluded that the pattern did MATCH, WHICH IT CLEARLY DID NOT
AND DOES NOT. And because it does not your conclusion that the tape you
used was already at real time is also incorrect.

The fact of the matter is that the tape that Berkovitz used WAS NOT AT
REAL time. The proper tape speed correction factor for that tape, in that
area, is about .90, not .95. I do not know how it happened, but someone
applied a .95 correction factor to a tape that was already .95 slow.
Multiplying .95*.95 yields a total correction factor of .90.

Unless you think that W&A and BBN were just completely lying, then it is
easy to see that the tape that Berkovitz used was off by .90, not by .95.
Post by odellm
That does not mean that the actual result confirmed W&A. The score wasn't
that high, and the program wasn't a complete reconstruction of the W&A
method. But that's not the point.
Actually, it is the point. Again, for the third time, BOTH you and Don
Thomas concluded that the tape MATCHED the pattern. AND IT CLEARLY DOES
NOT.
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
The second person who analyzed the W&A interpreation was Michael O'Dell
in his paper "Replicationg Weiss and Aschkenay". He did not confirm it,
far from it. O'Dell determined that one needed correction factors of at
least 10% on the tape that Berkovitz used get matches to the echoes that
I did no such thing. There is no statement even close to that in my
article, and there's nothing in it that could be reasonably inferred to
mean it. Correction factor of at least 10%? You made that up, it didn't
come from me.
Here is Figure 12 from your paper. In that table you show the correlation
from the db.wav file to the delay times for the echoes published by W&A in
Table 4 of their report. The % column in your Figure 12 shows the
percentage that you had to multiply the peaks in db.wav to match the
published values in W&A's table 4. A quick look at the percent column in
your Figure 12 shows that you had to apply a correction factor of a least
110 percent to db.wav to match the W&A published values. That corresponds
to a minimum correction factor of 1.10 and is applicable when one
recording is running 10% slow relative to a second recording. In this case
the second recording is the values published by W&A in their table 4. You
may not realize it, but you confirmed that the correlation that Don Thomas
got with zero correction factor during the CourtTV era could not have been
right.
Here is a link to your Figure 12.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/zwxU85ctSspdTD2F2
Typically, you misunderstand what that's about. I was comparing the
published values used by W&A for their measurement of the dictabelt peaks
to the actual peaks on the dictabelt. The point being that the numbers
they used to represent the dictabelt pattern, didn't actually match the
dictabelt. It's only about measuring the dictabelt pattern itself.
The table speaks for itself.

Just because I do not understand it the way you want me to does not mean
that I misunderstand it.

I did not misunderstand anything. I think that you are the one who does
not understand what you did. What you did, even if you refuse to admit
it,(or maybe you do not really understand what you did) is you correlated
the the db.wav file to the published values used by W&A. That is the
correlation.
Post by odellm
None of that has anything to do with how much you'd have to change the
speed to get an echo correlation. You might match the dictabelt
measurement exactly and still not get any echo correlation. The
percentages are there to show that simply changing the tape speed won't
fix it. They aren't all off by the same amount. Changing it by 10% won't
fix it.
Correlation is correlation. You performed the correlation by hand. Don
Thomas performed it using the computer program.

You are right that there is not single time correction factor that will
fix the problems with the W&A interpretation. That's because the W&A
interpretation itself is not correct. There is no pattern match and there
was no pattern match.
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Here is a link to the correlation that Don Thomas got during the CourtTV
experience.
It is obvious to anyone looking at this correlation that it is not
correct. The impulses inside the black ellipse should be under the black
dots to the right of that ellipse. Don used a zero time correction factor.
You have to apply a correction factor of about 1.10 to get those impulses
inside the ellipse to move to the right far enough so they line up under
the black dots. When you did what you did in your "Replicating ...."
article, you found you had to use 110% to correlate the db.wav to the W&A
published echoes.
No, a 10% change would not make the wav file match the W&A numbers, as I
said above. If that's what you think it said then you've misunderstood
it.
And that's got nothing to do with an echo correlation.
So you agree, that the correlation that Don Thomas made is not correct.
That is what this all about.

I did not mean to imply that that even if Don Thomas had used a speed
correction factor of .90 (equivalent to a time correction factor of 110%)
he would have got a valid match. He would not have got a valid match EVEN
IF he used that factor. Why? Because, the W&A correlation ITSELF is wrong.

What I have been pointing out, is that the correlation that both you and
Don Thomas said was correct, IS and WAS OBVIOUSLY, not correct. I think,
based on some things you said in this post, that you now know that(but are
not willing to just come out and admit) but I am pretty sure that Don
Thomas does not know it and would not accept it even if you tried to
explain it to him.
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
https://photos.app.goo.gl/ul3tN2oPDNPwFFbx2
Post by odellm
Michael
Michael
GKnoll
2018-05-23 03:19:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by BOZ
https://jfk007.com/1053-2/
The last section re: Don Thomas, is spot on. Thomas, to this day, spreads
his absolute lies regarding what he claims is "crosstalk", knowing fully
well that it isn't crosstalk. It was Micheal o'Dell who convinced Thomas
that he was using inferior copies of the police recordings when Thomas
wrote his peer reviewed paper in 2001. After Michael presented Thomas with
the facts--that the channel two recording was useless as a timing tool to
prove the HSCA's claim that H.B. McLain had the open mic was correct.
(This was nearly twenty years after the Ramsey panel Report in 1982).
     After Michael O'Dell convinced Don Thomas he was wrong,
Thomas conceded.
Apparently, Thomas couldn't admit complete defeat, so, he invented his
"crosstalk" theory, based primarily on the transcript written by James C.
Bowles) DPD Communications Supervisor at the time of the
assassination
(See the transcript in Larry Sneed's excellent book "No More Silence").
Thomas was/is wrong, again, and several members of the Ramsey panel
regrouped performed a study on Thomas' conclusions, wrote a detailed
report regarding Thomas' theory, and Micheal O'Dell aided in proving
http://jfk-records.com/ScienceAndJustice_45%284%29_207-226%282005%29.pdf
    I also wrote an article(which was featured in Bugliosi's
Reclaiming
History) which you can read here, regarding heterodyne tones (beep tones)
that accompany the speech which Thomas claims is crosstalk on channel 1.
The fact that there are heterodyne tones accompanying the speech that
Thomas says is crosstalk proves that it isn't crosstalk at all.
Which you
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2007/07/of-crosstalk-and-bells-rebuttal-to-don.html
     To this day, Thomas speaks at JFK conspiracy conferences
spreading his
untruth regarding the speech on channel 1 which he claims is crosstalk.
Thomas believes that the "gunshots" are on the channel 1
Dictabelt, but
that there are five--not four gunshots-- and he supports the conclusions
reached by the acoustics experts for the HSCA.
The so called "acoustic experts" have formed a clique. And it is very
So who do you think is in this clique?
You didn't answer this one.
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
hard to penetrate this clique. They are a small group who are hell bent
on pushing through the false theory that the man behind the fence shown
in the Moorman photo (and I think first identified by Josiah Thompson in
his book "Six Seconds In Dallas") fired the shot that we all see
striking the Presdient on Zapruder frame 313. There is not a single
piece of evidence that supports that shot came from the knoll, quite the
contrary, every single piece of evidence we have shows that the shot at
frame 313 could not have been fired by that man at that time.
Their theory is 100% dependent upon the interpretation made by Weiss and
Aschkenasy.
No one has been able to confirm the interpretation of Weiss and
Aschkenasy. Robert Berkovitz was the first and he showed that their
interpretation could not be correct, Speaking of debacles, the CourtTV
experience was a debacle within a debacle. When Berkovitz could not
confirm the W&A result, Don Thomas thought that Robert Berkovitz made a
mistake. Berkovitz sent Thomas his program. Thomas concluded based on
his running of the Berkovitz's program that Berkovitz made a mistake
when he(Berkovitz) applied a correction factor to the tape. Because
Thomas got a better correlation (still much less than the .77
correlation W&A published) when he did not apply a correction factor, he
jumped to the (false) conclusion that the tape Berkovitz was working
with was one that had already been corrected for tape speed. To make
matters worse, Thomas contacted Michael O'Dell and O'Dell told Thomas
that, yes the tape that Berkovitz used was already tape speed corrected.
This feed Thomas's ego, and reinforced in Thomas that the W&A was right.
All of that is wrong. When one looks at the Thomas correlation(the one
he thinks confirms W&A) it is dead-nuts obvious that his
correlation is
wrong.
Why do you do this?  You're writing as if you know about things you
can't
possibly know.  You don't know what private communications took place
there, or what was happening on Thomas' head.  Naturally, it's not
correct.
Here is what Don Thomas wrote about it....
https://photos.app.goo.gl/tMKpw4x7kUYvWxap8
[quote]
It turned out that the playback used by Sensimetrics was not the Dallas
police recording from 1963, but a playback made by the FBI and NRC panel
in 1982 with a 60 Hz speed correction built in. Without any
correction for
speed, the Sensimetrics program demonstrated that the test shot and the
suspect pattern do match. Just to be sure, I notified my colleague Michael
O'Dell who confirmed that the recording was the 1982 NRC playback and that
the patterns do match. Anyone, can download the Sensimetrics program from
the Court-TV website and confirm the match for oneself. Just set the speed
adjustment to the zero setting.
[end quote]
That is what he wrote. But he was obviously wrong. All one has to do is
look at his correlation to see that. Anyone, who understood where the
pattern was and where the impulses were relative to that pattern would see
immediately that what Don Thomas was a match was not a match.
I know what he wrote, and what happened.  But the point concerned what
you
wrote.
GKNOLL: "...he jumped to the (false) conclusion that the tape Berkovitz
was working with was one that had already been corrected for tape speed."
Nobody jumped to a conclusion, and it wasn't false.  We actually had all
the recordings, including Berkovitz's own clip.  The observation that his
clip was already at the right speed wasn't based on how the result came
out.  It was based on comparing it to the other tracks to see which
one he
used.
No, that is not what Thomas said. Please pay close attention...
[quote]
I notified my colleague Michael O'Dell who CONFIRMED that the recording
was the 1982 NRC playback and THAT THE PATTERNS DO MATCH. Anyone, can
download the Sensimetrics program from the Court-TV website and confirm
the match for one self"
[unquote]
Don Thomas and you were both talking about the "MATCH". It is clear from
what Don Thomas WROTE that he jumped to the conclusion that the tape was
already corrected for tape speed BECAUSE he got a better correlation
coefficient when there was no tape speed correction applied at all. And
"jump" is the proper word to use. And you agreed with him.
The simple fact is, I do not know what you did to conclude the the file
CourtTV used was already corrected for tape speed, but whatever you did,
it was NOT CORRECT. Why? Because it is easy to see, actually obvious to
anyone who understands what is going on there, that the match IS NOT
CORRECT. It is off by a time correction factor of at least 1.10. And if
the MATCH is not correct, then obviously the tape itself could not have
been at real time. The echoes in the pattern you were comparing to were
at real time (or very close). The impulses in the file were not.
Post by odellm
GKNOLL: "This feed Thomas's ego, and reinforced in Thomas that the W&A was
right."
You have no knowledge of what was happening in Don Thomas' head.  He
didn't say those things.  You made them up.  I seriously doubt my
agreeing
with a factual observation had any affect on his ego.  And he already
thought W&A were right.  He's never stopped thinking they were right.
You are right, I was not there, but I suspect that you agreeing with
him, did feed his ego. Just a few posts ago Steve Barber was telling us
how hard it was for you to convince Don that his cross talk
interpretation was not correct and was not supported by the Chanel 2 record
But the problem is, that BOTH of you were wrong about it and it is
obvious that you were both wrong, and NEITHER of you are willing to
correct this.(the clique)
Post by odellm
GKNOLL: "All of that is wrong. When one looks at the Thomas
correlation(the one he thinks confirms W&A) it is dead-nuts obvious that
his correlation is wrong."
The issue was that Berkovitz used the wrong speed, hence Berkovitz's
conclusion was invalid.  When I told him, Berkovitz didn't dispute that.
He knew what happened.
Again, what you are saying now does not fit with what Don Thomas said
about it and what Don is doing to this very day.
You both concluded that the pattern did MATCH, WHICH IT CLEARLY DID NOT
AND DOES NOT. And because it does not your conclusion that the tape you
used was already at real time is also incorrect.
The fact of the matter is that the tape that Berkovitz used WAS NOT AT
REAL time. The proper tape speed correction factor for that tape, in
that area, is about .90, not .95. I do not know how it happened, but
someone applied a .95 correction factor to a tape that was already .95
slow. Multiplying .95*.95 yields a total correction factor of .90.
Unless you think that W&A and BBN were just completely lying, then it is
easy to see that the tape that Berkovitz used was off by .90, not by .95.
Post by odellm
That does not mean that the actual result confirmed W&A.  The score
wasn't
that high, and the program wasn't a complete reconstruction of the W&A
method.  But that's not the point.
Actually, it is the point. Again, for the third time, BOTH you and Don
Thomas concluded that the tape MATCHED the pattern. AND IT CLEARLY DOES
NOT.
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
The second person who analyzed the W&A interpreation was Michael O'Dell
in his paper "Replicationg Weiss and Aschkenay". He did not confirm it,
far from it. O'Dell determined that one needed correction factors of at
least 10% on the tape that Berkovitz used get matches to the echoes that
I did no such thing.  There is no statement even close to that in my
article, and there's nothing in it that could be reasonably inferred to
mean it.  Correction factor of at least 10%?  You made that up, it
didn't
come from me.
Here is Figure 12 from your paper. In that table you show the correlation
from the db.wav file to the delay times for the echoes published by W&A in
Table 4 of their report. The % column in your Figure 12 shows the
percentage that you had to multiply the peaks in db.wav to match the
published values in W&A's table 4. A quick look at the percent column in
your Figure 12 shows that you had to apply a correction factor of a least
110 percent to db.wav to match the W&A published values. That corresponds
to a minimum correction factor of 1.10 and is applicable when one
recording is running 10% slow relative to a second recording. In this case
the second recording is the values published by W&A in their table 4. You
may not realize it, but you confirmed that the correlation that Don Thomas
got with zero correction factor during the CourtTV era could not have been
right.
Here is a link to your Figure 12.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/zwxU85ctSspdTD2F2
Typically, you misunderstand what that's about.  I was comparing the
published values used by W&A for their measurement of the dictabelt peaks
to the actual peaks on the dictabelt.  The point being that the numbers
they used to represent the dictabelt pattern, didn't actually match the
dictabelt.  It's only about measuring the dictabelt pattern itself.
The table speaks for itself.
Just because I do not understand it the way you want me to does not mean
that I misunderstand it.
I did not misunderstand anything. I think that you are the one who does
not understand what you did. What you did, even if you refuse to admit
it,(or maybe you do not really understand what you did) is you
correlated the the db.wav file to the published values used by W&A. That
is the correlation.
Post by odellm
None of that has anything to do with how much you'd have to change the
speed to get an echo correlation.  You might match the dictabelt
measurement exactly and still not get any echo correlation.  The
percentages are there to show that simply changing the tape speed won't
fix it.  They aren't all off by the same amount.  Changing it by 10%
won't
fix it.
Correlation is correlation. You performed the correlation by hand. Don
Thomas performed it using the computer program.
You are right that there is not single time correction factor that will
fix the problems with the W&A interpretation. That's because the W&A
interpretation itself is not correct. There is no pattern match and
there was no pattern match.
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Here is a link to the correlation that Don Thomas got during the CourtTV
experience.
It is obvious to anyone looking at this correlation that it is not
correct. The impulses inside the black ellipse should be under the black
dots to the right of that ellipse. Don used a zero time correction factor.
You have to apply a correction factor of about 1.10 to get those impulses
inside the ellipse to move to the right far enough so they line up under
the black dots. When you did what you did in your "Replicating ...."
article, you found you had to use 110% to correlate the db.wav to the W&A
published echoes.
No, a 10% change would not make the wav file match the W&A numbers, as I
said above.  If that's what you think it said then you've misunderstood
it.
And that's got nothing to do with an echo correlation.
So you agree, that the correlation that Don Thomas made is not correct.
That is what this all about.
I did not mean to imply that that even if Don Thomas had used a speed
correction factor of .90 (equivalent to a time correction factor of
110%) he would have got a valid match. He would not have got a valid
match EVEN IF he used that factor. Why? Because, the W&A correlation
ITSELF is wrong.
What I have been pointing out, is that the correlation that both you and
Don Thomas said was correct, IS and WAS OBVIOUSLY, not correct. I think,
based on some things you said in this post, that you now know that(but
are not willing to just come out and admit) but I am pretty sure that
Don Thomas does not know it and would not accept it even if you tried to
explain it to him.
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
https://photos.app.goo.gl/ul3tN2oPDNPwFFbx2
Post by odellm
Michael
Michael
Here is what the values from Figure 12 look like when you plot them on a
chart.

The blue dotted line is the least squares fit to all the points in
Figure 12. It yields a 1.16 time correction factor.

The orange dotted line is the least squares fit to all the points except
the first 4 points. The time correction factor for that trendline is 1.11.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/XHDbdJvukeEGqQre2
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-24 14:27:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GKnoll
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by BOZ
https://jfk007.com/1053-2/
The last section re: Don Thomas, is spot on. Thomas, to this day, spreads
his absolute lies regarding what he claims is "crosstalk", knowing fully
well that it isn't crosstalk. It was Micheal o'Dell who convinced Thomas
that he was using inferior copies of the police recordings when Thomas
wrote his peer reviewed paper in 2001. After Michael presented Thomas with
the facts--that the channel two recording was useless as a timing tool to
prove the HSCA's claim that H.B. McLain had the open mic was correct.
(This was nearly twenty years after the Ramsey panel Report in 1982).
     After Michael O'Dell convinced Don Thomas he was wrong,
Thomas conceded.
Apparently, Thomas couldn't admit complete defeat, so, he invented his
"crosstalk" theory, based primarily on the transcript written by James C.
Bowles) DPD Communications Supervisor at the time of the
assassination
(See the transcript in Larry Sneed's excellent book "No More Silence").
Thomas was/is wrong, again, and several members of the Ramsey panel
regrouped performed a study on Thomas' conclusions, wrote a detailed
report regarding Thomas' theory, and Micheal O'Dell aided in proving
http://jfk-records.com/ScienceAndJustice_45%284%29_207-226%282005%29.pdf
    I also wrote an article(which was featured in Bugliosi's
Reclaiming
History) which you can read here, regarding heterodyne tones (beep tones)
that accompany the speech which Thomas claims is crosstalk on channel 1.
The fact that there are heterodyne tones accompanying the speech that
Thomas says is crosstalk proves that it isn't crosstalk at all.
Which you
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2007/07/of-crosstalk-and-bells-rebuttal-to-don.html
     To this day, Thomas speaks at JFK conspiracy conferences
spreading his
untruth regarding the speech on channel 1 which he claims is crosstalk.
Thomas believes that the "gunshots" are on the channel 1
Dictabelt, but
that there are five--not four gunshots-- and he supports the conclusions
reached by the acoustics experts for the HSCA.
The so called "acoustic experts" have formed a clique. And it is very
So who do you think is in this clique?
You didn't answer this one.
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
hard to penetrate this clique. They are a small group who are hell bent
on pushing through the false theory that the man behind the fence shown
in the Moorman photo (and I think first identified by Josiah Thompson in
his book "Six Seconds In Dallas") fired the shot that we all see
striking the Presdient on Zapruder frame 313. There is not a single
piece of evidence that supports that shot came from the knoll, quite the
contrary, every single piece of evidence we have shows that the shot at
frame 313 could not have been fired by that man at that time.
Their theory is 100% dependent upon the interpretation made by Weiss and
Aschkenasy.
No one has been able to confirm the interpretation of Weiss and
Aschkenasy. Robert Berkovitz was the first and he showed that their
interpretation could not be correct, Speaking of debacles, the CourtTV
experience was a debacle within a debacle. When Berkovitz could not
confirm the W&A result, Don Thomas thought that Robert Berkovitz made a
mistake. Berkovitz sent Thomas his program. Thomas concluded based on
his running of the Berkovitz's program that Berkovitz made a mistake
when he(Berkovitz) applied a correction factor to the tape. Because
Thomas got a better correlation (still much less than the .77
correlation W&A published) when he did not apply a correction factor, he
jumped to the (false) conclusion that the tape Berkovitz was working
with was one that had already been corrected for tape speed. To make
matters worse, Thomas contacted Michael O'Dell and O'Dell told Thomas
that, yes the tape that Berkovitz used was already tape speed corrected.
This feed Thomas's ego, and reinforced in Thomas that the W&A was right.
All of that is wrong. When one looks at the Thomas correlation(the one
he thinks confirms W&A) it is dead-nuts obvious that his
correlation is
wrong.
Why do you do this?  You're writing as if you know about things you
can't
possibly know.  You don't know what private communications took place
there, or what was happening on Thomas' head.  Naturally, it's not
correct.
Here is what Don Thomas wrote about it....
https://photos.app.goo.gl/tMKpw4x7kUYvWxap8
[quote]
It turned out that the playback used by Sensimetrics was not the Dallas
police recording from 1963, but a playback made by the FBI and NRC panel
in 1982 with a 60 Hz speed correction built in. Without any
correction for
speed, the Sensimetrics program demonstrated that the test shot and the
suspect pattern do match. Just to be sure, I notified my colleague Michael
O'Dell who confirmed that the recording was the 1982 NRC playback and that
the patterns do match. Anyone, can download the Sensimetrics program from
the Court-TV website and confirm the match for oneself. Just set the speed
adjustment to the zero setting.
[end quote]
That is what he wrote. But he was obviously wrong. All one has to do is
look at his correlation to see that. Anyone, who understood where the
pattern was and where the impulses were relative to that pattern would see
immediately that what Don Thomas was a match was not a match.
I know what he wrote, and what happened.  But the point concerned
what you
wrote.
GKNOLL: "...he jumped to the (false) conclusion that the tape Berkovitz
was working with was one that had already been corrected for tape speed."
Nobody jumped to a conclusion, and it wasn't false.  We actually had all
the recordings, including Berkovitz's own clip.  The observation that his
clip was already at the right speed wasn't based on how the result came
out.  It was based on comparing it to the other tracks to see which
one he
used.
No, that is not what Thomas said. Please pay close attention...
[quote]
I notified my colleague Michael O'Dell who CONFIRMED that the
recording was the 1982 NRC playback and THAT THE PATTERNS DO MATCH.
Anyone, can download the Sensimetrics program from the Court-TV
website and confirm the match for one self"
[unquote]
Don Thomas and you were both talking about the "MATCH". It is clear
from what Don Thomas WROTE that he jumped to the conclusion that the
tape was already corrected for tape speed BECAUSE he got a better
correlation coefficient when there was no tape speed correction
applied at all. And "jump" is the proper word to use. And you agreed
with him.
The simple fact is, I do not know what you did to conclude the the
file CourtTV used was already corrected for tape speed, but whatever
you did, it was NOT CORRECT. Why? Because it is easy to see, actually
obvious to anyone who understands what is going on there, that the
match IS NOT CORRECT. It is off by a time correction factor of at
least 1.10. And if the MATCH is not correct, then obviously the tape
itself could not have been at real time. The echoes in the pattern you
were comparing to were at real time (or very close). The impulses in
the file were not.
Post by odellm
GKNOLL: "This feed Thomas's ego, and reinforced in Thomas that the W&A was
right."
You have no knowledge of what was happening in Don Thomas' head.  He
didn't say those things.  You made them up.  I seriously doubt my
agreeing
with a factual observation had any affect on his ego.  And he already
thought W&A were right.  He's never stopped thinking they were right.
You are right, I was not there, but I suspect that you agreeing with
him, did feed his ego. Just a few posts ago Steve Barber was telling
us how hard it was for you to convince Don that his cross talk
interpretation was not correct and was not supported by the Chanel 2 record
But the problem is, that BOTH of you were wrong about it and it is
obvious that you were both wrong, and NEITHER of you are willing to
correct this.(the clique)
Post by odellm
GKNOLL: "All of that is wrong. When one looks at the Thomas
correlation(the one he thinks confirms W&A) it is dead-nuts obvious that
his correlation is wrong."
The issue was that Berkovitz used the wrong speed, hence Berkovitz's
conclusion was invalid.  When I told him, Berkovitz didn't dispute that.
He knew what happened.
Again, what you are saying now does not fit with what Don Thomas said
about it and what Don is doing to this very day.
You both concluded that the pattern did MATCH, WHICH IT CLEARLY DID
NOT AND DOES NOT. And because it does not your conclusion that the
tape you used was already at real time is also incorrect.
The fact of the matter is that the tape that Berkovitz used WAS NOT AT
REAL time. The proper tape speed correction factor for that tape, in
that area, is about .90, not .95. I do not know how it happened, but
someone applied a .95 correction factor to a tape that was already .95
slow. Multiplying .95*.95 yields a total correction factor of .90.
Unless you think that W&A and BBN were just completely lying, then it
is easy to see that the tape that Berkovitz used was off by .90, not
by .95.
Post by odellm
That does not mean that the actual result confirmed W&A.  The score
wasn't
that high, and the program wasn't a complete reconstruction of the W&A
method.  But that's not the point.
Actually, it is the point. Again, for the third time, BOTH you and Don
Thomas concluded that the tape MATCHED the pattern. AND IT CLEARLY
DOES NOT.
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
The second person who analyzed the W&A interpreation was Michael O'Dell
in his paper "Replicationg Weiss and Aschkenay". He did not confirm it,
far from it. O'Dell determined that one needed correction factors of at
least 10% on the tape that Berkovitz used get matches to the echoes that
I did no such thing.  There is no statement even close to that in my
article, and there's nothing in it that could be reasonably inferred to
mean it.  Correction factor of at least 10%?  You made that up, it
didn't
come from me.
Here is Figure 12 from your paper. In that table you show the correlation
from the db.wav file to the delay times for the echoes published by W&A in
Table 4 of their report. The % column in your Figure 12 shows the
percentage that you had to multiply the peaks in db.wav to match the
published values in W&A's table 4. A quick look at the percent column in
your Figure 12 shows that you had to apply a correction factor of a least
110 percent to db.wav to match the W&A published values. That corresponds
to a minimum correction factor of 1.10 and is applicable when one
recording is running 10% slow relative to a second recording. In this case
the second recording is the values published by W&A in their table 4. You
may not realize it, but you confirmed that the correlation that Don Thomas
got with zero correction factor during the CourtTV era could not have been
right.
Here is a link to your Figure 12.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/zwxU85ctSspdTD2F2
Typically, you misunderstand what that's about.  I was comparing the
published values used by W&A for their measurement of the dictabelt peaks
to the actual peaks on the dictabelt.  The point being that the numbers
they used to represent the dictabelt pattern, didn't actually match the
dictabelt.  It's only about measuring the dictabelt pattern itself.
The table speaks for itself.
Just because I do not understand it the way you want me to does not
mean that I misunderstand it.
I did not misunderstand anything. I think that you are the one who
does not understand what you did. What you did, even if you refuse to
admit it,(or maybe you do not really understand what you did) is you
correlated the the db.wav file to the published values used by W&A.
That is the correlation.
Post by odellm
None of that has anything to do with how much you'd have to change the
speed to get an echo correlation.  You might match the dictabelt
measurement exactly and still not get any echo correlation.  The
percentages are there to show that simply changing the tape speed won't
fix it.  They aren't all off by the same amount.  Changing it by 10%
won't
fix it.
Correlation is correlation. You performed the correlation by hand. Don
Thomas performed it using the computer program.
You are right that there is not single time correction factor that
will fix the problems with the W&A interpretation. That's because the
W&A interpretation itself is not correct. There is no pattern match
and there was no pattern match.
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Here is a link to the correlation that Don Thomas got during the CourtTV
experience.
It is obvious to anyone looking at this correlation that it is not
correct. The impulses inside the black ellipse should be under the black
dots to the right of that ellipse. Don used a zero time correction factor.
You have to apply a correction factor of about 1.10 to get those impulses
inside the ellipse to move to the right far enough so they line up under
the black dots. When you did what you did in your "Replicating ...."
article, you found you had to use 110% to correlate the db.wav to the W&A
published echoes.
No, a 10% change would not make the wav file match the W&A numbers, as I
said above.  If that's what you think it said then you've misunderstood
it.
And that's got nothing to do with an echo correlation.
So you agree, that the correlation that Don Thomas made is not
correct. That is what this all about.
I did not mean to imply that that even if Don Thomas had used a speed
correction factor of .90 (equivalent to a time correction factor of
110%) he would have got a valid match. He would not have got a valid
match EVEN IF he used that factor. Why? Because, the W&A correlation
ITSELF is wrong.
What I have been pointing out, is that the correlation that both you
and Don Thomas said was correct, IS and WAS OBVIOUSLY, not correct. I
think, based on some things you said in this post, that you now know
that(but are not willing to just come out and admit) but I am pretty
sure that Don Thomas does not know it and would not accept it even if
you tried to explain it to him.
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
https://photos.app.goo.gl/ul3tN2oPDNPwFFbx2
Post by odellm
Michael
Michael
Here is what the values from Figure 12 look like when you plot them on a
chart.
The blue dotted line is the least squares fit to all the points in
Figure 12. It yields a 1.16 time correction factor.
The orange dotted line is the least squares fit to all the points except
the first 4 points. The time correction factor for that trendline is 1.11.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/XHDbdJvukeEGqQre2
Mike, why do you keep repling to your own messages? Because no one else
will talk to you?
OHLeeRedux
2018-05-25 14:24:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by BOZ
https://jfk007.com/1053-2/
The last section re: Don Thomas, is spot on. Thomas, to this day, spreads
his absolute lies regarding what he claims is "crosstalk", knowing fully
well that it isn't crosstalk. It was Micheal o'Dell who convinced Thomas
that he was using inferior copies of the police recordings when Thomas
wrote his peer reviewed paper in 2001. After Michael presented Thomas with
the facts--that the channel two recording was useless as a timing tool to
prove the HSCA's claim that H.B. McLain had the open mic was correct.
(This was nearly twenty years after the Ramsey panel Report in 1982).
     After Michael O'Dell convinced Don Thomas he was wrong,
Thomas conceded.
Apparently, Thomas couldn't admit complete defeat, so, he invented his
"crosstalk" theory, based primarily on the transcript written by James C.
Bowles) DPD Communications Supervisor at the time of the assassination
(See the transcript in Larry Sneed's excellent book "No More Silence").
Thomas was/is wrong, again, and several members of the Ramsey panel
regrouped performed a study on Thomas' conclusions, wrote a detailed
report regarding Thomas' theory, and Micheal O'Dell aided in proving
http://jfk-records.com/ScienceAndJustice_45%284%29_207-226%282005%29.pdf
    I also wrote an article(which was featured in Bugliosi's
Reclaiming
History) which you can read here, regarding heterodyne tones (beep tones)
that accompany the speech which Thomas claims is crosstalk on channel 1.
The fact that there are heterodyne tones accompanying the speech that
Thomas says is crosstalk proves that it isn't crosstalk at all.
Which you
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2007/07/of-crosstalk-and-bells-rebuttal-to-don.html
     To this day, Thomas speaks at JFK conspiracy conferences
spreading his
untruth regarding the speech on channel 1 which he claims is crosstalk.
Thomas believes that the "gunshots" are on the channel 1 Dictabelt, but
that there are five--not four gunshots-- and he supports the conclusions
reached by the acoustics experts for the HSCA.
The so called "acoustic experts" have formed a clique. And it is very
So who do you think is in this clique?
You didn't answer this one.
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
hard to penetrate this clique. They are a small group who are hell bent
on pushing through the false theory that the man behind the fence shown
in the Moorman photo (and I think first identified by Josiah Thompson in
his book "Six Seconds In Dallas") fired the shot that we all see
striking the Presdient on Zapruder frame 313. There is not a single
piece of evidence that supports that shot came from the knoll, quite the
contrary, every single piece of evidence we have shows that the shot at
frame 313 could not have been fired by that man at that time.
Their theory is 100% dependent upon the interpretation made by Weiss and
Aschkenasy.
No one has been able to confirm the interpretation of Weiss and
Aschkenasy. Robert Berkovitz was the first and he showed that their
interpretation could not be correct, Speaking of debacles, the CourtTV
experience was a debacle within a debacle. When Berkovitz could not
confirm the W&A result, Don Thomas thought that Robert Berkovitz made a
mistake. Berkovitz sent Thomas his program. Thomas concluded based on
his running of the Berkovitz's program that Berkovitz made a mistake
when he(Berkovitz) applied a correction factor to the tape. Because
Thomas got a better correlation (still much less than the .77
correlation W&A published) when he did not apply a correction factor, he
jumped to the (false) conclusion that the tape Berkovitz was working
with was one that had already been corrected for tape speed. To make
matters worse, Thomas contacted Michael O'Dell and O'Dell told Thomas
that, yes the tape that Berkovitz used was already tape speed corrected.
This feed Thomas's ego, and reinforced in Thomas that the W&A was right.
All of that is wrong. When one looks at the Thomas correlation(the one
he thinks confirms W&A) it is dead-nuts obvious that his correlation is
wrong.
Why do you do this?  You're writing as if you know about things you
can't
possibly know.  You don't know what private communications took place
there, or what was happening on Thomas' head.  Naturally, it's not
correct.
Here is what Don Thomas wrote about it....
https://photos.app.goo.gl/tMKpw4x7kUYvWxap8
[quote]
It turned out that the playback used by Sensimetrics was not the Dallas
police recording from 1963, but a playback made by the FBI and NRC panel
in 1982 with a 60 Hz speed correction built in. Without any correction for
speed, the Sensimetrics program demonstrated that the test shot and the
suspect pattern do match. Just to be sure, I notified my colleague Michael
O'Dell who confirmed that the recording was the 1982 NRC playback and that
the patterns do match. Anyone, can download the Sensimetrics program from
the Court-TV website and confirm the match for oneself. Just set the speed
adjustment to the zero setting.
[end quote]
That is what he wrote. But he was obviously wrong. All one has to do is
look at his correlation to see that. Anyone, who understood where the
pattern was and where the impulses were relative to that pattern would see
immediately that what Don Thomas was a match was not a match.
I know what he wrote, and what happened.  But the point concerned
what you
wrote.
GKNOLL: "...he jumped to the (false) conclusion that the tape Berkovitz
was working with was one that had already been corrected for tape speed."
Nobody jumped to a conclusion, and it wasn't false.  We actually had all
the recordings, including Berkovitz's own clip.  The observation that his
clip was already at the right speed wasn't based on how the result came
out.  It was based on comparing it to the other tracks to see which
one he
used.
No, that is not what Thomas said. Please pay close attention...
[quote]
I notified my colleague Michael O'Dell who CONFIRMED that the
recording was the 1982 NRC playback and THAT THE PATTERNS DO MATCH.
Anyone, can download the Sensimetrics program from the Court-TV
website and confirm the match for one self"
[unquote]
Don Thomas and you were both talking about the "MATCH". It is clear
from what Don Thomas WROTE that he jumped to the conclusion that the
tape was already corrected for tape speed BECAUSE he got a better
correlation coefficient when there was no tape speed correction
applied at all. And "jump" is the proper word to use. And you agreed
with him.
The simple fact is, I do not know what you did to conclude the the
file CourtTV used was already corrected for tape speed, but whatever
you did, it was NOT CORRECT. Why? Because it is easy to see, actually
obvious to anyone who understands what is going on there, that the
match IS NOT CORRECT. It is off by a time correction factor of at
least 1.10. And if the MATCH is not correct, then obviously the tape
itself could not have been at real time. The echoes in the pattern you
were comparing to were at real time (or very close). The impulses in
the file were not.
Post by odellm
GKNOLL: "This feed Thomas's ego, and reinforced in Thomas that the W&A was
right."
You have no knowledge of what was happening in Don Thomas' head.  He
didn't say those things.  You made them up.  I seriously doubt my
agreeing
with a factual observation had any affect on his ego.  And he already
thought W&A were right.  He's never stopped thinking they were right.
You are right, I was not there, but I suspect that you agreeing with
him, did feed his ego. Just a few posts ago Steve Barber was telling
us how hard it was for you to convince Don that his cross talk
interpretation was not correct and was not supported by the Chanel 2 record
But the problem is, that BOTH of you were wrong about it and it is
obvious that you were both wrong, and NEITHER of you are willing to
correct this.(the clique)
Post by odellm
GKNOLL: "All of that is wrong. When one looks at the Thomas
correlation(the one he thinks confirms W&A) it is dead-nuts obvious that
his correlation is wrong."
The issue was that Berkovitz used the wrong speed, hence Berkovitz's
conclusion was invalid.  When I told him, Berkovitz didn't dispute that.
He knew what happened.
Again, what you are saying now does not fit with what Don Thomas said
about it and what Don is doing to this very day.
You both concluded that the pattern did MATCH, WHICH IT CLEARLY DID
NOT AND DOES NOT. And because it does not your conclusion that the
tape you used was already at real time is also incorrect.
The fact of the matter is that the tape that Berkovitz used WAS NOT AT
REAL time. The proper tape speed correction factor for that tape, in
that area, is about .90, not .95. I do not know how it happened, but
someone applied a .95 correction factor to a tape that was already .95
slow. Multiplying .95*.95 yields a total correction factor of .90.
Unless you think that W&A and BBN were just completely lying, then it
is easy to see that the tape that Berkovitz used was off by .90, not
by .95.
Post by odellm
That does not mean that the actual result confirmed W&A.  The score
wasn't
that high, and the program wasn't a complete reconstruction of the W&A
method.  But that's not the point.
Actually, it is the point. Again, for the third time, BOTH you and Don
Thomas concluded that the tape MATCHED the pattern. AND IT CLEARLY
DOES NOT.
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
The second person who analyzed the W&A interpreation was Michael O'Dell
in his paper "Replicationg Weiss and Aschkenay". He did not confirm it,
far from it. O'Dell determined that one needed correction factors of at
least 10% on the tape that Berkovitz used get matches to the echoes that
I did no such thing.  There is no statement even close to that in my
article, and there's nothing in it that could be reasonably inferred to
mean it.  Correction factor of at least 10%?  You made that up, it
didn't
come from me.
Here is Figure 12 from your paper. In that table you show the correlation
from the db.wav file to the delay times for the echoes published by W&A in
Table 4 of their report. The % column in your Figure 12 shows the
percentage that you had to multiply the peaks in db.wav to match the
published values in W&A's table 4. A quick look at the percent column in
your Figure 12 shows that you had to apply a correction factor of a least
110 percent to db.wav to match the W&A published values. That corresponds
to a minimum correction factor of 1.10 and is applicable when one
recording is running 10% slow relative to a second recording. In this case
the second recording is the values published by W&A in their table 4. You
may not realize it, but you confirmed that the correlation that Don Thomas
got with zero correction factor during the CourtTV era could not have been
right.
Here is a link to your Figure 12.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/zwxU85ctSspdTD2F2
Typically, you misunderstand what that's about.  I was comparing the
published values used by W&A for their measurement of the dictabelt peaks
to the actual peaks on the dictabelt.  The point being that the numbers
they used to represent the dictabelt pattern, didn't actually match the
dictabelt.  It's only about measuring the dictabelt pattern itself.
The table speaks for itself.
Just because I do not understand it the way you want me to does not
mean that I misunderstand it.
I did not misunderstand anything. I think that you are the one who
does not understand what you did. What you did, even if you refuse to
admit it,(or maybe you do not really understand what you did) is you
correlated the the db.wav file to the published values used by W&A.
That is the correlation.
Post by odellm
None of that has anything to do with how much you'd have to change the
speed to get an echo correlation.  You might match the dictabelt
measurement exactly and still not get any echo correlation.  The
percentages are there to show that simply changing the tape speed won't
fix it.  They aren't all off by the same amount.  Changing it by 10%
won't
fix it.
Correlation is correlation. You performed the correlation by hand. Don
Thomas performed it using the computer program.
You are right that there is not single time correction factor that
will fix the problems with the W&A interpretation. That's because the
W&A interpretation itself is not correct. There is no pattern match
and there was no pattern match.
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Here is a link to the correlation that Don Thomas got during the CourtTV
experience.
It is obvious to anyone looking at this correlation that it is not
correct. The impulses inside the black ellipse should be under the black
dots to the right of that ellipse. Don used a zero time correction factor.
You have to apply a correction factor of about 1.10 to get those impulses
inside the ellipse to move to the right far enough so they line up under
the black dots. When you did what you did in your "Replicating ...."
article, you found you had to use 110% to correlate the db.wav to the W&A
published echoes.
No, a 10% change would not make the wav file match the W&A numbers, as I
said above.  If that's what you think it said then you've misunderstood
it.
And that's got nothing to do with an echo correlation.
So you agree, that the correlation that Don Thomas made is not
correct. That is what this all about.
I did not mean to imply that that even if Don Thomas had used a speed
correction factor of .90 (equivalent to a time correction factor of
110%) he would have got a valid match. He would not have got a valid
match EVEN IF he used that factor. Why? Because, the W&A correlation
ITSELF is wrong.
What I have been pointing out, is that the correlation that both you
and Don Thomas said was correct, IS and WAS OBVIOUSLY, not correct. I
think, based on some things you said in this post, that you now know
that(but are not willing to just come out and admit) but I am pretty
sure that Don Thomas does not know it and would not accept it even if
you tried to explain it to him.
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
https://photos.app.goo.gl/ul3tN2oPDNPwFFbx2
Post by odellm
Michael
Michael
Here is what the values from Figure 12 look like when you plot them on a
chart.
The blue dotted line is the least squares fit to all the points in
Figure 12. It yields a 1.16 time correction factor.
The orange dotted line is the least squares fit to all the points except
the first 4 points. The time correction factor for that trendline is 1.11.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/XHDbdJvukeEGqQre2
Mike, why do you keep repling to your own messages? Because no one else
will talk to you?
He didn't reply to his own message. You are just incapable of following a
conversation. I have caught you replying to your own messages so many
times that it's not even funny anymore. I point it out in order to let
people know what kind of mentality they are dealing with. Someone who
replies to, even argues with, his own posts cannot be trusted to present
any reliable information.
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-25 23:20:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by BOZ
https://jfk007.com/1053-2/
The last section re: Don Thomas, is spot on. Thomas, to this day, spreads
his absolute lies regarding what he claims is "crosstalk", knowing fully
well that it isn't crosstalk. It was Micheal o'Dell who convinced Thomas
that he was using inferior copies of the police recordings when Thomas
wrote his peer reviewed paper in 2001. After Michael presented Thomas with
the facts--that the channel two recording was useless as a timing tool to
prove the HSCA's claim that H.B. McLain had the open mic was correct.
(This was nearly twenty years after the Ramsey panel Report in 1982).
     After Michael O'Dell convinced Don Thomas he was wrong,
Thomas conceded.
Apparently, Thomas couldn't admit complete defeat, so, he invented his
"crosstalk" theory, based primarily on the transcript written by James C.
Bowles) DPD Communications Supervisor at the time of the assassination
(See the transcript in Larry Sneed's excellent book "No More Silence").
Thomas was/is wrong, again, and several members of the Ramsey panel
regrouped performed a study on Thomas' conclusions, wrote a detailed
report regarding Thomas' theory, and Micheal O'Dell aided in proving
http://jfk-records.com/ScienceAndJustice_45%284%29_207-226%282005%29.pdf
    I also wrote an article(which was featured in Bugliosi's
Reclaiming
History) which you can read here, regarding heterodyne tones (beep tones)
that accompany the speech which Thomas claims is crosstalk on channel 1.
The fact that there are heterodyne tones accompanying the speech that
Thomas says is crosstalk proves that it isn't crosstalk at all.
Which you
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2007/07/of-crosstalk-and-bells-rebuttal-to-don.html
     To this day, Thomas speaks at JFK conspiracy conferences
spreading his
untruth regarding the speech on channel 1 which he claims is crosstalk.
Thomas believes that the "gunshots" are on the channel 1 Dictabelt, but
that there are five--not four gunshots-- and he supports the conclusions
reached by the acoustics experts for the HSCA.
The so called "acoustic experts" have formed a clique. And it is very
So who do you think is in this clique?
You didn't answer this one.
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
hard to penetrate this clique. They are a small group who are hell bent
on pushing through the false theory that the man behind the fence shown
in the Moorman photo (and I think first identified by Josiah Thompson in
his book "Six Seconds In Dallas") fired the shot that we all see
striking the Presdient on Zapruder frame 313. There is not a single
piece of evidence that supports that shot came from the knoll, quite the
contrary, every single piece of evidence we have shows that the shot at
frame 313 could not have been fired by that man at that time.
Their theory is 100% dependent upon the interpretation made by Weiss and
Aschkenasy.
No one has been able to confirm the interpretation of Weiss and
Aschkenasy. Robert Berkovitz was the first and he showed that their
interpretation could not be correct, Speaking of debacles, the CourtTV
experience was a debacle within a debacle. When Berkovitz could not
confirm the W&A result, Don Thomas thought that Robert Berkovitz made a
mistake. Berkovitz sent Thomas his program. Thomas concluded based on
his running of the Berkovitz's program that Berkovitz made a mistake
when he(Berkovitz) applied a correction factor to the tape. Because
Thomas got a better correlation (still much less than the .77
correlation W&A published) when he did not apply a correction factor, he
jumped to the (false) conclusion that the tape Berkovitz was working
with was one that had already been corrected for tape speed. To make
matters worse, Thomas contacted Michael O'Dell and O'Dell told Thomas
that, yes the tape that Berkovitz used was already tape speed corrected.
This feed Thomas's ego, and reinforced in Thomas that the W&A was right.
All of that is wrong. When one looks at the Thomas correlation(the one
he thinks confirms W&A) it is dead-nuts obvious that his correlation is
wrong.
Why do you do this?  You're writing as if you know about things you
can't
possibly know.  You don't know what private communications took place
there, or what was happening on Thomas' head.  Naturally, it's not
correct.
Here is what Don Thomas wrote about it....
https://photos.app.goo.gl/tMKpw4x7kUYvWxap8
[quote]
It turned out that the playback used by Sensimetrics was not the Dallas
police recording from 1963, but a playback made by the FBI and NRC panel
in 1982 with a 60 Hz speed correction built in. Without any correction for
speed, the Sensimetrics program demonstrated that the test shot and the
suspect pattern do match. Just to be sure, I notified my colleague Michael
O'Dell who confirmed that the recording was the 1982 NRC playback and that
the patterns do match. Anyone, can download the Sensimetrics program from
the Court-TV website and confirm the match for oneself. Just set the speed
adjustment to the zero setting.
[end quote]
That is what he wrote. But he was obviously wrong. All one has to do is
look at his correlation to see that. Anyone, who understood where the
pattern was and where the impulses were relative to that pattern would see
immediately that what Don Thomas was a match was not a match.
I know what he wrote, and what happened.  But the point concerned
what you
wrote.
GKNOLL: "...he jumped to the (false) conclusion that the tape Berkovitz
was working with was one that had already been corrected for tape speed."
Nobody jumped to a conclusion, and it wasn't false.  We actually had all
the recordings, including Berkovitz's own clip.  The observation that his
clip was already at the right speed wasn't based on how the result came
out.  It was based on comparing it to the other tracks to see which
one he
used.
No, that is not what Thomas said. Please pay close attention...
[quote]
I notified my colleague Michael O'Dell who CONFIRMED that the
recording was the 1982 NRC playback and THAT THE PATTERNS DO MATCH.
Anyone, can download the Sensimetrics program from the Court-TV
website and confirm the match for one self"
[unquote]
Don Thomas and you were both talking about the "MATCH". It is clear
from what Don Thomas WROTE that he jumped to the conclusion that the
tape was already corrected for tape speed BECAUSE he got a better
correlation coefficient when there was no tape speed correction
applied at all. And "jump" is the proper word to use. And you agreed
with him.
The simple fact is, I do not know what you did to conclude the the
file CourtTV used was already corrected for tape speed, but whatever
you did, it was NOT CORRECT. Why? Because it is easy to see, actually
obvious to anyone who understands what is going on there, that the
match IS NOT CORRECT. It is off by a time correction factor of at
least 1.10. And if the MATCH is not correct, then obviously the tape
itself could not have been at real time. The echoes in the pattern you
were comparing to were at real time (or very close). The impulses in
the file were not.
Post by odellm
GKNOLL: "This feed Thomas's ego, and reinforced in Thomas that the W&A was
right."
You have no knowledge of what was happening in Don Thomas' head.  He
didn't say those things.  You made them up.  I seriously doubt my
agreeing
with a factual observation had any affect on his ego.  And he already
thought W&A were right.  He's never stopped thinking they were right.
You are right, I was not there, but I suspect that you agreeing with
him, did feed his ego. Just a few posts ago Steve Barber was telling
us how hard it was for you to convince Don that his cross talk
interpretation was not correct and was not supported by the Chanel 2 record
But the problem is, that BOTH of you were wrong about it and it is
obvious that you were both wrong, and NEITHER of you are willing to
correct this.(the clique)
Post by odellm
GKNOLL: "All of that is wrong. When one looks at the Thomas
correlation(the one he thinks confirms W&A) it is dead-nuts obvious that
his correlation is wrong."
The issue was that Berkovitz used the wrong speed, hence Berkovitz's
conclusion was invalid.  When I told him, Berkovitz didn't dispute that.
He knew what happened.
Again, what you are saying now does not fit with what Don Thomas said
about it and what Don is doing to this very day.
You both concluded that the pattern did MATCH, WHICH IT CLEARLY DID
NOT AND DOES NOT. And because it does not your conclusion that the
tape you used was already at real time is also incorrect.
The fact of the matter is that the tape that Berkovitz used WAS NOT AT
REAL time. The proper tape speed correction factor for that tape, in
that area, is about .90, not .95. I do not know how it happened, but
someone applied a .95 correction factor to a tape that was already .95
slow. Multiplying .95*.95 yields a total correction factor of .90.
Unless you think that W&A and BBN were just completely lying, then it
is easy to see that the tape that Berkovitz used was off by .90, not
by .95.
Post by odellm
That does not mean that the actual result confirmed W&A.  The score
wasn't
that high, and the program wasn't a complete reconstruction of the W&A
method.  But that's not the point.
Actually, it is the point. Again, for the third time, BOTH you and Don
Thomas concluded that the tape MATCHED the pattern. AND IT CLEARLY
DOES NOT.
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
The second person who analyzed the W&A interpreation was Michael O'Dell
in his paper "Replicationg Weiss and Aschkenay". He did not confirm it,
far from it. O'Dell determined that one needed correction factors of at
least 10% on the tape that Berkovitz used get matches to the echoes that
I did no such thing.  There is no statement even close to that in my
article, and there's nothing in it that could be reasonably inferred to
mean it.  Correction factor of at least 10%?  You made that up, it
didn't
come from me.
Here is Figure 12 from your paper. In that table you show the correlation
from the db.wav file to the delay times for the echoes published by W&A in
Table 4 of their report. The % column in your Figure 12 shows the
percentage that you had to multiply the peaks in db.wav to match the
published values in W&A's table 4. A quick look at the percent column in
your Figure 12 shows that you had to apply a correction factor of a least
110 percent to db.wav to match the W&A published values. That corresponds
to a minimum correction factor of 1.10 and is applicable when one
recording is running 10% slow relative to a second recording. In this case
the second recording is the values published by W&A in their table 4. You
may not realize it, but you confirmed that the correlation that Don Thomas
got with zero correction factor during the CourtTV era could not have been
right.
Here is a link to your Figure 12.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/zwxU85ctSspdTD2F2
Typically, you misunderstand what that's about.  I was comparing the
published values used by W&A for their measurement of the dictabelt peaks
to the actual peaks on the dictabelt.  The point being that the numbers
they used to represent the dictabelt pattern, didn't actually match the
dictabelt.  It's only about measuring the dictabelt pattern itself.
The table speaks for itself.
Just because I do not understand it the way you want me to does not
mean that I misunderstand it.
I did not misunderstand anything. I think that you are the one who
does not understand what you did. What you did, even if you refuse to
admit it,(or maybe you do not really understand what you did) is you
correlated the the db.wav file to the published values used by W&A.
That is the correlation.
Post by odellm
None of that has anything to do with how much you'd have to change the
speed to get an echo correlation.  You might match the dictabelt
measurement exactly and still not get any echo correlation.  The
percentages are there to show that simply changing the tape speed won't
fix it.  They aren't all off by the same amount.  Changing it by 10%
won't
fix it.
Correlation is correlation. You performed the correlation by hand. Don
Thomas performed it using the computer program.
You are right that there is not single time correction factor that
will fix the problems with the W&A interpretation. That's because the
W&A interpretation itself is not correct. There is no pattern match
and there was no pattern match.
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Here is a link to the correlation that Don Thomas got during the CourtTV
experience.
It is obvious to anyone looking at this correlation that it is not
correct. The impulses inside the black ellipse should be under the black
dots to the right of that ellipse. Don used a zero time correction factor.
You have to apply a correction factor of about 1.10 to get those impulses
inside the ellipse to move to the right far enough so they line up under
the black dots. When you did what you did in your "Replicating ...."
article, you found you had to use 110% to correlate the db.wav to the W&A
published echoes.
No, a 10% change would not make the wav file match the W&A numbers, as I
said above.  If that's what you think it said then you've misunderstood
it.
And that's got nothing to do with an echo correlation.
So you agree, that the correlation that Don Thomas made is not
correct. That is what this all about.
I did not mean to imply that that even if Don Thomas had used a speed
correction factor of .90 (equivalent to a time correction factor of
110%) he would have got a valid match. He would not have got a valid
match EVEN IF he used that factor. Why? Because, the W&A correlation
ITSELF is wrong.
What I have been pointing out, is that the correlation that both you
and Don Thomas said was correct, IS and WAS OBVIOUSLY, not correct. I
think, based on some things you said in this post, that you now know
that(but are not willing to just come out and admit) but I am pretty
sure that Don Thomas does not know it and would not accept it even if
you tried to explain it to him.
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
https://photos.app.goo.gl/ul3tN2oPDNPwFFbx2
Post by odellm
Michael
Michael
Here is what the values from Figure 12 look like when you plot them on a
chart.
The blue dotted line is the least squares fit to all the points in
Figure 12. It yields a 1.16 time correction factor.
The orange dotted line is the least squares fit to all the points except
the first 4 points. The time correction factor for that trendline is 1.11.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/XHDbdJvukeEGqQre2
Mike, why do you keep repling to your own messages? Because no one else
will talk to you?
He didn't reply to his own message. You are just incapable of following a
conversation. I have caught you replying to your own messages so many
times that it's not even funny anymore. I point it out in order to let
people know what kind of mentality they are dealing with. Someone who
replies to, even argues with, his own posts cannot be trusted to present
any reliable information.
False.
GKnoll
2018-05-23 03:19:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by BOZ
https://jfk007.com/1053-2/
The last section re: Don Thomas, is spot on. Thomas, to this day, spreads
his absolute lies regarding what he claims is "crosstalk", knowing fully
well that it isn't crosstalk. It was Micheal o'Dell who convinced Thomas
that he was using inferior copies of the police recordings when Thomas
wrote his peer reviewed paper in 2001. After Michael presented Thomas with
the facts--that the channel two recording was useless as a timing tool to
prove the HSCA's claim that H.B. McLain had the open mic was correct.
(This was nearly twenty years after the Ramsey panel Report in 1982).
     After Michael O'Dell convinced Don Thomas he was wrong,
Thomas conceded.
Apparently, Thomas couldn't admit complete defeat, so, he invented his
"crosstalk" theory, based primarily on the transcript written by James C.
Bowles) DPD Communications Supervisor at the time of the
assassination
(See the transcript in Larry Sneed's excellent book "No More Silence").
Thomas was/is wrong, again, and several members of the Ramsey panel
regrouped performed a study on Thomas' conclusions, wrote a detailed
report regarding Thomas' theory, and Micheal O'Dell aided in proving
http://jfk-records.com/ScienceAndJustice_45%284%29_207-226%282005%29.pdf
    I also wrote an article(which was featured in Bugliosi's
Reclaiming
History) which you can read here, regarding heterodyne tones (beep tones)
that accompany the speech which Thomas claims is crosstalk on channel 1.
The fact that there are heterodyne tones accompanying the speech that
Thomas says is crosstalk proves that it isn't crosstalk at all.
Which you
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2007/07/of-crosstalk-and-bells-rebuttal-to-don.html
     To this day, Thomas speaks at JFK conspiracy conferences
spreading his
untruth regarding the speech on channel 1 which he claims is crosstalk.
Thomas believes that the "gunshots" are on the channel 1
Dictabelt, but
that there are five--not four gunshots-- and he supports the conclusions
reached by the acoustics experts for the HSCA.
The so called "acoustic experts" have formed a clique. And it is very
So who do you think is in this clique?
You didn't answer this one.
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
hard to penetrate this clique. They are a small group who are hell bent
on pushing through the false theory that the man behind the fence shown
in the Moorman photo (and I think first identified by Josiah Thompson in
his book "Six Seconds In Dallas") fired the shot that we all see
striking the Presdient on Zapruder frame 313. There is not a single
piece of evidence that supports that shot came from the knoll, quite the
contrary, every single piece of evidence we have shows that the shot at
frame 313 could not have been fired by that man at that time.
Their theory is 100% dependent upon the interpretation made by Weiss and
Aschkenasy.
No one has been able to confirm the interpretation of Weiss and
Aschkenasy. Robert Berkovitz was the first and he showed that their
interpretation could not be correct, Speaking of debacles, the CourtTV
experience was a debacle within a debacle. When Berkovitz could not
confirm the W&A result, Don Thomas thought that Robert Berkovitz made a
mistake. Berkovitz sent Thomas his program. Thomas concluded based on
his running of the Berkovitz's program that Berkovitz made a mistake
when he(Berkovitz) applied a correction factor to the tape. Because
Thomas got a better correlation (still much less than the .77
correlation W&A published) when he did not apply a correction factor, he
jumped to the (false) conclusion that the tape Berkovitz was working
with was one that had already been corrected for tape speed. To make
matters worse, Thomas contacted Michael O'Dell and O'Dell told Thomas
that, yes the tape that Berkovitz used was already tape speed corrected.
This feed Thomas's ego, and reinforced in Thomas that the W&A was right.
All of that is wrong. When one looks at the Thomas correlation(the one
he thinks confirms W&A) it is dead-nuts obvious that his
correlation is
wrong.
Why do you do this?  You're writing as if you know about things you
can't
possibly know.  You don't know what private communications took place
there, or what was happening on Thomas' head.  Naturally, it's not
correct.
Here is what Don Thomas wrote about it....
https://photos.app.goo.gl/tMKpw4x7kUYvWxap8
[quote]
It turned out that the playback used by Sensimetrics was not the Dallas
police recording from 1963, but a playback made by the FBI and NRC panel
in 1982 with a 60 Hz speed correction built in. Without any
correction for
speed, the Sensimetrics program demonstrated that the test shot and the
suspect pattern do match. Just to be sure, I notified my colleague Michael
O'Dell who confirmed that the recording was the 1982 NRC playback and that
the patterns do match. Anyone, can download the Sensimetrics program from
the Court-TV website and confirm the match for oneself. Just set the speed
adjustment to the zero setting.
[end quote]
That is what he wrote. But he was obviously wrong. All one has to do is
look at his correlation to see that. Anyone, who understood where the
pattern was and where the impulses were relative to that pattern would see
immediately that what Don Thomas was a match was not a match.
I know what he wrote, and what happened.  But the point concerned what
you
wrote.
GKNOLL: "...he jumped to the (false) conclusion that the tape Berkovitz
was working with was one that had already been corrected for tape speed."
Nobody jumped to a conclusion, and it wasn't false.  We actually had all
the recordings, including Berkovitz's own clip.  The observation that his
clip was already at the right speed wasn't based on how the result came
out.  It was based on comparing it to the other tracks to see which
one he
used.
No, that is not what Thomas said. Please pay close attention...
[quote]
I notified my colleague Michael O'Dell who CONFIRMED that the recording
was the 1982 NRC playback and THAT THE PATTERNS DO MATCH. Anyone, can
download the Sensimetrics program from the Court-TV website and confirm
the match for one self"
[unquote]
Don Thomas and you were both talking about the "MATCH". It is clear from
what Don Thomas WROTE that he jumped to the conclusion that the tape was
already corrected for tape speed BECAUSE he got a better correlation
coefficient when there was no tape speed correction applied at all. And
"jump" is the proper word to use. And you agreed with him.
The simple fact is, I do not know what you did to conclude the the file
CourtTV used was already corrected for tape speed, but whatever you did,
it was NOT CORRECT. Why? Because it is easy to see, actually obvious to
anyone who understands what is going on there, that the match IS NOT
CORRECT. It is off by a time correction factor of at least 1.10. And if
the MATCH is not correct, then obviously the tape itself could not have
been at real time. The echoes in the pattern you were comparing to were
at real time (or very close). The impulses in the file were not.
Post by odellm
GKNOLL: "This feed Thomas's ego, and reinforced in Thomas that the W&A was
right."
You have no knowledge of what was happening in Don Thomas' head.  He
didn't say those things.  You made them up.  I seriously doubt my
agreeing
with a factual observation had any affect on his ego.  And he already
thought W&A were right.  He's never stopped thinking they were right.
You are right, I was not there, but I suspect that you agreeing with
him, did feed his ego. Just a few posts ago Steve Barber was telling us
how hard it was for you to convince Don that his cross talk
interpretation was not correct and was not supported by the Chanel 2 record
But the problem is, that BOTH of you were wrong about it and it is
obvious that you were both wrong, and NEITHER of you are willing to
correct this.(the clique)
Post by odellm
GKNOLL: "All of that is wrong. When one looks at the Thomas
correlation(the one he thinks confirms W&A) it is dead-nuts obvious that
his correlation is wrong."
The issue was that Berkovitz used the wrong speed, hence Berkovitz's
conclusion was invalid.  When I told him, Berkovitz didn't dispute that.
He knew what happened.
Again, what you are saying now does not fit with what Don Thomas said
about it and what Don is doing to this very day.
You both concluded that the pattern did MATCH, WHICH IT CLEARLY DID NOT
AND DOES NOT. And because it does not your conclusion that the tape you
used was already at real time is also incorrect.
The fact of the matter is that the tape that Berkovitz used WAS NOT AT
REAL time. The proper tape speed correction factor for that tape, in
that area, is about .90, not .95. I do not know how it happened, but
someone applied a .95 correction factor to a tape that was already .95
slow. Multiplying .95*.95 yields a total correction factor of .90.
Unless you think that W&A and BBN were just completely lying, then it is
easy to see that the tape that Berkovitz used was off by .90, not by .95.
Post by odellm
That does not mean that the actual result confirmed W&A.  The score
wasn't
that high, and the program wasn't a complete reconstruction of the W&A
method.  But that's not the point.
Actually, it is the point. Again, for the third time, BOTH you and Don
Thomas concluded that the tape MATCHED the pattern. AND IT CLEARLY DOES
NOT.
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
The second person who analyzed the W&A interpreation was Michael O'Dell
in his paper "Replicationg Weiss and Aschkenay". He did not confirm it,
far from it. O'Dell determined that one needed correction factors of at
least 10% on the tape that Berkovitz used get matches to the echoes that
I did no such thing.  There is no statement even close to that in my
article, and there's nothing in it that could be reasonably inferred to
mean it.  Correction factor of at least 10%?  You made that up, it
didn't
come from me.
Here is Figure 12 from your paper. In that table you show the correlation
from the db.wav file to the delay times for the echoes published by W&A in
Table 4 of their report. The % column in your Figure 12 shows the
percentage that you had to multiply the peaks in db.wav to match the
published values in W&A's table 4. A quick look at the percent column in
your Figure 12 shows that you had to apply a correction factor of a least
110 percent to db.wav to match the W&A published values. That corresponds
to a minimum correction factor of 1.10 and is applicable when one
recording is running 10% slow relative to a second recording. In this case
the second recording is the values published by W&A in their table 4. You
may not realize it, but you confirmed that the correlation that Don Thomas
got with zero correction factor during the CourtTV era could not have been
right.
Here is a link to your Figure 12.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/zwxU85ctSspdTD2F2
Typically, you misunderstand what that's about.  I was comparing the
published values used by W&A for their measurement of the dictabelt peaks
to the actual peaks on the dictabelt.  The point being that the numbers
they used to represent the dictabelt pattern, didn't actually match the
dictabelt.  It's only about measuring the dictabelt pattern itself.
The table speaks for itself.
Just because I do not understand it the way you want me to does not mean
that I misunderstand it.
I did not misunderstand anything. I think that you are the one who does
not understand what you did. What you did, even if you refuse to admit
it,(or maybe you do not really understand what you did) is you
correlated the the db.wav file to the published values used by W&A. That
is the correlation.
Post by odellm
None of that has anything to do with how much you'd have to change the
speed to get an echo correlation.  You might match the dictabelt
measurement exactly and still not get any echo correlation.  The
percentages are there to show that simply changing the tape speed won't
fix it.  They aren't all off by the same amount.  Changing it by 10%
won't
fix it.
Correlation is correlation. You performed the correlation by hand. Don
Thomas performed it using the computer program.
You are right that there is not single time correction factor that will
fix the problems with the W&A interpretation. That's because the W&A
interpretation itself is not correct. There is no pattern match and
there was no pattern match.
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Here is a link to the correlation that Don Thomas got during the CourtTV
experience.
It is obvious to anyone looking at this correlation that it is not
correct. The impulses inside the black ellipse should be under the black
dots to the right of that ellipse. Don used a zero time correction factor.
You have to apply a correction factor of about 1.10 to get those impulses
inside the ellipse to move to the right far enough so they line up under
the black dots. When you did what you did in your "Replicating ...."
article, you found you had to use 110% to correlate the db.wav to the W&A
published echoes.
No, a 10% change would not make the wav file match the W&A numbers, as I
said above.  If that's what you think it said then you've misunderstood
it.
And that's got nothing to do with an echo correlation.
So you agree, that the correlation that Don Thomas made is not correct.
That is what this all about.
I did not mean to imply that that even if Don Thomas had used a speed
correction factor of .90 (equivalent to a time correction factor of
110%) he would have got a valid match. He would not have got a valid
match EVEN IF he used that factor. Why? Because, the W&A correlation
ITSELF is wrong.
What I have been pointing out, is that the correlation that both you and
Don Thomas said was correct, IS and WAS OBVIOUSLY, not correct. I think,
based on some things you said in this post, that you now know that(but
are not willing to just come out and admit) but I am pretty sure that
Don Thomas does not know it and would not accept it even if you tried to
explain it to him.
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
https://photos.app.goo.gl/ul3tN2oPDNPwFFbx2
Post by odellm
Michael
Michael
The chart in the previous post only had the blue trendline, the chart in
this post has the blue and orange trendlines.

Here is what the values from Figure 12 look like when you plot them on a
chart.

The blue dotted line is the least squares fit to all the points in
Figure 12. It yields a 1.16 time correction factor.

The orange dotted line is the least squares fit to all the points except
the first 4 points. The time correction factor for that trendline is 1.11.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/9H2WwCVKuAJI9wa42
odellm
2018-05-23 03:21:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by BOZ
https://jfk007.com/1053-2/
The last section re: Don Thomas, is spot on. Thomas, to this day, spreads
his absolute lies regarding what he claims is "crosstalk", knowing fully
well that it isn't crosstalk. It was Micheal o'Dell who convinced Thomas
that he was using inferior copies of the police recordings when Thomas
wrote his peer reviewed paper in 2001. After Michael presented Thomas with
the facts--that the channel two recording was useless as a timing tool to
prove the HSCA's claim that H.B. McLain had the open mic was correct.
(This was nearly twenty years after the Ramsey panel Report in 1982).
After Michael O'Dell convinced Don Thomas he was wrong, Thomas conceded.
Apparently, Thomas couldn't admit complete defeat, so, he invented his
"crosstalk" theory, based primarily on the transcript written by James C.
Bowles) DPD Communications Supervisor at the time of the assassination
(See the transcript in Larry Sneed's excellent book "No More Silence").
Thomas was/is wrong, again, and several members of the Ramsey panel
regrouped performed a study on Thomas' conclusions, wrote a detailed
report regarding Thomas' theory, and Micheal O'Dell aided in proving
http://jfk-records.com/ScienceAndJustice_45%284%29_207-226%282005%29.pdf
I also wrote an article(which was featured in Bugliosi's Reclaiming
History) which you can read here, regarding heterodyne tones (beep tones)
that accompany the speech which Thomas claims is crosstalk on channel 1.
The fact that there are heterodyne tones accompanying the speech that
Thomas says is crosstalk proves that it isn't crosstalk at all. Which you
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2007/07/of-crosstalk-and-bells-rebuttal-to-don.html
To this day, Thomas speaks at JFK conspiracy conferences spreading his
untruth regarding the speech on channel 1 which he claims is crosstalk.
Thomas believes that the "gunshots" are on the channel 1 Dictabelt, but
that there are five--not four gunshots-- and he supports the conclusions
reached by the acoustics experts for the HSCA.
The so called "acoustic experts" have formed a clique. And it is very
So who do you think is in this clique?
You didn't answer this one.
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
hard to penetrate this clique. They are a small group who are hell bent
on pushing through the false theory that the man behind the fence shown
in the Moorman photo (and I think first identified by Josiah Thompson in
his book "Six Seconds In Dallas") fired the shot that we all see
striking the Presdient on Zapruder frame 313. There is not a single
piece of evidence that supports that shot came from the knoll, quite the
contrary, every single piece of evidence we have shows that the shot at
frame 313 could not have been fired by that man at that time.
Their theory is 100% dependent upon the interpretation made by Weiss and
Aschkenasy.
No one has been able to confirm the interpretation of Weiss and
Aschkenasy. Robert Berkovitz was the first and he showed that their
interpretation could not be correct, Speaking of debacles, the CourtTV
experience was a debacle within a debacle. When Berkovitz could not
confirm the W&A result, Don Thomas thought that Robert Berkovitz made a
mistake. Berkovitz sent Thomas his program. Thomas concluded based on
his running of the Berkovitz's program that Berkovitz made a mistake
when he(Berkovitz) applied a correction factor to the tape. Because
Thomas got a better correlation (still much less than the .77
correlation W&A published) when he did not apply a correction factor, he
jumped to the (false) conclusion that the tape Berkovitz was working
with was one that had already been corrected for tape speed. To make
matters worse, Thomas contacted Michael O'Dell and O'Dell told Thomas
that, yes the tape that Berkovitz used was already tape speed corrected.
This feed Thomas's ego, and reinforced in Thomas that the W&A was right.
All of that is wrong. When one looks at the Thomas correlation(the one
he thinks confirms W&A) it is dead-nuts obvious that his correlation is
wrong.
Why do you do this? You're writing as if you know about things you can't
possibly know. You don't know what private communications took place
there, or what was happening on Thomas' head. Naturally, it's not
correct.
Here is what Don Thomas wrote about it....
https://photos.app.goo.gl/tMKpw4x7kUYvWxap8
[quote]
It turned out that the playback used by Sensimetrics was not the Dallas
police recording from 1963, but a playback made by the FBI and NRC panel
in 1982 with a 60 Hz speed correction built in. Without any correction for
speed, the Sensimetrics program demonstrated that the test shot and the
suspect pattern do match. Just to be sure, I notified my colleague Michael
O'Dell who confirmed that the recording was the 1982 NRC playback and that
the patterns do match. Anyone, can download the Sensimetrics program from
the Court-TV website and confirm the match for oneself. Just set the speed
adjustment to the zero setting.
[end quote]
That is what he wrote. But he was obviously wrong. All one has to do is
look at his correlation to see that. Anyone, who understood where the
pattern was and where the impulses were relative to that pattern would see
immediately that what Don Thomas was a match was not a match.
I know what he wrote, and what happened. But the point concerned what you
wrote.
GKNOLL: "...he jumped to the (false) conclusion that the tape Berkovitz
was working with was one that had already been corrected for tape speed."
Nobody jumped to a conclusion, and it wasn't false. We actually had all
the recordings, including Berkovitz's own clip. The observation that his
clip was already at the right speed wasn't based on how the result came
out. It was based on comparing it to the other tracks to see which one he
used.
No, that is not what Thomas said. Please pay close attention...
[quote]
I notified my colleague Michael O'Dell who CONFIRMED that the recording
was the 1982 NRC playback and THAT THE PATTERNS DO MATCH. Anyone, can
download the Sensimetrics program from the Court-TV website and confirm
the match for one self"
[unquote]
Don Thomas and you were both talking about the "MATCH". It is clear from
what Don Thomas WROTE that he jumped to the conclusion that the tape was
already corrected for tape speed BECAUSE he got a better correlation
coefficient when there was no tape speed correction applied at all. And
"jump" is the proper word to use. And you agreed with him.
You've inferred a jump to a conclusion based on the "match". That isn't
what he wrote. You need to pay closer attention.

I said the conclusion wasn't based on the result but on looking at the
clip. What he says is, "...Michael O'Dell who CONFIRMED that the
recording was the 1982 NRC playback...". Exactly. He's saying what I'm
saying. The phrase that mentions a "match" follows an "and". You might
want to pay attention to that.
Post by GKnoll
The simple fact is, I do not know what you did to conclude the the file
CourtTV used was already corrected for tape speed, but whatever you did,
it was NOT CORRECT. Why? Because it is easy to see, actually obvious to
anyone who understands what is going on there, that the match IS NOT
CORRECT.
The speed is confirmed by looking at the recording. Not by evaluating
some other speculative dependent match, which may itself be wrong. What
you want to do is inherently illogical.
Post by GKnoll
It is off by a time correction factor of at least 1.10. And if
the MATCH is not correct, then obviously the tape itself could not have
been at real time. The echoes in the pattern you were comparing to were at
real time (or very close). The impulses in the file were not.
This makes no sense. Where do you get the 1.10?
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
GKNOLL: "This feed Thomas's ego, and reinforced in Thomas that the W&A was
right."
You have no knowledge of what was happening in Don Thomas' head. He
didn't say those things. You made them up. I seriously doubt my agreeing
with a factual observation had any affect on his ego. And he already
thought W&A were right. He's never stopped thinking they were right.
You are right, I was not there, but I suspect that you agreeing with him,
did feed his ego. Just a few posts ago Steve Barber was telling us how
hard it was for you to convince Don that his cross talk interpretation was
not correct and was not supported by the Chanel 2 record
Your suspicions aren't facts.
Post by GKnoll
But the problem is, that BOTH of you were wrong about it and it is obvious
that you were both wrong, and NEITHER of you are willing to correct
this.(the clique)
Post by odellm
GKNOLL: "All of that is wrong. When one looks at the Thomas
correlation(the one he thinks confirms W&A) it is dead-nuts obvious that
his correlation is wrong."
The issue was that Berkovitz used the wrong speed, hence Berkovitz's
conclusion was invalid. When I told him, Berkovitz didn't dispute that.
He knew what happened.
Again, what you are saying now does not fit with what Don Thomas said
about it and what Don is doing to this very day.
No, it doesn't fit with the way you filter what you read.
Post by GKnoll
You both concluded that the pattern did MATCH, WHICH IT CLEARLY DID NOT
AND DOES NOT. And because it does not your conclusion that the tape you
used was already at real time is also incorrect.
Matched what exactly?

We concluded that Berkovitz's speed adjustment was wrong. That's all.
It also so happened that when you use the right speed you get a better
result, but that's just a consequence, it's not the reason we know it's
the wrong speed. That better result doesn't prove anything.
Post by GKnoll
The fact of the matter is that the tape that Berkovitz used WAS NOT AT
REAL time. The proper tape speed correction factor for that tape, in that
area, is about .90, not .95.
No, it isn't. And I don't know where you pull that number from.
Post by GKnoll
I do not know how it happened, but someone
applied a .95 correction factor to a tape that was already .95 slow.
Multiplying .95*.95 yields a total correction factor of .90.
Unless you think that W&A and BBN were just completely lying, then it is
easy to see that the tape that Berkovitz used was off by .90, not by .95.
Post by odellm
That does not mean that the actual result confirmed W&A. The score wasn't
that high, and the program wasn't a complete reconstruction of the W&A
method. But that's not the point.
Actually, it is the point. Again, for the third time, BOTH you and Don
Thomas concluded that the tape MATCHED the pattern. AND IT CLEARLY DOES
NOT.
And for however many times this is, you're wrong. You are misreading what
he wrote, which seems to happen often. Besides, I'm just as much an
authority on what happened here as he is, and I'm telling you you're
wrong. Even Berkovitz would tell you you're wrong. And I think he'd have
less patience with you.
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
The second person who analyzed the W&A interpreation was Michael O'Dell
in his paper "Replicationg Weiss and Aschkenay". He did not confirm it,
far from it. O'Dell determined that one needed correction factors of at
least 10% on the tape that Berkovitz used get matches to the echoes that
I did no such thing. There is no statement even close to that in my
article, and there's nothing in it that could be reasonably inferred to
mean it. Correction factor of at least 10%? You made that up, it didn't
come from me.
Here is Figure 12 from your paper. In that table you show the correlation
from the db.wav file to the delay times for the echoes published by W&A in
Table 4 of their report. The % column in your Figure 12 shows the
percentage that you had to multiply the peaks in db.wav to match the
published values in W&A's table 4. A quick look at the percent column in
your Figure 12 shows that you had to apply a correction factor of a least
110 percent to db.wav to match the W&A published values. That corresponds
to a minimum correction factor of 1.10 and is applicable when one
recording is running 10% slow relative to a second recording. In this case
the second recording is the values published by W&A in their table 4. You
may not realize it, but you confirmed that the correlation that Don Thomas
got with zero correction factor during the CourtTV era could not have been
right.
Here is a link to your Figure 12.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/zwxU85ctSspdTD2F2
Typically, you misunderstand what that's about. I was comparing the
published values used by W&A for their measurement of the dictabelt peaks
to the actual peaks on the dictabelt. The point being that the numbers
they used to represent the dictabelt pattern, didn't actually match the
dictabelt. It's only about measuring the dictabelt pattern itself.
The table speaks for itself.
Just because I do not understand it the way you want me to does not mean
that I misunderstand it.
Yeah, it does actually. It's my table. I know what it's for and what it
represents.
Post by GKnoll
I did not misunderstand anything. I think that you are the one who does
not understand what you did. What you did, even if you refuse to admit
it,(or maybe you do not really understand what you did) is you correlated
the the db.wav file to the published values used by W&A. That is the
correlation.
You take it to mean more than that. Here's a clue. If the W&A values
don't match the recording, it's not the recording that's wrong.
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
None of that has anything to do with how much you'd have to change the
speed to get an echo correlation. You might match the dictabelt
measurement exactly and still not get any echo correlation. The
percentages are there to show that simply changing the tape speed won't
fix it. They aren't all off by the same amount. Changing it by 10% won't
fix it.
Correlation is correlation.
And that might be your problem right there.
Post by GKnoll
You performed the correlation by hand. Don
Thomas performed it using the computer program.
Huh? I think you're mixing things up again.
Post by GKnoll
You are right that there is not single time correction factor that will
fix the problems with the W&A interpretation. That's because the W&A
interpretation itself is not correct. There is no pattern match and there
was no pattern match.
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Here is a link to the correlation that Don Thomas got during the CourtTV
experience.
It is obvious to anyone looking at this correlation that it is not
correct. The impulses inside the black ellipse should be under the black
dots to the right of that ellipse. Don used a zero time correction factor.
You have to apply a correction factor of about 1.10 to get those impulses
inside the ellipse to move to the right far enough so they line up under
the black dots. When you did what you did in your "Replicating ...."
article, you found you had to use 110% to correlate the db.wav to the W&A
published echoes.
No, a 10% change would not make the wav file match the W&A numbers, as I
said above. If that's what you think it said then you've misunderstood
it.
And that's got nothing to do with an echo correlation.
So you agree, that the correlation that Don Thomas made is not correct.
That is what this all about.
No that isn't what this is about. You're mixing different things.
Post by GKnoll
I did not mean to imply that that even if Don Thomas had used a speed
correction factor of .90 (equivalent to a time correction factor of 110%)
he would have got a valid match. He would not have got a valid match EVEN
IF he used that factor. Why? Because, the W&A correlation ITSELF is wrong.
What I have been pointing out, is that the correlation that both you and
Don Thomas said was correct, IS and WAS OBVIOUSLY, not correct. I think,
based on some things you said in this post, that you now know that(but are
not willing to just come out and admit) but I am pretty sure that Don
Thomas does not know it and would not accept it even if you tried to
explain it to him.
Your thoughts are incorrect, again.
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
https://photos.app.goo.gl/ul3tN2oPDNPwFFbx2
Post by odellm
Michael
Michael
GKnoll
2018-05-23 21:51:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by BOZ
https://jfk007.com/1053-2/
The last section re: Don Thomas, is spot on. Thomas, to this day, spreads
his absolute lies regarding what he claims is "crosstalk", knowing fully
well that it isn't crosstalk. It was Micheal o'Dell who convinced Thomas
that he was using inferior copies of the police recordings when Thomas
wrote his peer reviewed paper in 2001. After Michael presented Thomas with
the facts--that the channel two recording was useless as a timing tool to
prove the HSCA's claim that H.B. McLain had the open mic was correct.
(This was nearly twenty years after the Ramsey panel Report in 1982).
After Michael O'Dell convinced Don Thomas he was wrong, Thomas conceded.
Apparently, Thomas couldn't admit complete defeat, so, he invented his
"crosstalk" theory, based primarily on the transcript written by James C.
Bowles) DPD Communications Supervisor at the time of the assassination
(See the transcript in Larry Sneed's excellent book "No More Silence").
Thomas was/is wrong, again, and several members of the Ramsey panel
regrouped performed a study on Thomas' conclusions, wrote a detailed
report regarding Thomas' theory, and Micheal O'Dell aided in proving
http://jfk-records.com/ScienceAndJustice_45%284%29_207-226%282005%29.pdf
I also wrote an article(which was featured in Bugliosi's Reclaiming
History) which you can read here, regarding heterodyne tones (beep tones)
that accompany the speech which Thomas claims is crosstalk on channel 1.
The fact that there are heterodyne tones accompanying the speech that
Thomas says is crosstalk proves that it isn't crosstalk at all. Which you
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2007/07/of-crosstalk-and-bells-rebuttal-to-don.html
To this day, Thomas speaks at JFK conspiracy conferences spreading his
untruth regarding the speech on channel 1 which he claims is crosstalk.
Thomas believes that the "gunshots" are on the channel 1 Dictabelt, but
that there are five--not four gunshots-- and he supports the conclusions
reached by the acoustics experts for the HSCA.
The so called "acoustic experts" have formed a clique. And it is very
So who do you think is in this clique?
You didn't answer this one.
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
hard to penetrate this clique. They are a small group who are hell bent
on pushing through the false theory that the man behind the fence shown
in the Moorman photo (and I think first identified by Josiah Thompson in
his book "Six Seconds In Dallas") fired the shot that we all see
striking the Presdient on Zapruder frame 313. There is not a single
piece of evidence that supports that shot came from the knoll, quite the
contrary, every single piece of evidence we have shows that the shot at
frame 313 could not have been fired by that man at that time.
Their theory is 100% dependent upon the interpretation made by Weiss and
Aschkenasy.
No one has been able to confirm the interpretation of Weiss and
Aschkenasy. Robert Berkovitz was the first and he showed that their
interpretation could not be correct, Speaking of debacles, the CourtTV
experience was a debacle within a debacle. When Berkovitz could not
confirm the W&A result, Don Thomas thought that Robert Berkovitz made a
mistake. Berkovitz sent Thomas his program. Thomas concluded based on
his running of the Berkovitz's program that Berkovitz made a mistake
when he(Berkovitz) applied a correction factor to the tape. Because
Thomas got a better correlation (still much less than the .77
correlation W&A published) when he did not apply a correction factor, he
jumped to the (false) conclusion that the tape Berkovitz was working
with was one that had already been corrected for tape speed. To make
matters worse, Thomas contacted Michael O'Dell and O'Dell told Thomas
that, yes the tape that Berkovitz used was already tape speed corrected.
This feed Thomas's ego, and reinforced in Thomas that the W&A was right.
All of that is wrong. When one looks at the Thomas correlation(the one
he thinks confirms W&A) it is dead-nuts obvious that his correlation is
wrong.
Why do you do this? You're writing as if you know about things you can't
possibly know. You don't know what private communications took place
there, or what was happening on Thomas' head. Naturally, it's not
correct.
Here is what Don Thomas wrote about it....
https://photos.app.goo.gl/tMKpw4x7kUYvWxap8
[quote]
It turned out that the playback used by Sensimetrics was not the Dallas
police recording from 1963, but a playback made by the FBI and NRC panel
in 1982 with a 60 Hz speed correction built in. Without any correction for
speed, the Sensimetrics program demonstrated that the test shot and the
suspect pattern do match. Just to be sure, I notified my colleague Michael
O'Dell who confirmed that the recording was the 1982 NRC playback and that
the patterns do match. Anyone, can download the Sensimetrics program from
the Court-TV website and confirm the match for oneself. Just set the speed
adjustment to the zero setting.
[end quote]
That is what he wrote. But he was obviously wrong. All one has to do is
look at his correlation to see that. Anyone, who understood where the
pattern was and where the impulses were relative to that pattern would see
immediately that what Don Thomas was a match was not a match.
I know what he wrote, and what happened. But the point concerned what you
wrote.
GKNOLL: "...he jumped to the (false) conclusion that the tape Berkovitz
was working with was one that had already been corrected for tape speed."
Nobody jumped to a conclusion, and it wasn't false. We actually had all
the recordings, including Berkovitz's own clip. The observation that his
clip was already at the right speed wasn't based on how the result came
out. It was based on comparing it to the other tracks to see which one he
used.
No, that is not what Thomas said. Please pay close attention...
[quote]
I notified my colleague Michael O'Dell who CONFIRMED that the recording
was the 1982 NRC playback and THAT THE PATTERNS DO MATCH. Anyone, can
download the Sensimetrics program from the Court-TV website and confirm
the match for one self"
[unquote]
Don Thomas and you were both talking about the "MATCH". It is clear from
what Don Thomas WROTE that he jumped to the conclusion that the tape was
already corrected for tape speed BECAUSE he got a better correlation
coefficient when there was no tape speed correction applied at all. And
"jump" is the proper word to use. And you agreed with him.
You've inferred a jump to a conclusion based on the "match". That isn't
what he wrote. You need to pay closer attention.
I said the conclusion wasn't based on the result but on looking at the
clip. What he says is, "...Michael O'Dell who CONFIRMED that the
recording was the 1982 NRC playback...". Exactly. He's saying what I'm
saying. The phrase that mentions a "match" follows an "and". You might
want to pay attention to that.
Again, your interpretation is not what he said.

He said "Michael O'Dell who CONFIRMED that the recording was the 1982 NRC
playback AND THAT the patterns do match". Don is saying that you confirmed
TWO THINGS, not one.'
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
The simple fact is, I do not know what you did to conclude the the file
CourtTV used was already corrected for tape speed, but whatever you did,
it was NOT CORRECT. Why? Because it is easy to see, actually obvious to
anyone who understands what is going on there, that the match IS NOT
CORRECT.
The speed is confirmed by looking at the recording. Not by evaluating
some other speculative dependent match, which may itself be wrong. What
you want to do is inherently illogical.
What I want to do is not inherently illogical. And here is why...

Unless you think that W&A and BBN were either blatantly lying or
incompetent, then we can infer that on the tape that they were using the
real time interval between two of those peaks is 283 milliseconds. Here is
a picture that shows what I just said.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/yPmtgrXBLbVNLmeM2

On the Berkovitz tape the interval between those two peaks is 255
milliseconds. So, unless W&A were blatantly lying or incompetent, the
Berkovitz tape is not at real time.

You do not have to believe that those two peaks represent any valid
echoes. All you have to understand is that both W&A and BBN implied that
the real time interval between those two peaks is about 283 milliseconds.
So, on the tape they were using, the real time interval between those two
peaks is 283 milliseconds.
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
It is off by a time correction factor of at least 1.10. And if
the MATCH is not correct, then obviously the tape itself could not have
been at real time. The echoes in the pattern you were comparing to were at
real time (or very close). The impulses in the file were not.
This makes no sense. Where do you get the 1.10?
Actually, it does. I explained it above.
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
GKNOLL: "This feed Thomas's ego, and reinforced in Thomas that the W&A was
right."
You have no knowledge of what was happening in Don Thomas' head. He
didn't say those things. You made them up. I seriously doubt my agreeing
with a factual observation had any affect on his ego. And he already
thought W&A were right. He's never stopped thinking they were right.
You are right, I was not there, but I suspect that you agreeing with him,
did feed his ego. Just a few posts ago Steve Barber was telling us how
hard it was for you to convince Don that his cross talk interpretation was
not correct and was not supported by the Chanel 2 record
Your suspicions aren't facts.
And the same is true for you.
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
But the problem is, that BOTH of you were wrong about it and it is obvious
that you were both wrong, and NEITHER of you are willing to correct
this.(the clique)
Post by odellm
GKNOLL: "All of that is wrong. When one looks at the Thomas
correlation(the one he thinks confirms W&A) it is dead-nuts obvious that
his correlation is wrong."
The issue was that Berkovitz used the wrong speed, hence Berkovitz's
conclusion was invalid. When I told him, Berkovitz didn't dispute that.
He knew what happened.
Again, what you are saying now does not fit with what Don Thomas said
about it and what Don is doing to this very day.
No, it doesn't fit with the way you filter what you read.
Again, it does fit with what he said, please see my previous comment on
this.
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
You both concluded that the pattern did MATCH, WHICH IT CLEARLY DID NOT
AND DOES NOT. And because it does not your conclusion that the tape you
used was already at real time is also incorrect.
Matched what exactly?
See above.
Post by odellm
We concluded that Berkovitz's speed adjustment was wrong. That's all.
It also so happened that when you use the right speed you get a better
result, but that's just a consequence, it's not the reason we know it's
the wrong speed. That better result doesn't prove anything.
No, you concluded three things...1)Berkovitz's speed adjustment was
wrong and 2)That Don Thomas's speed adjustement was right and 3)The
patterns do match.

That is a reasonable interpretation of what Don Thomas wrote.

You were right that Berkovitz's speed adjustment was wrong, but it was not
wrong in the direction that you say it was. The speed correction he should
have used was .90, not 1.0.

Don Thomas made an other mistake in his write-up that I ignored earlier.
Berkovitz did not speed up the recording as Don Thomas says. Berkovitz
slowed it down by 5%. The problem was he needed to slow it down by 10% to
get that particular wav file to line up under the echo objects.
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
The fact of the matter is that the tape that Berkovitz used WAS NOT AT
REAL time. The proper tape speed correction factor for that tape, in that
area, is about .90, not .95.
No, it isn't. And I don't know where you pull that number from.
I explained it to you.
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
I do not know how it happened, but someone
applied a .95 correction factor to a tape that was already .95 slow.
Multiplying .95*.95 yields a total correction factor of .90.
Unless you think that W&A and BBN were just completely lying, then it is
easy to see that the tape that Berkovitz used was off by .90, not by .95.
Post by odellm
That does not mean that the actual result confirmed W&A. The score wasn't
that high, and the program wasn't a complete reconstruction of the W&A
method. But that's not the point.
Actually, it is the point. Again, for the third time, BOTH you and Don
Thomas concluded that the tape MATCHED the pattern. AND IT CLEARLY DOES
NOT.
And for however many times this is, you're wrong. You are misreading what
he wrote, which seems to happen often. Besides, I'm just as much an
authority on what happened here as he is, and I'm telling you you're
wrong. Even Berkovitz would tell you you're wrong. And I think he'd have
less patience with you.
You can say you are wrong all you want, but Don Thomas's words and
actions speak for themselves. He clearly believed that there was a
pattern match and that you confirmed it. Again here is what he said, but
this time I am going to put the emphasis on the last sentence.

[quote]

Without any correction for speed, the sensimetrics program demonstated
that the test shot and the suspect pattern do match. JUST TO BE SURE, I
notified my colleague Michael O'Dell who confirmed that the recording was
the 1982 NRC playback and the the patterns do match. ANYONE, CAN DOWNLOAD
THE SENSIMETRICS PROGRAM FROM THE COURT-TV WEBSITE AND CONFIRM THE MATCH
FOR ONESELF. JUST SET THE SPEED ADJUSTMENT TO ZERO SETTING.

[unquote]
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
The second person who analyzed the W&A interpreation was Michael O'Dell
in his paper "Replicationg Weiss and Aschkenay". He did not confirm it,
far from it. O'Dell determined that one needed correction factors of at
least 10% on the tape that Berkovitz used get matches to the echoes that
I did no such thing. There is no statement even close to that in my
article, and there's nothing in it that could be reasonably inferred to
mean it. Correction factor of at least 10%? You made that up, it didn't
come from me.
Here is Figure 12 from your paper. In that table you show the correlation
from the db.wav file to the delay times for the echoes published by W&A in
Table 4 of their report. The % column in your Figure 12 shows the
percentage that you had to multiply the peaks in db.wav to match the
published values in W&A's table 4. A quick look at the percent column in
your Figure 12 shows that you had to apply a correction factor of a least
110 percent to db.wav to match the W&A published values. That corresponds
to a minimum correction factor of 1.10 and is applicable when one
recording is running 10% slow relative to a second recording. In this case
the second recording is the values published by W&A in their table 4. You
may not realize it, but you confirmed that the correlation that Don Thomas
got with zero correction factor during the CourtTV era could not have been
right.
Here is a link to your Figure 12.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/zwxU85ctSspdTD2F2
Typically, you misunderstand what that's about. I was comparing the
published values used by W&A for their measurement of the dictabelt peaks
to the actual peaks on the dictabelt. The point being that the numbers
they used to represent the dictabelt pattern, didn't actually match the
dictabelt. It's only about measuring the dictabelt pattern itself.
The table speaks for itself.
Just because I do not understand it the way you want me to does not mean
that I misunderstand it.
Yeah, it does actually. It's my table. I know what it's for and what it
represents.
I do not think you understood at the time what that table actually
represented.

You owe me an apology you know. You said when we first started this
conversation that you did not write anything that anyone can reasonably
infer to mean this.
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
I did not misunderstand anything. I think that you are the one who does
not understand what you did. What you did, even if you refuse to admit
it,(or maybe you do not really understand what you did) is you correlated
the the db.wav file to the published values used by W&A. That is the
correlation.
You take it to mean more than that. Here's a clue. If the W&A values
don't match the recording, it's not the recording that's wrong.
In this case it is both that are wrong. I already know that the W&A
interpretation is wrong. I am not the one who said it was a match. But
there does not have to be a match to show that the recording could not be
the recording that W&A and BBN used. See above.
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
None of that has anything to do with how much you'd have to change the
speed to get an echo correlation. You might match the dictabelt
measurement exactly and still not get any echo correlation. The
percentages are there to show that simply changing the tape speed won't
fix it. They aren't all off by the same amount. Changing it by 10% won't
fix it.
Correlation is correlation.
And that might be your problem right there.
Or your problem.
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
You performed the correlation by hand. Don
Thomas performed it using the computer program.
Huh? I think you're mixing things up again.
Post by GKnoll
You are right that there is not single time correction factor that will
fix the problems with the W&A interpretation. That's because the W&A
interpretation itself is not correct. There is no pattern match and there
was no pattern match.
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Here is a link to the correlation that Don Thomas got during the CourtTV
experience.
It is obvious to anyone looking at this correlation that it is not
correct. The impulses inside the black ellipse should be under the black
dots to the right of that ellipse. Don used a zero time correction factor.
You have to apply a correction factor of about 1.10 to get those impulses
inside the ellipse to move to the right far enough so they line up under
the black dots. When you did what you did in your "Replicating ...."
article, you found you had to use 110% to correlate the db.wav to the W&A
published echoes.
No, a 10% change would not make the wav file match the W&A numbers, as I
said above. If that's what you think it said then you've misunderstood
it.
And that's got nothing to do with an echo correlation.
So you agree, that the correlation that Don Thomas made is not correct.
That is what this all about.
No that isn't what this is about. You're mixing different things.
You keep saying I am mixing things up but you never say what it is that
I am mixing up.

The more you talk the more you sound like Anthony Marsh.
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
I did not mean to imply that that even if Don Thomas had used a speed
correction factor of .90 (equivalent to a time correction factor of 110%)
he would have got a valid match. He would not have got a valid match EVEN
IF he used that factor. Why? Because, the W&A correlation ITSELF is wrong.
What I have been pointing out, is that the correlation that both you and
Don Thomas said was correct, IS and WAS OBVIOUSLY, not correct. I think,
based on some things you said in this post, that you now know that(but are
not willing to just come out and admit) but I am pretty sure that Don
Thomas does not know it and would not accept it even if you tried to
explain it to him.
Your thoughts are incorrect, again.
No, I do not think so. I showed why above.
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
https://photos.app.goo.gl/ul3tN2oPDNPwFFbx2
Post by odellm
Michael
Michael
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-21 14:59:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by BOZ
https://jfk007.com/1053-2/
The last section re: Don Thomas, is spot on. Thomas, to this day, spreads
his absolute lies regarding what he claims is "crosstalk", knowing fully
well that it isn't crosstalk. It was Micheal o'Dell who convinced Thomas
that he was using inferior copies of the police recordings when Thomas
wrote his peer reviewed paper in 2001. After Michael presented Thomas with
the facts--that the channel two recording was useless as a timing tool to
prove the HSCA's claim that H.B. McLain had the open mic was correct.
(This was nearly twenty years after the Ramsey panel Report in 1982).
After Michael O'Dell convinced Don Thomas he was wrong, Thomas conceded.
Apparently, Thomas couldn't admit complete defeat, so, he invented his
"crosstalk" theory, based primarily on the transcript written by James C.
Bowles) DPD Communications Supervisor at the time of the assassination
(See the transcript in Larry Sneed's excellent book "No More Silence").
Thomas was/is wrong, again, and several members of the Ramsey panel
regrouped performed a study on Thomas' conclusions, wrote a detailed
report regarding Thomas' theory, and Micheal O'Dell aided in proving
http://jfk-records.com/ScienceAndJustice_45%284%29_207-226%282005%29.pdf
I also wrote an article(which was featured in Bugliosi's Reclaiming
History) which you can read here, regarding heterodyne tones (beep tones)
that accompany the speech which Thomas claims is crosstalk on channel 1.
The fact that there are heterodyne tones accompanying the speech that
Thomas says is crosstalk proves that it isn't crosstalk at all. Which you
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2007/07/of-crosstalk-and-bells-rebuttal-to-don.html
To this day, Thomas speaks at JFK conspiracy conferences spreading his
untruth regarding the speech on channel 1 which he claims is crosstalk.
Thomas believes that the "gunshots" are on the channel 1 Dictabelt, but
that there are five--not four gunshots-- and he supports the conclusions
reached by the acoustics experts for the HSCA.
The so called "acoustic experts" have formed a clique. And it is very
So who do you think is in this clique? ME
Post by GKnoll
hard to penetrate this clique. They are a small group who are hell bent
on pushing through the false theory that the man behind the fence shown
in the Moorman photo (and I think first identified by Josiah Thompson in
OOPs. Did someone accidentally admit to seeing the face above the fence?
Post by GKnoll
his book "Six Seconds In Dallas") fired the shot that we all see
striking the Presdient on Zapruder frame 313. There is not a single
piece of evidence that supports that shot came from the knoll, quite the
contrary, every single piece of evidence we have shows that the shot at
frame 313 could not have been fired by that man at that time.
Their theory is 100% dependent upon the interpretation made by Weiss and
Aschkenasy.
No one has been able to confirm the interpretation of Weiss and
Aschkenasy. Robert Berkovitz was the first and he showed that their
interpretation could not be correct, Speaking of debacles, the CourtTV
experience was a debacle within a debacle. When Berkovitz could not
confirm the W&A result, Don Thomas thought that Robert Berkovitz made a
mistake. Berkovitz sent Thomas his program. Thomas concluded based on
his running of the Berkovitz's program that Berkovitz made a mistake
when he(Berkovitz) applied a correction factor to the tape. Because
Thomas got a better correlation (still much less than the .77
correlation W&A published) when he did not apply a correction factor, he
jumped to the (false) conclusion that the tape Berkovitz was working
with was one that had already been corrected for tape speed. To make
matters worse, Thomas contacted Michael O'Dell and O'Dell told Thomas
that, yes the tape that Berkovitz used was already tape speed corrected.
This feed Thomas's ego, and reinforced in Thomas that the W&A was right.
All of that is wrong. When one looks at the Thomas correlation(the one
he thinks confirms W&A) it is dead-nuts obvious that his correlation is
wrong.
Why do you do this? You're writing as if you know about things you can't
possibly know. You don't know what private communications took place
there, or what was happening on Thomas' head. Naturally, it's not
correct.
Some of us have communitcated with Thomas.
Post by GKnoll
The second person who analyzed the W&A interpreation was Michael O'Dell
in his paper "Replicationg Weiss and Aschkenay". He did not confirm it,
far from it. O'Dell determined that one needed correction factors of at
least 10% on the tape that Berkovitz used get matches to the echoes that
I did no such thing. There is no statement even close to that in my
article, and there's nothing in it that could be reasonably inferred to
mean it. Correction factor of at least 10%? You made that up, it didn't
come from me.
I love to see minions fighting with each other. They're so cute.
Michael
odellm
2018-05-22 02:19:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by BOZ
https://jfk007.com/1053-2/
The last section re: Don Thomas, is spot on. Thomas, to this day, spreads
his absolute lies regarding what he claims is "crosstalk", knowing fully
well that it isn't crosstalk. It was Micheal o'Dell who convinced Thomas
that he was using inferior copies of the police recordings when Thomas
wrote his peer reviewed paper in 2001. After Michael presented Thomas with
the facts--that the channel two recording was useless as a timing tool to
prove the HSCA's claim that H.B. McLain had the open mic was correct.
(This was nearly twenty years after the Ramsey panel Report in 1982).
After Michael O'Dell convinced Don Thomas he was wrong, Thomas conceded.
Apparently, Thomas couldn't admit complete defeat, so, he invented his
"crosstalk" theory, based primarily on the transcript written by James C.
Bowles) DPD Communications Supervisor at the time of the assassination
(See the transcript in Larry Sneed's excellent book "No More Silence").
Thomas was/is wrong, again, and several members of the Ramsey panel
regrouped performed a study on Thomas' conclusions, wrote a detailed
report regarding Thomas' theory, and Micheal O'Dell aided in proving
http://jfk-records.com/ScienceAndJustice_45%284%29_207-226%282005%29.pdf
I also wrote an article(which was featured in Bugliosi's Reclaiming
History) which you can read here, regarding heterodyne tones (beep tones)
that accompany the speech which Thomas claims is crosstalk on channel 1.
The fact that there are heterodyne tones accompanying the speech that
Thomas says is crosstalk proves that it isn't crosstalk at all. Which you
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2007/07/of-crosstalk-and-bells-rebuttal-to-don.html
To this day, Thomas speaks at JFK conspiracy conferences spreading his
untruth regarding the speech on channel 1 which he claims is crosstalk.
Thomas believes that the "gunshots" are on the channel 1 Dictabelt, but
that there are five--not four gunshots-- and he supports the conclusions
reached by the acoustics experts for the HSCA.
The so called "acoustic experts" have formed a clique. And it is very
So who do you think is in this clique? ME
Probably. I'm just trying to imagine the clique meetings with Barger, Weiss, Aschkenasy, you, me, Thomas, etc., where we plot about keeping GKnoll out. Probably drunken affairs.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
hard to penetrate this clique. They are a small group who are hell bent
on pushing through the false theory that the man behind the fence shown
in the Moorman photo (and I think first identified by Josiah Thompson in
OOPs. Did someone accidentally admit to seeing the face above the fence?
Post by GKnoll
his book "Six Seconds In Dallas") fired the shot that we all see
striking the Presdient on Zapruder frame 313. There is not a single
piece of evidence that supports that shot came from the knoll, quite the
contrary, every single piece of evidence we have shows that the shot at
frame 313 could not have been fired by that man at that time.
Their theory is 100% dependent upon the interpretation made by Weiss and
Aschkenasy.
No one has been able to confirm the interpretation of Weiss and
Aschkenasy. Robert Berkovitz was the first and he showed that their
interpretation could not be correct, Speaking of debacles, the CourtTV
experience was a debacle within a debacle. When Berkovitz could not
confirm the W&A result, Don Thomas thought that Robert Berkovitz made a
mistake. Berkovitz sent Thomas his program. Thomas concluded based on
his running of the Berkovitz's program that Berkovitz made a mistake
when he(Berkovitz) applied a correction factor to the tape. Because
Thomas got a better correlation (still much less than the .77
correlation W&A published) when he did not apply a correction factor, he
jumped to the (false) conclusion that the tape Berkovitz was working
with was one that had already been corrected for tape speed. To make
matters worse, Thomas contacted Michael O'Dell and O'Dell told Thomas
that, yes the tape that Berkovitz used was already tape speed corrected.
This feed Thomas's ego, and reinforced in Thomas that the W&A was right.
All of that is wrong. When one looks at the Thomas correlation(the one
he thinks confirms W&A) it is dead-nuts obvious that his correlation is
wrong.
Why do you do this? You're writing as if you know about things you can't
possibly know. You don't know what private communications took place
there, or what was happening on Thomas' head. Naturally, it's not
correct.
Some of us have communitcated with Thomas.
Did Thomas tell you his private thoughts, or his personal communications
with me, which you then passed on to GKnoll?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
The second person who analyzed the W&A interpreation was Michael O'Dell
in his paper "Replicationg Weiss and Aschkenay". He did not confirm it,
far from it. O'Dell determined that one needed correction factors of at
least 10% on the tape that Berkovitz used get matches to the echoes that
I did no such thing. There is no statement even close to that in my
article, and there's nothing in it that could be reasonably inferred to
mean it. Correction factor of at least 10%? You made that up, it didn't
come from me.
I love to see minions fighting with each other. They're so cute.
Michael
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-23 15:19:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by odellm
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by BOZ
https://jfk007.com/1053-2/
The last section re: Don Thomas, is spot on. Thomas, to this day, spreads
his absolute lies regarding what he claims is "crosstalk", knowing fully
well that it isn't crosstalk. It was Micheal o'Dell who convinced Thomas
that he was using inferior copies of the police recordings when Thomas
wrote his peer reviewed paper in 2001. After Michael presented Thomas with
the facts--that the channel two recording was useless as a timing tool to
prove the HSCA's claim that H.B. McLain had the open mic was correct.
(This was nearly twenty years after the Ramsey panel Report in 1982).
After Michael O'Dell convinced Don Thomas he was wrong, Thomas conceded.
Apparently, Thomas couldn't admit complete defeat, so, he invented his
"crosstalk" theory, based primarily on the transcript written by James C.
Bowles) DPD Communications Supervisor at the time of the assassination
(See the transcript in Larry Sneed's excellent book "No More Silence").
Thomas was/is wrong, again, and several members of the Ramsey panel
regrouped performed a study on Thomas' conclusions, wrote a detailed
report regarding Thomas' theory, and Micheal O'Dell aided in proving
http://jfk-records.com/ScienceAndJustice_45%284%29_207-226%282005%29.pdf
I also wrote an article(which was featured in Bugliosi's Reclaiming
History) which you can read here, regarding heterodyne tones (beep tones)
that accompany the speech which Thomas claims is crosstalk on channel 1.
The fact that there are heterodyne tones accompanying the speech that
Thomas says is crosstalk proves that it isn't crosstalk at all. Which you
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2007/07/of-crosstalk-and-bells-rebuttal-to-don.html
To this day, Thomas speaks at JFK conspiracy conferences spreading his
untruth regarding the speech on channel 1 which he claims is crosstalk.
Thomas believes that the "gunshots" are on the channel 1 Dictabelt, but
that there are five--not four gunshots-- and he supports the conclusions
reached by the acoustics experts for the HSCA.
The so called "acoustic experts" have formed a clique. And it is very
So who do you think is in this clique? ME
Probably. I'm just trying to imagine the clique meetings with Barger, Weiss, Aschkenasy, you, me, Thomas, etc., where we plot about keeping GKnoll out. Probably drunken affairs.
I don't think such a meeting is possible.
We can't even plot to keep Gknoll out of this newsgroup.
Free Speech is sloppy.
Post by odellm
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
hard to penetrate this clique. They are a small group who are hell bent
on pushing through the false theory that the man behind the fence shown
in the Moorman photo (and I think first identified by Josiah Thompson in
OOPs. Did someone accidentally admit to seeing the face above the fence?
Post by GKnoll
his book "Six Seconds In Dallas") fired the shot that we all see
striking the Presdient on Zapruder frame 313. There is not a single
piece of evidence that supports that shot came from the knoll, quite the
contrary, every single piece of evidence we have shows that the shot at
frame 313 could not have been fired by that man at that time.
Their theory is 100% dependent upon the interpretation made by Weiss and
Aschkenasy.
No one has been able to confirm the interpretation of Weiss and
Aschkenasy. Robert Berkovitz was the first and he showed that their
interpretation could not be correct, Speaking of debacles, the CourtTV
experience was a debacle within a debacle. When Berkovitz could not
confirm the W&A result, Don Thomas thought that Robert Berkovitz made a
mistake. Berkovitz sent Thomas his program. Thomas concluded based on
his running of the Berkovitz's program that Berkovitz made a mistake
when he(Berkovitz) applied a correction factor to the tape. Because
Thomas got a better correlation (still much less than the .77
correlation W&A published) when he did not apply a correction factor, he
jumped to the (false) conclusion that the tape Berkovitz was working
with was one that had already been corrected for tape speed. To make
matters worse, Thomas contacted Michael O'Dell and O'Dell told Thomas
that, yes the tape that Berkovitz used was already tape speed corrected.
This feed Thomas's ego, and reinforced in Thomas that the W&A was right.
All of that is wrong. When one looks at the Thomas correlation(the one
he thinks confirms W&A) it is dead-nuts obvious that his correlation is
wrong.
Why do you do this? You're writing as if you know about things you can't
possibly know. You don't know what private communications took place
there, or what was happening on Thomas' head. Naturally, it's not
correct.
Some of us have communitcated with Thomas.
Did Thomas tell you his private thoughts, or his personal communications
with me, which you then passed on to GKnoll?
I can't remember all his aliases so I don't know if he saw my old
messages back then about Thomas.

Google and see if you can figure out what his old aliases were.
Post by odellm
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
The second person who analyzed the W&A interpreation was Michael O'Dell
in his paper "Replicationg Weiss and Aschkenay". He did not confirm it,
far from it. O'Dell determined that one needed correction factors of at
least 10% on the tape that Berkovitz used get matches to the echoes that
I did no such thing. There is no statement even close to that in my
article, and there's nothing in it that could be reasonably inferred to
mean it. Correction factor of at least 10%? You made that up, it didn't
come from me.
I love to see minions fighting with each other. They're so cute.
Michael
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-23 15:20:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by odellm
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by BOZ
https://jfk007.com/1053-2/
The last section re: Don Thomas, is spot on. Thomas, to this day, spreads
his absolute lies regarding what he claims is "crosstalk", knowing fully
well that it isn't crosstalk. It was Micheal o'Dell who convinced Thomas
that he was using inferior copies of the police recordings when Thomas
wrote his peer reviewed paper in 2001. After Michael presented Thomas with
the facts--that the channel two recording was useless as a timing tool to
prove the HSCA's claim that H.B. McLain had the open mic was correct.
(This was nearly twenty years after the Ramsey panel Report in 1982).
After Michael O'Dell convinced Don Thomas he was wrong, Thomas conceded.
Apparently, Thomas couldn't admit complete defeat, so, he invented his
"crosstalk" theory, based primarily on the transcript written by James C.
Bowles) DPD Communications Supervisor at the time of the assassination
(See the transcript in Larry Sneed's excellent book "No More Silence").
Thomas was/is wrong, again, and several members of the Ramsey panel
regrouped performed a study on Thomas' conclusions, wrote a detailed
report regarding Thomas' theory, and Micheal O'Dell aided in proving
http://jfk-records.com/ScienceAndJustice_45%284%29_207-226%282005%29.pdf
I also wrote an article(which was featured in Bugliosi's Reclaiming
History) which you can read here, regarding heterodyne tones (beep tones)
that accompany the speech which Thomas claims is crosstalk on channel 1.
The fact that there are heterodyne tones accompanying the speech that
Thomas says is crosstalk proves that it isn't crosstalk at all. Which you
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2007/07/of-crosstalk-and-bells-rebuttal-to-don.html
To this day, Thomas speaks at JFK conspiracy conferences spreading his
untruth regarding the speech on channel 1 which he claims is crosstalk.
Thomas believes that the "gunshots" are on the channel 1 Dictabelt, but
that there are five--not four gunshots-- and he supports the conclusions
reached by the acoustics experts for the HSCA.
The so called "acoustic experts" have formed a clique. And it is very
So who do you think is in this clique? ME
Probably. I'm just trying to imagine the clique meetings with Barger, Weiss, Aschkenasy, you, me, Thomas, etc., where we plot about keeping GKnoll out. Probably drunken affairs.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
hard to penetrate this clique. They are a small group who are hell bent
on pushing through the false theory that the man behind the fence shown
in the Moorman photo (and I think first identified by Josiah Thompson in
OOPs. Did someone accidentally admit to seeing the face above the fence?
Post by GKnoll
his book "Six Seconds In Dallas") fired the shot that we all see
striking the Presdient on Zapruder frame 313. There is not a single
piece of evidence that supports that shot came from the knoll, quite the
contrary, every single piece of evidence we have shows that the shot at
frame 313 could not have been fired by that man at that time.
Their theory is 100% dependent upon the interpretation made by Weiss and
Aschkenasy.
No one has been able to confirm the interpretation of Weiss and
Aschkenasy. Robert Berkovitz was the first and he showed that their
interpretation could not be correct, Speaking of debacles, the CourtTV
experience was a debacle within a debacle. When Berkovitz could not
confirm the W&A result, Don Thomas thought that Robert Berkovitz made a
mistake. Berkovitz sent Thomas his program. Thomas concluded based on
his running of the Berkovitz's program that Berkovitz made a mistake
when he(Berkovitz) applied a correction factor to the tape. Because
Thomas got a better correlation (still much less than the .77
correlation W&A published) when he did not apply a correction factor, he
jumped to the (false) conclusion that the tape Berkovitz was working
with was one that had already been corrected for tape speed. To make
matters worse, Thomas contacted Michael O'Dell and O'Dell told Thomas
that, yes the tape that Berkovitz used was already tape speed corrected.
This feed Thomas's ego, and reinforced in Thomas that the W&A was right.
All of that is wrong. When one looks at the Thomas correlation(the one
he thinks confirms W&A) it is dead-nuts obvious that his correlation is
wrong.
Why do you do this? You're writing as if you know about things you can't
possibly know. You don't know what private communications took place
there, or what was happening on Thomas' head. Naturally, it's not
correct.
Some of us have communitcated with Thomas.
Did Thomas tell you his private thoughts, or his personal communications
with me, which you then passed on to GKnoll?
I don't think he ever mentioned you. I do not pass on anything to the
alias you mentioned. I think you can read everything I have posted by
doing a Google search. Unlike the McAdams crows we do not have a secret
newsfeed.
Post by odellm
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
The second person who analyzed the W&A interpreation was Michael O'Dell
in his paper "Replicationg Weiss and Aschkenay". He did not confirm it,
far from it. O'Dell determined that one needed correction factors of at
least 10% on the tape that Berkovitz used get matches to the echoes that
I did no such thing. There is no statement even close to that in my
article, and there's nothing in it that could be reasonably inferred to
mean it. Correction factor of at least 10%? You made that up, it didn't
come from me.
I love to see minions fighting with each other. They're so cute.
Michael
odellm
2018-05-23 21:52:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by odellm
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by odellm
Post by BOZ
https://jfk007.com/1053-2/
Why do you do this? You're writing as if you know about things you can't
possibly know. You don't know what private communications took place
there, or what was happening on Thomas' head. Naturally, it's not
correct.
Some of us have communitcated with Thomas.
Did Thomas tell you his private thoughts, or his personal communications
with me, which you then passed on to GKnoll?
I don't think he ever mentioned you. I do not pass on anything to the
alias you mentioned. I think you can read everything I have posted by
doing a Google search. Unlike the McAdams crows we do not have a secret
newsfeed.
It was a rhetorical question. See the preceding exchange.

Michael
Jason Burke
2018-05-23 21:52:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
Post by Steve Barber
Post by BOZ
https://jfk007.com/1053-2/
The last section re: Don Thomas, is spot on. Thomas, to this day, spreads
his absolute lies regarding what he claims is "crosstalk", knowing fully
well that it isn't crosstalk. It was Micheal o'Dell who convinced Thomas
that he was using inferior copies of the police recordings when Thomas
wrote his peer reviewed paper in 2001. After Michael presented Thomas with
the facts--that the channel two recording was useless as a timing tool to
prove the HSCA's claim that H.B. McLain had the open mic was correct.
(This was nearly twenty years after the Ramsey panel Report in 1982).
???????? After Michael O'Dell convinced Don Thomas he was wrong,
Thomas conceded.
Apparently, Thomas couldn't admit complete defeat, so, he invented his
"crosstalk" theory, based primarily on the transcript written by James C.
Bowles) DPD Communications Supervisor at the time of the
assassination
(See the transcript in Larry Sneed's excellent book "No More Silence").
Thomas was/is wrong, again, and several members of the Ramsey panel
regrouped performed a study on Thomas' conclusions, wrote a detailed
report regarding Thomas' theory, and Micheal O'Dell aided in proving
http://jfk-records.com/ScienceAndJustice_45%284%29_207-226%282005%29.pdf
?????? I also wrote an article(which was featured in Bugliosi's
Reclaiming
History) which you can read here, regarding heterodyne tones (beep tones)
that accompany the speech which Thomas claims is crosstalk on channel 1.
The fact that there are heterodyne tones accompanying the speech that
Thomas says is crosstalk proves that it isn't crosstalk at all.
Which you
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2007/07/of-crosstalk-and-bells-rebuttal-to-don.html
???????? To this day, Thomas speaks at JFK conspiracy conferences
spreading his
untruth regarding the speech on channel 1 which he claims is crosstalk.
Thomas believes that the "gunshots" are on the channel 1
Dictabelt, but
that there are five--not four gunshots-- and he supports the conclusions
reached by the acoustics experts for the HSCA.
The so called "acoustic experts" have formed a clique. And it is very
So who do you think is in this clique??? ME
Probably.?? I'm just trying to imagine the clique meetings with Barger,
Weiss, Aschkenasy, you, me, Thomas, etc., where we plot about keeping
GKnoll out.?? Probably drunken affairs.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
hard to penetrate this clique. They are a small group who are hell bent
on pushing through the false theory that the man behind the fence shown
in the Moorman photo (and I think first identified by Josiah Thompson in
OOPs. Did someone accidentally admit to seeing the face above the fence?
Post by GKnoll
his book "Six Seconds In Dallas") fired the shot that we all see
striking the Presdient on Zapruder frame 313. There is not a single
piece of evidence that supports that shot came from the knoll, quite the
contrary, every single piece of evidence we have shows that the shot at
frame 313 could not have been fired by that man at that time.
Their theory is 100% dependent upon the interpretation made by Weiss and
Aschkenasy.
No one has been able to confirm the interpretation of Weiss and
Aschkenasy. Robert Berkovitz was the first and he showed that their
interpretation could not be correct, Speaking of debacles, the CourtTV
experience was a debacle within a debacle. When Berkovitz could not
confirm the W&A result, Don Thomas thought that Robert Berkovitz made a
mistake. Berkovitz sent Thomas his program. Thomas concluded based on
his running of the Berkovitz's program that Berkovitz made a mistake
when he(Berkovitz) applied a correction factor to the tape. Because
Thomas got a better correlation (still much less than the .77
correlation W&A published) when he did not apply a correction factor, he
jumped to the (false) conclusion that the tape Berkovitz was working
with was one that had already been corrected for tape speed. To make
matters worse, Thomas contacted Michael O'Dell and O'Dell told Thomas
that, yes the tape that Berkovitz used was already tape speed corrected.
This feed Thomas's ego, and reinforced in Thomas that the W&A was right.
All of that is wrong. When one looks at the Thomas correlation(the one
he thinks confirms W&A) it is dead-nuts obvious that his
correlation is
wrong.
Why do you do this??? You're writing as if you know about things you
can't
possibly know.?? You don't know what private communications took place
there, or what was happening on Thomas' head.?? Naturally, it's not
correct.
Some of us have communitcated with Thomas.
Did Thomas tell you his private thoughts, or his personal communications
with me, which you then passed on to GKnoll?
I don't think he ever mentioned you. I do not pass on anything to the
alias you mentioned. I think you can read everything I have posted by
doing a Google search. Unlike the McAdams crows we do not have a secret
newsfeed.
Not *too* paranoid, are we?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by GKnoll
The second person who analyzed the W&A interpreation was Michael O'Dell
in his paper "Replicationg Weiss and Aschkenay". He did not confirm it,
far from it. O'Dell determined that one needed correction factors of at
least 10% on the tape that Berkovitz used get matches to the echoes that
I did no such thing.?? There is no statement even close to that in my
article, and there's nothing in it that could be reasonably inferred to
mean it.?? Correction factor of at least 10%??? You made that up, it
didn't
come from me.
I love to see minions fighting with each other. They're so cute.
Michael
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-18 00:27:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve Barber
Post by BOZ
https://jfk007.com/1053-2/
The last section re: Don Thomas, is spot on. Thomas, to this day, spreads
his absolute lies regarding what he claims is "crosstalk", knowing fully
well that it isn't crosstalk. It was Micheal o'Dell who convinced Thomas
that he was using inferior copies of the police recordings when Thomas
wrote his peer reviewed paper in 2001. After Michael presented Thomas with
the facts--that the channel two recording was useless as a timing tool to
prove the HSCA's claim that H.B. McLain had the open mic was correct.
(This was nearly twenty years after the Ramsey panel Report in 1982).
You have that reversed. It was the NAS panel who LIED about the channel
two timing to falsely claim that the "shots" were one minute after the
assassination. They and you think that it took a fill minute for Decker to
realize what had happened and tell everyone to go to the hospital. Was
Greer listening to channel one or channel two?
Post by Steve Barber
After Michael O'Dell convinced Don Thomas he was wrong, Thomas conceded.
Apparently, Thomas couldn't admit complete defeat, so, he invented his
"crosstalk" theory, based primarily on the transcript written by James C.
Bowles) DPD Communications Supervisor at the time of the assassination
(See the transcript in Larry Sneed's excellent book "No More Silence").
Thomas was/is wrong, again, and several members of the Ramsey panel
regrouped performed a study on Thomas' conclusions, wrote a detailed
report regarding Thomas' theory, and Micheal O'Dell aided in proving
http://jfk-records.com/ScienceAndJustice_45%284%29_207-226%282005%29.pdf
I also wrote an article(which was featured in Bugliosi's Reclaiming
History) which you can read here, regarding heterodyne tones (beep tones)
that accompany the speech which Thomas claims is crosstalk on channel 1.
The fact that there are heterodyne tones accompanying the speech that
Thomas says is crosstalk proves that it isn't crosstalk at all. Which you
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2007/07/of-crosstalk-and-bells-rebuttal-to-don.html
But did he quote your essay about the "bell" sound?
Post by Steve Barber
To this day, Thomas speaks at JFK conspiracy conferences spreading his
untruth regarding the speech on channel 1 which he claims is crosstalk.
Then why do YOU keep calling it crosstalk? Are you trying to cave in?
Post by Steve Barber
Thomas believes that the "gunshots" are on the channel 1 Dictabelt, but
that there are five--not four gunshots-- and he supports the conclusions
reached by the acoustics experts for the HSCA.
OMG, do you realize that you just admitted that I am not the only one who
thinks there were 5 shots on the tape? Can't the cover-up do a better job
of corralling you in? Next week you'll admit that you KNOW it was a
conspiracy and you knew the grassy knoll shooter. Somebody stop him before
he ruins your perfect little cover-up.

He might even admit that Trump paid back Cohen after he lied about it
1,000 times.
Steve Barber
2018-05-19 01:41:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by BOZ
https://jfk007.com/1053-2/
The last section re: Don Thomas, is spot on. Thomas, to this day, spreads
his absolute lies regarding what he claims is "crosstalk", knowing fully
well that it isn't crosstalk. It was Micheal o'Dell who convinced Thomas
that he was using inferior copies of the police recordings when Thomas
wrote his peer reviewed paper in 2001. After Michael presented Thomas with
the facts--that the channel two recording was useless as a timing tool to
prove the HSCA's claim that H.B. McLain had the open mic was correct.
(This was nearly twenty years after the Ramsey panel Report in 1982).
You have that reversed. It was the NAS panel who LIED about the channel
two timing to falsely claim that the "shots" were one minute after the
assassination. They and you think that it took a fill minute for Decker to
realize what had happened and tell everyone to go to the hospital. Was
Greer listening to channel one or channel two?
Congratulations! You win the Stupid Post Of The Day award, Marsh!

FYI, Curry held the mic and was on the radio talking to the motorcade
officers and the dispatcher, therefore, Decker couldn't use the radio
until after Curry was finished with the mic. There was only one mic
because Decker didn't have a direct line to his office so had to use
Curry's radio and tell the dispatcher at DPD headquarters to contact his
department.

Furthermore, none of us knows exactly how long it was after the shooting
before Curry made the transmission "Go to the hospital, officers!"

Furthermore, you'd better get your stopwatch out! On the channel 2
recording, the dispatcher had announced the time "12:30 KKB 364, Dallas".
Nine seconds pass then Curry announces "Triple Underpass". It is a known
fact that After 4 seconds of silence, the grey audograph recorder stopped
recording until the next transmission reactivated it. Since the voice
traffic was constant from the moment that Curry opened his mic and gave
the first transmission following the shooting, which is "Go to the
hospital, officers!" timing is accurate and possible because from that
point on, radio activity was heavy and constant and the recorder did not
stop because there was never a 4 second gap between transmissions --
therefore giving us a clock from the time Curry breaks in and says "Go to
the hospital, officers!" until Decker completes saying the words "hold
everything until the homicide and other investigators can get there". Over
a minute elapsed. Therefore, you are full of poop and the Ramsey panel
did no such thing as "lie" about the timing on channel 2! You, on the
other hand, made up something ridiculously false. Are you still using an
inferior copy a channel two, relying on the copy you purchased from Dave
Hawkins, Marsh? Shame on you.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
After Michael O'Dell convinced Don Thomas he was wrong, Thomas conceded.
Apparently, Thomas couldn't admit complete defeat, so, he invented his
"crosstalk" theory, based primarily on the transcript written by James C.
Bowles) DPD Communications Supervisor at the time of the assassination
(See the transcript in Larry Sneed's excellent book "No More Silence").
Thomas was/is wrong, again, and several members of the Ramsey panel
regrouped performed a study on Thomas' conclusions, wrote a detailed
report regarding Thomas' theory, and Micheal O'Dell aided in proving
http://jfk-records.com/ScienceAndJustice_45%284%29_207-226%282005%29.pdf
I also wrote an article(which was featured in Bugliosi's Reclaiming
History) which you can read here, regarding heterodyne tones (beep tones)
that accompany the speech which Thomas claims is crosstalk on channel 1.
The fact that there are heterodyne tones accompanying the speech that
Thomas says is crosstalk proves that it isn't crosstalk at all. Which you
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2007/07/of-crosstalk-and-bells-rebuttal-to-don.html
But did he quote your essay about the "bell" sound?
Post by Steve Barber
To this day, Thomas speaks at JFK conspiracy conferences spreading his
untruth regarding the speech on channel 1 which he claims is crosstalk.
Then why do YOU keep calling it crosstalk? Are you trying to cave in?
I am quoting, Thomas because *he* calls the N.T. Fisher ch. 2
transmission "crosstalk". Your poor reading comprehension skills get the
best of you.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Thomas believes that the "gunshots" are on the channel 1 Dictabelt, but
that there are five--not four gunshots-- and he supports the conclusions
reached by the acoustics experts for the HSCA.
OMG, do you realize that you just admitted that I am not the only one who
thinks there were 5 shots on the tape? Can't the cover-up do a better job
of corralling you in? Next week you'll admit that you KNOW it was a
conspiracy and you knew the grassy knoll shooter. Somebody stop him before
he ruins your perfect little cover-up.
"OMG", do you realize that I admitted nothing of the kind and that you
poor reading skills have gotten the best of you again? Read that
paragraph again, old man.


"Thomas believes that the "gunshots" are on the channel 1 Dictabelt, but
that there are five--not four gunshots--and he supports the conclusions
reached by the acoustics experts for the HSCA."

Where within the paragraph have I "admitted" anything? I have always
known and acknowledged that Thomas believes there are 5--not 4 --gunshots
on the Dictabelt recording!
Post by Anthony Marsh
He might even admit that Trump paid back Cohen after he lied about it
1,000 times.
We all know that you suffer with Trump derangement syndrome, old man.
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-19 20:20:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by BOZ
https://jfk007.com/1053-2/
The last section re: Don Thomas, is spot on. Thomas, to this day, spreads
his absolute lies regarding what he claims is "crosstalk", knowing fully
well that it isn't crosstalk. It was Micheal o'Dell who convinced Thomas
that he was using inferior copies of the police recordings when Thomas
wrote his peer reviewed paper in 2001. After Michael presented Thomas with
the facts--that the channel two recording was useless as a timing tool to
prove the HSCA's claim that H.B. McLain had the open mic was correct.
(This was nearly twenty years after the Ramsey panel Report in 1982).
You have that reversed. It was the NAS panel who LIED about the channel
two timing to falsely claim that the "shots" were one minute after the
assassination. They and you think that it took a fill minute for Decker to
realize what had happened and tell everyone to go to the hospital. Was
Greer listening to channel one or channel two?
Congratulations! You win the Stupid Post Of The Day award, Marsh!
This is not an honest and open debate. McAdams allows YOU to call me
stupid because you are one of his minions, but I am not even allowed to
point out when you are wrong.
Post by Steve Barber
FYI, Curry held the mic and was on the radio talking to the motorcade
officers and the dispatcher, therefore, Decker couldn't use the radio
until after Curry was finished with the mic. There was only one mic
because Decker didn't have a direct line to his office so had to use
Curry's radio and tell the dispatcher at DPD headquarters to contact his
department.
That is why I asked you which message you were talking about.
Again, do your really think it took Decker a full minute before he made
that call? Yes or no?
Post by Steve Barber
Furthermore, none of us knows exactly how long it was after the shooting
before Curry made the transmission "Go to the hospital, officers!"
Well, again, do you think it took a full minute? Yes or no?
And WHo first claimed to hear the message, "Going to the hospital"?
Who is going to take credit for this orphan? Do we need a paternity test?
Post by Steve Barber
Furthermore, you'd better get your stopwatch out! On the channel 2
recording, the dispatcher had announced the time "12:30 KKB 364, Dallas".
Nine seconds pass then Curry announces "Triple Underpass". It is a known
fact that After 4 seconds of silence, the grey audograph recorder stopped
recording until the next transmission reactivated it. Since the voice
It is not a fact. It is an ASSuMPTION.
Post by Steve Barber
traffic was constant from the moment that Curry opened his mic and gave
You can't prove that the voice traffic was constant. If you try, that
gives you problems for the silence on channel 2.
Post by Steve Barber
the first transmission following the shooting, which is "Go to the
hospital, officers!" timing is accurate and possible because from that
point on, radio activity was heavy and constant and the recorder did not
stop because there was never a 4 second gap between transmissions --
therefore giving us a clock from the time Curry breaks in and says "Go to
the hospital, officers!" until Decker completes saying the words "hold
BOZ said it was, "Going to the hospital." Was BOZ lying? Are you allowed
to call a fewllow minion a liar?
Post by Steve Barber
everything until the homicide and other investigators can get there". Over
a minute elapsed. Therefore, you are full of poop and the Ramsey panel
did no such thing as "lie" about the timing on channel 2! You, on the
The magical one minute of silence.
Post by Steve Barber
other hand, made up something ridiculously false. Are you still using an
inferior copy a channel two, relying on the copy you purchased from Dave
Hawkins, Marsh? Shame on you.
Bulderdash. YOU gave me a copy. And I have your Gallery record too.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
After Michael O'Dell convinced Don Thomas he was wrong, Thomas conceded.
No.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Apparently, Thomas couldn't admit complete defeat, so, he invented his
"crosstalk" theory, based primarily on the transcript written by James C.
Bowles) DPD Communications Supervisor at the time of the assassination
(See the transcript in Larry Sneed's excellent book "No More Silence").
Thomas was/is wrong, again, and several members of the Ramsey panel
regrouped performed a study on Thomas' conclusions, wrote a detailed
report regarding Thomas' theory, and Micheal O'Dell aided in proving
http://jfk-records.com/ScienceAndJustice_45%284%29_207-226%282005%29.pdf
Are you saying that Bowles was part of a hoax to put shots on the tape?
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
I also wrote an article(which was featured in Bugliosi's Reclaiming
History) which you can read here, regarding heterodyne tones (beep tones)
that accompany the speech which Thomas claims is crosstalk on channel 1.
The fact that there are heterodyne tones accompanying the speech that
Thomas says is crosstalk proves that it isn't crosstalk at all. Which you
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2007/07/of-crosstalk-and-bells-rebuttal-to-don.html
But did he quote your essay about the "bell" sound?
Post by Steve Barber
To this day, Thomas speaks at JFK conspiracy conferences spreading his
untruth regarding the speech on channel 1 which he claims is crosstalk.
Then why do YOU keep calling it crosstalk? Are you trying to cave in?
I am quoting, Thomas because *he* calls the N.T. Fisher ch. 2
transmission "crosstalk". Your poor reading comprehension skills get the
best of you.
Do you always put it in air quotes?
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Thomas believes that the "gunshots" are on the channel 1 Dictabelt, but
that there are five--not four gunshots-- and he supports the conclusions
reached by the acoustics experts for the HSCA.
OMG, do you realize that you just admitted that I am not the only one who
thinks there were 5 shots on the tape? Can't the cover-up do a better job
of corralling you in? Next week you'll admit that you KNOW it was a
conspiracy and you knew the grassy knoll shooter. Somebody stop him before
he ruins your perfect little cover-up.
"OMG", do you realize that I admitted nothing of the kind and that you
poor reading skills have gotten the best of you again? Read that
paragraph again, old man.
You just said that someone else believes there are 5 shots on the tape.
Post by Steve Barber
"Thomas believes that the "gunshots" are on the channel 1 Dictabelt, but
that there are five--not four gunshots--and he supports the conclusions
reached by the acoustics experts for the HSCA."
There, you did it again. Stop incriminating yourself.
Post by Steve Barber
Where within the paragraph have I "admitted" anything? I have always
known and acknowledged that Thomas believes there are 5--not 4 --gunshots
on the Dictabelt recording!
Then I am not the only one claiming 5 gunshots.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
He might even admit that Trump paid back Cohen after he lied about it
1,000 times.
We all know that you suffer with Trump derangement syndrome, old man.
I am just rubbing it in because almost all WC defenders here are also
Trump defenders.
OHLeeRedux
2018-05-20 18:36:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by BOZ
https://jfk007.com/1053-2/
The last section re: Don Thomas, is spot on. Thomas, to this day, spreads
his absolute lies regarding what he claims is "crosstalk", knowing fully
well that it isn't crosstalk. It was Micheal o'Dell who convinced Thomas
that he was using inferior copies of the police recordings when Thomas
wrote his peer reviewed paper in 2001. After Michael presented Thomas with
the facts--that the channel two recording was useless as a timing tool to
prove the HSCA's claim that H.B. McLain had the open mic was correct.
(This was nearly twenty years after the Ramsey panel Report in 1982).
You have that reversed. It was the NAS panel who LIED about the channel
two timing to falsely claim that the "shots" were one minute after the
assassination. They and you think that it took a fill minute for Decker to
realize what had happened and tell everyone to go to the hospital. Was
Greer listening to channel one or channel two?
Congratulations! You win the Stupid Post Of The Day award, Marsh!
This is not an honest and open debate. McAdams allows YOU to call me
stupid because you are one of his minions, but I am not even allowed to
point out when you are wrong.



WITCH HUNT. THEY'RE OUT TO GET ME.



I swear, Anthony, it's getting more and more difficult to tell the
difference between your posts and President Trump's tweets. You two must
think a lot alike.
Steve Barber
2018-05-20 18:40:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by BOZ
https://jfk007.com/1053-2/
The last section re: Don Thomas, is spot on. Thomas, to this day, spreads
his absolute lies regarding what he claims is "crosstalk", knowing fully
well that it isn't crosstalk. It was Micheal o'Dell who convinced Thomas
that he was using inferior copies of the police recordings when Thomas
wrote his peer reviewed paper in 2001. After Michael presented Thomas with
the facts--that the channel two recording was useless as a timing tool to
prove the HSCA's claim that H.B. McLain had the open mic was correct.
(This was nearly twenty years after the Ramsey panel Report in 1982).
You have that reversed. It was the NAS panel who LIED about the channel
two timing to falsely claim that the "shots" were one minute after the
assassination. They and you think that it took a fill minute for Decker to
realize what had happened and tell everyone to go to the hospital. Was
Greer listening to channel one or channel two?
Congratulations! You win the Stupid Post Of The Day award, Marsh!
This is not an honest and open debate. McAdams allows YOU to call me
stupid because you are one of his minions, but I am not even allowed to
point out when you are wrong.
Stop whining, Marsh and grow a pair.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
FYI, Curry held the mic and was on the radio talking to the motorcade
officers and the dispatcher, therefore, Decker couldn't use the radio
until after Curry was finished with the mic. There was only one mic
because Decker didn't have a direct line to his office so had to use
Curry's radio and tell the dispatcher at DPD headquarters to contact his
department.
That is why I asked you which message you were talking about.
Again, do your really think it took Decker a full minute before he made
that call? Yes or no?
This is a loaded question coming from you, of course. I gave you my
answer above. You cannot be taken seriously.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Furthermore, none of us knows exactly how long it was after the shooting
before Curry made the transmission "Go to the hospital, officers!"
Well, again, do you think it took a full minute? Yes or no?
And WHo first claimed to hear the message, "Going to the hospital"?
Who is going to take credit for this orphan? Do we need a paternity test?
The "Going to the hospital words are *NOT* "a message", Marsh, and you
know it. Stop playing your insane games! What we "need" is for you to
get off this kick about a typo BOZ made and move on. You look totally
ridiculous harping about something that was an accident.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Furthermore, you'd better get your stopwatch out! On the channel 2
recording, the dispatcher had announced the time "12:30 KKB 364, Dallas".
Nine seconds pass then Curry announces "Triple Underpass". It is a known
fact that After 4 seconds of silence, the grey audograph recorder stopped
recording until the next transmission reactivated it. Since the voice
It is not a fact. It is an ASSuMPTION.
No, it's not an assumption. You want it to be, but it isn't. It *IS* a
fact and you have to live with it. Otherwise, post your prrof that it is
an "assumption"!
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
traffic was constant from the moment that Curry opened his mic and gave
You can't prove that the voice traffic was constant. If you try, that
gives you problems for the silence on channel 2.
ATTENTION PLEASE! LISTEN TO THE RECORDING, MARSH! LISTEN TO THE
RECORDING! And do not use your recording that you purchased from Hawkins
back in the 70's that contains skips and was recorded at the wrong speed!
THE VOICE TRAFFIC WAS CONSTANT AND HEAVY FOLLOWING "GO TO THE HOSPITAL,
OFFICERS!" Stop living in denial and get with the program!
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
the first transmission following the shooting, which is "Go to the
hospital, officers!" timing is accurate and possible because from that
point on, radio activity was heavy and constant and the recorder did not
stop because there was never a 4 second gap between transmissions --
therefore giving us a clock from the time Curry breaks in and says "Go to
the hospital, officers!" until Decker completes saying the words "hold
BOZ said it was, "Going to the hospital." Was BOZ lying? Are you allowed
to call a fewllow minion a liar?
Post by Steve Barber
everything until the homicide and other investigators can get there". Over
a minute elapsed. Therefore, you are full of poop and the Ramsey panel
did no such thing as "lie" about the timing on channel 2! You, on the
The magical one minute of silence.
"Magical" only in your twisted thinking, because there was no "One
minute of silence"!
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
other hand, made up something ridiculously false. Are you still using an
inferior copy a channel two, relying on the copy you purchased from Dave
Hawkins, Marsh? Shame on you.
Bulderdash. YOU gave me a copy. And I have your Gallery record too.
GREAT! Then get busy and put it to use, old man!
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
After Michael O'Dell convinced Don Thomas he was wrong, Thomas conceded.
No.
Don't tell me "No"! I know for a fact!
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Apparently, Thomas couldn't admit complete defeat, so, he invented his
"crosstalk" theory, based primarily on the transcript written by James C.
Bowles) DPD Communications Supervisor at the time of the assassination
(See the transcript in Larry Sneed's excellent book "No More Silence").
Thomas was/is wrong, again, and several members of the Ramsey panel
regrouped performed a study on Thomas' conclusions, wrote a detailed
report regarding Thomas' theory, and Micheal O'Dell aided in proving
http://jfk-records.com/ScienceAndJustice_45%284%29_207-226%282005%29.pdf
Are you saying that Bowles was part of a hoax to put shots on the tape?
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
I also wrote an article(which was featured in Bugliosi's Reclaiming
History) which you can read here, regarding heterodyne tones (beep tones)
that accompany the speech which Thomas claims is crosstalk on channel 1.
The fact that there are heterodyne tones accompanying the speech that
Thomas says is crosstalk proves that it isn't crosstalk at all. Which you
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2007/07/of-crosstalk-and-bells-rebuttal-to-don.html
But did he quote your essay about the "bell" sound?
Post by Steve Barber
To this day, Thomas speaks at JFK conspiracy conferences spreading his
untruth regarding the speech on channel 1 which he claims is crosstalk.
Then why do YOU keep calling it crosstalk? Are you trying to cave in?
I am quoting, Thomas because *he* calls the N.T. Fisher ch. 2
transmission "crosstalk". Your poor reading comprehension skills get the
best of you.
Do you always put it in air quotes?
No. Only when I have to point something out to you!!
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Thomas believes that the "gunshots" are on the channel 1 Dictabelt, but
that there are five--not four gunshots-- and he supports the conclusions
reached by the acoustics experts for the HSCA.
OMG, do you realize that you just admitted that I am not the only one who
thinks there were 5 shots on the tape? Can't the cover-up do a better job
of corralling you in? Next week you'll admit that you KNOW it was a
conspiracy and you knew the grassy knoll shooter. Somebody stop him before
he ruins your perfect little cover-up.
"OMG", do you realize that I admitted nothing of the kind and that you
poor reading skills have gotten the best of you again? Read that
paragraph again, old man.
You just said that someone else believes there are 5 shots on the tape.
Post by Steve Barber
"Thomas believes that the "gunshots" are on the channel 1 Dictabelt, but
that there are five--not four gunshots--and he supports the conclusions
reached by the acoustics experts for the HSCA."
There, you did it again. Stop incriminating yourself.
You are filled with poop, Old Man!
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Where within the paragraph have I "admitted" anything? I have always
known and acknowledged that Thomas believes there are 5--not 4 --gunshots
on the Dictabelt recording!
Then I am not the only one claiming 5 gunshots.
No, you aren't. You and Thomas are the only two that I am aware of who do
believe in 5 shots! I believe there are NONE on the Dictabelt!
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
He might even admit that Trump paid back Cohen after he lied about it
1,000 times.
We all know that you suffer with Trump derangement syndrome, old man.
I am just rubbing it in because almost all WC defenders here are also
Trump defenders.
And I like getting your goat and rubbing your nose in it because you
suffer from Trump derangement syndrome.
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-21 15:04:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by BOZ
https://jfk007.com/1053-2/
The last section re: Don Thomas, is spot on. Thomas, to this day, spreads
his absolute lies regarding what he claims is "crosstalk", knowing fully
well that it isn't crosstalk. It was Micheal o'Dell who convinced Thomas
that he was using inferior copies of the police recordings when Thomas
wrote his peer reviewed paper in 2001. After Michael presented Thomas with
the facts--that the channel two recording was useless as a timing tool to
prove the HSCA's claim that H.B. McLain had the open mic was correct.
(This was nearly twenty years after the Ramsey panel Report in 1982).
You have that reversed. It was the NAS panel who LIED about the channel
two timing to falsely claim that the "shots" were one minute after the
assassination. They and you think that it took a fill minute for Decker to
realize what had happened and tell everyone to go to the hospital. Was
Greer listening to channel one or channel two?
Congratulations! You win the Stupid Post Of The Day award, Marsh!
This is not an honest and open debate. McAdams allows YOU to call me
stupid because you are one of his minions, but I am not even allowed to
point out when you are wrong.
Stop whining, Marsh and grow a pair.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
FYI, Curry held the mic and was on the radio talking to the motorcade
officers and the dispatcher, therefore, Decker couldn't use the radio
until after Curry was finished with the mic. There was only one mic
because Decker didn't have a direct line to his office so had to use
Curry's radio and tell the dispatcher at DPD headquarters to contact his
department.
That is why I asked you which message you were talking about.
Again, do your really think it took Decker a full minute before he made
that call? Yes or no?
This is a loaded question coming from you, of course. I gave you my
answer above. You cannot be taken seriously.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Furthermore, none of us knows exactly how long it was after the shooting
before Curry made the transmission "Go to the hospital, officers!"
Well, again, do you think it took a full minute? Yes or no?
And WHo first claimed to hear the message, "Going to the hospital"?
Who is going to take credit for this orphan? Do we need a paternity test?
The "Going to the hospital words are *NOT* "a message", Marsh, and you
know it. Stop playing your insane games! What we "need" is for you to
get off this kick about a typo BOZ made and move on. You look totally
ridiculous harping about something that was an accident.
Then why did BOZ say it? WHo put him up to it?
WHen some flat out lies you cover up for him and all it a typo.
I just want to know who put him up to it.
So if another one of you guys did exactly the same thing you would again
excuse it as just a typo.
I see a pattern emerging.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Furthermore, you'd better get your stopwatch out! On the channel 2
recording, the dispatcher had announced the time "12:30 KKB 364, Dallas".
Nine seconds pass then Curry announces "Triple Underpass". It is a known
fact that After 4 seconds of silence, the grey audograph recorder stopped
recording until the next transmission reactivated it. Since the voice
It is not a fact. It is an ASSuMPTION.
No, it's not an assumption. You want it to be, but it isn't. It *IS* a
fact and you have to live with it. Otherwise, post your prrof that it is
an "assumption"!
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
traffic was constant from the moment that Curry opened his mic and gave
You can't prove that the voice traffic was constant. If you try, that
gives you problems for the silence on channel 2.
ATTENTION PLEASE! LISTEN TO THE RECORDING, MARSH! LISTEN TO THE
RECORDING! And do not use your recording that you purchased from Hawkins
back in the 70's that contains skips and was recorded at the wrong speed!
THE VOICE TRAFFIC WAS CONSTANT AND HEAVY FOLLOWING "GO TO THE HOSPITAL,
OFFICERS!" Stop living in denial and get with the program!
Try to pay attention. YOU gave me a copy. Are you saying that was bogus?
You just linked to a copy on YouTube. Are you saying that is bogus?
I have your 45 record from Gallery. Are you saying that is bogus?
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
the first transmission following the shooting, which is "Go to the
hospital, officers!" timing is accurate and possible because from that
point on, radio activity was heavy and constant and the recorder did not
stop because there was never a 4 second gap between transmissions --
therefore giving us a clock from the time Curry breaks in and says "Go to
the hospital, officers!" until Decker completes saying the words "hold
BOZ said it was, "Going to the hospital." Was BOZ lying? Are you allowed
to call a fewllow minion a liar?
Post by Steve Barber
everything until the homicide and other investigators can get there". Over
a minute elapsed. Therefore, you are full of poop and the Ramsey panel
did no such thing as "lie" about the timing on channel 2! You, on the
The magical one minute of silence.
"Magical" only in your twisted thinking, because there was no "One
minute of silence"!
Yes, there was. According to the NAS panel there was one whole minute
when no units were calling in.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
other hand, made up something ridiculously false. Are you still using an
inferior copy a channel two, relying on the copy you purchased from Dave
Hawkins, Marsh? Shame on you.
Bulderdash. YOU gave me a copy. And I have your Gallery record too.
GREAT! Then get busy and put it to use, old man!
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
After Michael O'Dell convinced Don Thomas he was wrong, Thomas conceded.
No.
Don't tell me "No"! I know for a fact!
No, you have a habit of making up false claims.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Apparently, Thomas couldn't admit complete defeat, so, he invented his
"crosstalk" theory, based primarily on the transcript written by James C.
Bowles) DPD Communications Supervisor at the time of the assassination
(See the transcript in Larry Sneed's excellent book "No More Silence").
Thomas was/is wrong, again, and several members of the Ramsey panel
regrouped performed a study on Thomas' conclusions, wrote a detailed
report regarding Thomas' theory, and Micheal O'Dell aided in proving
http://jfk-records.com/ScienceAndJustice_45%284%29_207-226%282005%29.pdf
Are you saying that Bowles was part of a hoax to put shots on the tape?
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
I also wrote an article(which was featured in Bugliosi's Reclaiming
History) which you can read here, regarding heterodyne tones (beep tones)
that accompany the speech which Thomas claims is crosstalk on channel 1.
The fact that there are heterodyne tones accompanying the speech that
Thomas says is crosstalk proves that it isn't crosstalk at all. Which you
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2007/07/of-crosstalk-and-bells-rebuttal-to-don.html
But did he quote your essay about the "bell" sound?
Post by Steve Barber
To this day, Thomas speaks at JFK conspiracy conferences spreading his
untruth regarding the speech on channel 1 which he claims is crosstalk.
Then why do YOU keep calling it crosstalk? Are you trying to cave in?
I am quoting, Thomas because *he* calls the N.T. Fisher ch. 2
transmission "crosstalk". Your poor reading comprehension skills get the
best of you.
Do you always put it in air quotes?
No. Only when I have to point something out to you!!
Can you even admit that it was crosstalk?
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Thomas believes that the "gunshots" are on the channel 1 Dictabelt, but
that there are five--not four gunshots-- and he supports the conclusions
reached by the acoustics experts for the HSCA.
OMG, do you realize that you just admitted that I am not the only one who
thinks there were 5 shots on the tape? Can't the cover-up do a better job
of corralling you in? Next week you'll admit that you KNOW it was a
conspiracy and you knew the grassy knoll shooter. Somebody stop him before
he ruins your perfect little cover-up.
"OMG", do you realize that I admitted nothing of the kind and that you
poor reading skills have gotten the best of you again? Read that
paragraph again, old man.
You just said that someone else believes there are 5 shots on the tape.
Post by Steve Barber
"Thomas believes that the "gunshots" are on the channel 1 Dictabelt, but
that there are five--not four gunshots--and he supports the conclusions
reached by the acoustics experts for the HSCA."
There, you did it again. Stop incriminating yourself.
You are filled with poop, Old Man!
And McAdams approves messages like that because you are one of his minions.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Where within the paragraph have I "admitted" anything? I have always
known and acknowledged that Thomas believes there are 5--not 4 --gunshots
on the Dictabelt recording!
Then I am not the only one claiming 5 gunshots.
No, you aren't. You and Thomas are the only two that I am aware of who do
believe in 5 shots! I believe there are NONE on the Dictabelt!
Oh, that YOU are aware of.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
He might even admit that Trump paid back Cohen after he lied about it
1,000 times.
We all know that you suffer with Trump derangement syndrome, old man.
I am just rubbing it in because almost all WC defenders here are also
Trump defenders.
And I like getting your goat and rubbing your nose in it because you
suffer from Trump derangement syndrome.
Because you are a Trump supporter.
OHLeeRedux
2018-05-22 05:09:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by BOZ
https://jfk007.com/1053-2/
The last section re: Don Thomas, is spot on. Thomas, to this day, spreads
his absolute lies regarding what he claims is "crosstalk", knowing fully
well that it isn't crosstalk. It was Micheal o'Dell who convinced Thomas
that he was using inferior copies of the police recordings when Thomas
wrote his peer reviewed paper in 2001. After Michael presented Thomas with
the facts--that the channel two recording was useless as a timing tool to
prove the HSCA's claim that H.B. McLain had the open mic was correct.
(This was nearly twenty years after the Ramsey panel Report in 1982).
You have that reversed. It was the NAS panel who LIED about the channel
two timing to falsely claim that the "shots" were one minute after the
assassination. They and you think that it took a fill minute for Decker to
realize what had happened and tell everyone to go to the hospital. Was
Greer listening to channel one or channel two?
Congratulations! You win the Stupid Post Of The Day award, Marsh!
This is not an honest and open debate. McAdams allows YOU to call me
stupid because you are one of his minions, but I am not even allowed to
point out when you are wrong.
Stop whining, Marsh and grow a pair.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
FYI, Curry held the mic and was on the radio talking to the motorcade
officers and the dispatcher, therefore, Decker couldn't use the radio
until after Curry was finished with the mic. There was only one mic
because Decker didn't have a direct line to his office so had to use
Curry's radio and tell the dispatcher at DPD headquarters to contact his
department.
That is why I asked you which message you were talking about.
Again, do your really think it took Decker a full minute before he made
that call? Yes or no?
This is a loaded question coming from you, of course. I gave you my
answer above. You cannot be taken seriously.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Furthermore, none of us knows exactly how long it was after the shooting
before Curry made the transmission "Go to the hospital, officers!"
Well, again, do you think it took a full minute? Yes or no?
And WHo first claimed to hear the message, "Going to the hospital"?
Who is going to take credit for this orphan? Do we need a paternity test?
The "Going to the hospital words are *NOT* "a message", Marsh, and you
know it. Stop playing your insane games! What we "need" is for you to
get off this kick about a typo BOZ made and move on. You look totally
ridiculous harping about something that was an accident.
Then why did BOZ say it? WHo put him up to it?
WHen some flat out lies you cover up for him and all it a typo.
I just want to know who put him up to it.
So if another one of you guys did exactly the same thing you would again
excuse it as just a typo.
I see a pattern emerging.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Furthermore, you'd better get your stopwatch out! On the channel 2
recording, the dispatcher had announced the time "12:30 KKB 364, Dallas".
Nine seconds pass then Curry announces "Triple Underpass". It is a known
fact that After 4 seconds of silence, the grey audograph recorder stopped
recording until the next transmission reactivated it. Since the voice
It is not a fact. It is an ASSuMPTION.
No, it's not an assumption. You want it to be, but it isn't. It *IS* a
fact and you have to live with it. Otherwise, post your prrof that it is
an "assumption"!
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
traffic was constant from the moment that Curry opened his mic and gave
You can't prove that the voice traffic was constant. If you try, that
gives you problems for the silence on channel 2.
ATTENTION PLEASE! LISTEN TO THE RECORDING, MARSH! LISTEN TO THE
RECORDING! And do not use your recording that you purchased from Hawkins
back in the 70's that contains skips and was recorded at the wrong speed!
THE VOICE TRAFFIC WAS CONSTANT AND HEAVY FOLLOWING "GO TO THE HOSPITAL,
OFFICERS!" Stop living in denial and get with the program!
Try to pay attention. YOU gave me a copy. Are you saying that was bogus?
You just linked to a copy on YouTube. Are you saying that is bogus?
I have your 45 record from Gallery. Are you saying that is bogus?
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
the first transmission following the shooting, which is "Go to the
hospital, officers!" timing is accurate and possible because from that
point on, radio activity was heavy and constant and the recorder did not
stop because there was never a 4 second gap between transmissions --
therefore giving us a clock from the time Curry breaks in and says "Go to
the hospital, officers!" until Decker completes saying the words "hold
BOZ said it was, "Going to the hospital." Was BOZ lying? Are you allowed
to call a fewllow minion a liar?
Post by Steve Barber
everything until the homicide and other investigators can get there". Over
a minute elapsed. Therefore, you are full of poop and the Ramsey panel
did no such thing as "lie" about the timing on channel 2! You, on the
The magical one minute of silence.
"Magical" only in your twisted thinking, because there was no "One
minute of silence"!
Yes, there was. According to the NAS panel there was one whole minute
when no units were calling in.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
other hand, made up something ridiculously false. Are you still using an
inferior copy a channel two, relying on the copy you purchased from Dave
Hawkins, Marsh? Shame on you.
Bulderdash. YOU gave me a copy. And I have your Gallery record too.
GREAT! Then get busy and put it to use, old man!
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
After Michael O'Dell convinced Don Thomas he was wrong, Thomas conceded.
No.
Don't tell me "No"! I know for a fact!
No, you have a habit of making up false claims.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Apparently, Thomas couldn't admit complete defeat, so, he invented his
"crosstalk" theory, based primarily on the transcript written by James C.
Bowles) DPD Communications Supervisor at the time of the assassination
(See the transcript in Larry Sneed's excellent book "No More Silence").
Thomas was/is wrong, again, and several members of the Ramsey panel
regrouped performed a study on Thomas' conclusions, wrote a detailed
report regarding Thomas' theory, and Micheal O'Dell aided in proving
http://jfk-records.com/ScienceAndJustice_45%284%29_207-226%282005%29.pdf
Are you saying that Bowles was part of a hoax to put shots on the tape?
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
I also wrote an article(which was featured in Bugliosi's Reclaiming
History) which you can read here, regarding heterodyne tones (beep tones)
that accompany the speech which Thomas claims is crosstalk on channel 1.
The fact that there are heterodyne tones accompanying the speech that
Thomas says is crosstalk proves that it isn't crosstalk at all. Which you
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2007/07/of-crosstalk-and-bells-rebuttal-to-don.html
But did he quote your essay about the "bell" sound?
Post by Steve Barber
To this day, Thomas speaks at JFK conspiracy conferences spreading his
untruth regarding the speech on channel 1 which he claims is crosstalk.
Then why do YOU keep calling it crosstalk? Are you trying to cave in?
I am quoting, Thomas because *he* calls the N.T. Fisher ch. 2
transmission "crosstalk". Your poor reading comprehension skills get the
best of you.
Do you always put it in air quotes?
No. Only when I have to point something out to you!!
Can you even admit that it was crosstalk?
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Thomas believes that the "gunshots" are on the channel 1 Dictabelt, but
that there are five--not four gunshots-- and he supports the conclusions
reached by the acoustics experts for the HSCA.
OMG, do you realize that you just admitted that I am not the only one who
thinks there were 5 shots on the tape? Can't the cover-up do a better job
of corralling you in? Next week you'll admit that you KNOW it was a
conspiracy and you knew the grassy knoll shooter. Somebody stop him before
he ruins your perfect little cover-up.
"OMG", do you realize that I admitted nothing of the kind and that you
poor reading skills have gotten the best of you again? Read that
paragraph again, old man.
You just said that someone else believes there are 5 shots on the tape.
Post by Steve Barber
"Thomas believes that the "gunshots" are on the channel 1 Dictabelt, but
that there are five--not four gunshots--and he supports the conclusions
reached by the acoustics experts for the HSCA."
There, you did it again. Stop incriminating yourself.
You are filled with poop, Old Man!
And McAdams approves messages like that because you are one of his minions.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Where within the paragraph have I "admitted" anything? I have always
known and acknowledged that Thomas believes there are 5--not 4 --gunshots
on the Dictabelt recording!
Then I am not the only one claiming 5 gunshots.
No, you aren't. You and Thomas are the only two that I am aware of who do
believe in 5 shots! I believe there are NONE on the Dictabelt!
Oh, that YOU are aware of.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
He might even admit that Trump paid back Cohen after he lied about it
1,000 times.
We all know that you suffer with Trump derangement syndrome, old man.
I am just rubbing it in because almost all WC defenders here are also
Trump defenders.
And I like getting your goat and rubbing your nose in it because you
suffer from Trump derangement syndrome.
Because you are a Trump supporter.
Says the man whose posts (WITCH HUNT, HOAX, FAKE NEWS) could have come
directly from his hero President Trump's Twitter feed.
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-23 15:18:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by BOZ
https://jfk007.com/1053-2/
The last section re: Don Thomas, is spot on. Thomas, to this day, spreads
his absolute lies regarding what he claims is "crosstalk", knowing fully
well that it isn't crosstalk. It was Micheal o'Dell who convinced Thomas
that he was using inferior copies of the police recordings when Thomas
wrote his peer reviewed paper in 2001. After Michael presented Thomas with
the facts--that the channel two recording was useless as a timing tool to
prove the HSCA's claim that H.B. McLain had the open mic was correct.
(This was nearly twenty years after the Ramsey panel Report in 1982).
You have that reversed. It was the NAS panel who LIED about the channel
two timing to falsely claim that the "shots" were one minute after the
assassination. They and you think that it took a fill minute for Decker to
realize what had happened and tell everyone to go to the hospital. Was
Greer listening to channel one or channel two?
Congratulations! You win the Stupid Post Of The Day award, Marsh!
This is not an honest and open debate. McAdams allows YOU to call me
stupid because you are one of his minions, but I am not even allowed to
point out when you are wrong.
Stop whining, Marsh and grow a pair.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
FYI, Curry held the mic and was on the radio talking to the motorcade
officers and the dispatcher, therefore, Decker couldn't use the radio
until after Curry was finished with the mic. There was only one mic
because Decker didn't have a direct line to his office so had to use
Curry's radio and tell the dispatcher at DPD headquarters to contact his
department.
That is why I asked you which message you were talking about.
Again, do your really think it took Decker a full minute before he made
that call? Yes or no?
This is a loaded question coming from you, of course. I gave you my
answer above. You cannot be taken seriously.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Furthermore, none of us knows exactly how long it was after the shooting
before Curry made the transmission "Go to the hospital, officers!"
Well, again, do you think it took a full minute? Yes or no?
And WHo first claimed to hear the message, "Going to the hospital"?
Who is going to take credit for this orphan? Do we need a paternity test?
The "Going to the hospital words are *NOT* "a message", Marsh, and you
know it. Stop playing your insane games! What we "need" is for you to
get off this kick about a typo BOZ made and move on. You look totally
ridiculous harping about something that was an accident.
Then why did BOZ say it? WHo put him up to it?
WHen some flat out lies you cover up for him and all it a typo.
I just want to know who put him up to it.
So if another one of you guys did exactly the same thing you would again
excuse it as just a typo.
I see a pattern emerging.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Furthermore, you'd better get your stopwatch out! On the channel 2
recording, the dispatcher had announced the time "12:30 KKB 364, Dallas".
Nine seconds pass then Curry announces "Triple Underpass". It is a known
fact that After 4 seconds of silence, the grey audograph recorder stopped
recording until the next transmission reactivated it. Since the voice
It is not a fact. It is an ASSuMPTION.
No, it's not an assumption. You want it to be, but it isn't. It *IS* a
fact and you have to live with it. Otherwise, post your prrof that it is
an "assumption"!
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
traffic was constant from the moment that Curry opened his mic and gave
You can't prove that the voice traffic was constant. If you try, that
gives you problems for the silence on channel 2.
ATTENTION PLEASE! LISTEN TO THE RECORDING, MARSH! LISTEN TO THE
RECORDING! And do not use your recording that you purchased from Hawkins
back in the 70's that contains skips and was recorded at the wrong speed!
THE VOICE TRAFFIC WAS CONSTANT AND HEAVY FOLLOWING "GO TO THE HOSPITAL,
OFFICERS!" Stop living in denial and get with the program!
Try to pay attention. YOU gave me a copy. Are you saying that was bogus?
You just linked to a copy on YouTube. Are you saying that is bogus?
I have your 45 record from Gallery. Are you saying that is bogus?
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
the first transmission following the shooting, which is "Go to the
hospital, officers!" timing is accurate and possible because from that
point on, radio activity was heavy and constant and the recorder did not
stop because there was never a 4 second gap between transmissions --
therefore giving us a clock from the time Curry breaks in and says "Go to
the hospital, officers!" until Decker completes saying the words "hold
BOZ said it was, "Going to the hospital." Was BOZ lying? Are you allowed
to call a fewllow minion a liar?
Post by Steve Barber
everything until the homicide and other investigators can get there". Over
a minute elapsed. Therefore, you are full of poop and the Ramsey panel
did no such thing as "lie" about the timing on channel 2! You, on the
The magical one minute of silence.
"Magical" only in your twisted thinking, because there was no "One
minute of silence"!
Yes, there was. According to the NAS panel there was one whole minute
when no units were calling in.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
other hand, made up something ridiculously false. Are you still using an
inferior copy a channel two, relying on the copy you purchased from Dave
Hawkins, Marsh? Shame on you.
Bulderdash. YOU gave me a copy. And I have your Gallery record too.
GREAT! Then get busy and put it to use, old man!
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
After Michael O'Dell convinced Don Thomas he was wrong, Thomas conceded.
No.
Don't tell me "No"! I know for a fact!
No, you have a habit of making up false claims.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Apparently, Thomas couldn't admit complete defeat, so, he invented his
"crosstalk" theory, based primarily on the transcript written by James C.
Bowles) DPD Communications Supervisor at the time of the assassination
(See the transcript in Larry Sneed's excellent book "No More Silence").
Thomas was/is wrong, again, and several members of the Ramsey panel
regrouped performed a study on Thomas' conclusions, wrote a detailed
report regarding Thomas' theory, and Micheal O'Dell aided in proving
http://jfk-records.com/ScienceAndJustice_45%284%29_207-226%282005%29.pdf
Are you saying that Bowles was part of a hoax to put shots on the tape?
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
I also wrote an article(which was featured in Bugliosi's Reclaiming
History) which you can read here, regarding heterodyne tones (beep tones)
that accompany the speech which Thomas claims is crosstalk on channel 1.
The fact that there are heterodyne tones accompanying the speech that
Thomas says is crosstalk proves that it isn't crosstalk at all. Which you
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2007/07/of-crosstalk-and-bells-rebuttal-to-don.html
But did he quote your essay about the "bell" sound?
Post by Steve Barber
To this day, Thomas speaks at JFK conspiracy conferences spreading his
untruth regarding the speech on channel 1 which he claims is crosstalk.
Then why do YOU keep calling it crosstalk? Are you trying to cave in?
I am quoting, Thomas because *he* calls the N.T. Fisher ch. 2
transmission "crosstalk". Your poor reading comprehension skills get the
best of you.
Do you always put it in air quotes?
No. Only when I have to point something out to you!!
Can you even admit that it was crosstalk?
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Thomas believes that the "gunshots" are on the channel 1 Dictabelt, but
that there are five--not four gunshots-- and he supports the conclusions
reached by the acoustics experts for the HSCA.
OMG, do you realize that you just admitted that I am not the only one who
thinks there were 5 shots on the tape? Can't the cover-up do a better job
of corralling you in? Next week you'll admit that you KNOW it was a
conspiracy and you knew the grassy knoll shooter. Somebody stop him before
he ruins your perfect little cover-up.
"OMG", do you realize that I admitted nothing of the kind and that you
poor reading skills have gotten the best of you again? Read that
paragraph again, old man.
You just said that someone else believes there are 5 shots on the tape.
Post by Steve Barber
"Thomas believes that the "gunshots" are on the channel 1 Dictabelt, but
that there are five--not four gunshots--and he supports the conclusions
reached by the acoustics experts for the HSCA."
There, you did it again. Stop incriminating yourself.
You are filled with poop, Old Man!
And McAdams approves messages like that because you are one of his minions.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Where within the paragraph have I "admitted" anything? I have always
known and acknowledged that Thomas believes there are 5--not 4 --gunshots
on the Dictabelt recording!
Then I am not the only one claiming 5 gunshots.
No, you aren't. You and Thomas are the only two that I am aware of who do
believe in 5 shots! I believe there are NONE on the Dictabelt!
Oh, that YOU are aware of.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
He might even admit that Trump paid back Cohen after he lied about it
1,000 times.
We all know that you suffer with Trump derangement syndrome, old man.
I am just rubbing it in because almost all WC defenders here are also
Trump defenders.
And I like getting your goat and rubbing your nose in it because you
suffer from Trump derangement syndrome.
Because you are a Trump supporter.
Says the man whose posts (WITCH HUNT, HOAX, FAKE NEWS) could have come
directly from his hero President Trump's Twitter feed.
Slander.
OHLeeRedux
2018-05-24 14:35:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by BOZ
https://jfk007.com/1053-2/
The last section re: Don Thomas, is spot on. Thomas, to this day, spreads
his absolute lies regarding what he claims is "crosstalk", knowing fully
well that it isn't crosstalk. It was Micheal o'Dell who convinced Thomas
that he was using inferior copies of the police recordings when Thomas
wrote his peer reviewed paper in 2001. After Michael presented Thomas with
the facts--that the channel two recording was useless as a timing tool to
prove the HSCA's claim that H.B. McLain had the open mic was correct.
(This was nearly twenty years after the Ramsey panel Report in 1982).
You have that reversed. It was the NAS panel who LIED about the channel
two timing to falsely claim that the "shots" were one minute after the
assassination. They and you think that it took a fill minute for Decker to
realize what had happened and tell everyone to go to the hospital. Was
Greer listening to channel one or channel two?
Congratulations! You win the Stupid Post Of The Day award, Marsh!
This is not an honest and open debate. McAdams allows YOU to call me
stupid because you are one of his minions, but I am not even allowed to
point out when you are wrong.
Stop whining, Marsh and grow a pair.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
FYI, Curry held the mic and was on the radio talking to the motorcade
officers and the dispatcher, therefore, Decker couldn't use the radio
until after Curry was finished with the mic. There was only one mic
because Decker didn't have a direct line to his office so had to use
Curry's radio and tell the dispatcher at DPD headquarters to contact his
department.
That is why I asked you which message you were talking about.
Again, do your really think it took Decker a full minute before he made
that call? Yes or no?
This is a loaded question coming from you, of course. I gave you my
answer above. You cannot be taken seriously.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Furthermore, none of us knows exactly how long it was after the shooting
before Curry made the transmission "Go to the hospital, officers!"
Well, again, do you think it took a full minute? Yes or no?
And WHo first claimed to hear the message, "Going to the hospital"?
Who is going to take credit for this orphan? Do we need a paternity test?
The "Going to the hospital words are *NOT* "a message", Marsh, and you
know it. Stop playing your insane games! What we "need" is for you to
get off this kick about a typo BOZ made and move on. You look totally
ridiculous harping about something that was an accident.
Then why did BOZ say it? WHo put him up to it?
WHen some flat out lies you cover up for him and all it a typo.
I just want to know who put him up to it.
So if another one of you guys did exactly the same thing you would again
excuse it as just a typo.
I see a pattern emerging.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Furthermore, you'd better get your stopwatch out! On the channel 2
recording, the dispatcher had announced the time "12:30 KKB 364, Dallas".
Nine seconds pass then Curry announces "Triple Underpass". It is a known
fact that After 4 seconds of silence, the grey audograph recorder stopped
recording until the next transmission reactivated it. Since the voice
It is not a fact. It is an ASSuMPTION.
No, it's not an assumption. You want it to be, but it isn't. It *IS* a
fact and you have to live with it. Otherwise, post your prrof that it is
an "assumption"!
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
traffic was constant from the moment that Curry opened his mic and gave
You can't prove that the voice traffic was constant. If you try, that
gives you problems for the silence on channel 2.
ATTENTION PLEASE! LISTEN TO THE RECORDING, MARSH! LISTEN TO THE
RECORDING! And do not use your recording that you purchased from Hawkins
back in the 70's that contains skips and was recorded at the wrong speed!
THE VOICE TRAFFIC WAS CONSTANT AND HEAVY FOLLOWING "GO TO THE HOSPITAL,
OFFICERS!" Stop living in denial and get with the program!
Try to pay attention. YOU gave me a copy. Are you saying that was bogus?
You just linked to a copy on YouTube. Are you saying that is bogus?
I have your 45 record from Gallery. Are you saying that is bogus?
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
the first transmission following the shooting, which is "Go to the
hospital, officers!" timing is accurate and possible because from that
point on, radio activity was heavy and constant and the recorder did not
stop because there was never a 4 second gap between transmissions --
therefore giving us a clock from the time Curry breaks in and says "Go to
the hospital, officers!" until Decker completes saying the words "hold
BOZ said it was, "Going to the hospital." Was BOZ lying? Are you allowed
to call a fewllow minion a liar?
Post by Steve Barber
everything until the homicide and other investigators can get there". Over
a minute elapsed. Therefore, you are full of poop and the Ramsey panel
did no such thing as "lie" about the timing on channel 2! You, on the
The magical one minute of silence.
"Magical" only in your twisted thinking, because there was no "One
minute of silence"!
Yes, there was. According to the NAS panel there was one whole minute
when no units were calling in.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
other hand, made up something ridiculously false. Are you still using an
inferior copy a channel two, relying on the copy you purchased from Dave
Hawkins, Marsh? Shame on you.
Bulderdash. YOU gave me a copy. And I have your Gallery record too.
GREAT! Then get busy and put it to use, old man!
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
After Michael O'Dell convinced Don Thomas he was wrong, Thomas conceded.
No.
Don't tell me "No"! I know for a fact!
No, you have a habit of making up false claims.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Apparently, Thomas couldn't admit complete defeat, so, he invented his
"crosstalk" theory, based primarily on the transcript written by James C.
Bowles) DPD Communications Supervisor at the time of the assassination
(See the transcript in Larry Sneed's excellent book "No More Silence").
Thomas was/is wrong, again, and several members of the Ramsey panel
regrouped performed a study on Thomas' conclusions, wrote a detailed
report regarding Thomas' theory, and Micheal O'Dell aided in proving
http://jfk-records.com/ScienceAndJustice_45%284%29_207-226%282005%29.pdf
Are you saying that Bowles was part of a hoax to put shots on the tape?
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
I also wrote an article(which was featured in Bugliosi's Reclaiming
History) which you can read here, regarding heterodyne tones (beep tones)
that accompany the speech which Thomas claims is crosstalk on channel 1.
The fact that there are heterodyne tones accompanying the speech that
Thomas says is crosstalk proves that it isn't crosstalk at all. Which you
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2007/07/of-crosstalk-and-bells-rebuttal-to-don.html
But did he quote your essay about the "bell" sound?
Post by Steve Barber
To this day, Thomas speaks at JFK conspiracy conferences spreading his
untruth regarding the speech on channel 1 which he claims is crosstalk.
Then why do YOU keep calling it crosstalk? Are you trying to cave in?
I am quoting, Thomas because *he* calls the N.T. Fisher ch. 2
transmission "crosstalk". Your poor reading comprehension skills get the
best of you.
Do you always put it in air quotes?
No. Only when I have to point something out to you!!
Can you even admit that it was crosstalk?
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Thomas believes that the "gunshots" are on the channel 1 Dictabelt, but
that there are five--not four gunshots-- and he supports the conclusions
reached by the acoustics experts for the HSCA.
OMG, do you realize that you just admitted that I am not the only one who
thinks there were 5 shots on the tape? Can't the cover-up do a better job
of corralling you in? Next week you'll admit that you KNOW it was a
conspiracy and you knew the grassy knoll shooter. Somebody stop him before
he ruins your perfect little cover-up.
"OMG", do you realize that I admitted nothing of the kind and that you
poor reading skills have gotten the best of you again? Read that
paragraph again, old man.
You just said that someone else believes there are 5 shots on the tape.
Post by Steve Barber
"Thomas believes that the "gunshots" are on the channel 1 Dictabelt, but
that there are five--not four gunshots--and he supports the conclusions
reached by the acoustics experts for the HSCA."
There, you did it again. Stop incriminating yourself.
You are filled with poop, Old Man!
And McAdams approves messages like that because you are one of his minions.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Where within the paragraph have I "admitted" anything? I have always
known and acknowledged that Thomas believes there are 5--not 4 --gunshots
on the Dictabelt recording!
Then I am not the only one claiming 5 gunshots.
No, you aren't. You and Thomas are the only two that I am aware of who do
believe in 5 shots! I believe there are NONE on the Dictabelt!
Oh, that YOU are aware of.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
He might even admit that Trump paid back Cohen after he lied about it
1,000 times.
We all know that you suffer with Trump derangement syndrome, old man.
I am just rubbing it in because almost all WC defenders here are also
Trump defenders.
And I like getting your goat and rubbing your nose in it because you
suffer from Trump derangement syndrome.
Because you are a Trump supporter.
Says the man whose posts (WITCH HUNT, HOAX, FAKE NEWS) could have come
directly from his hero President Trump's Twitter feed.
Slander.
"Slander" is a legal term, Anthony. Since you have shown here previously
that you do not possess the intestinal fortitude to take any legal action
whatsoever, you should probably refrain from using that word and replace
it with something more appropriate.

Can you find a short way to say "Something nasty that somebody said to me
and I don't like"?
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-25 14:23:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by BOZ
https://jfk007.com/1053-2/
The last section re: Don Thomas, is spot on. Thomas, to this day, spreads
his absolute lies regarding what he claims is "crosstalk", knowing fully
well that it isn't crosstalk. It was Micheal o'Dell who convinced Thomas
that he was using inferior copies of the police recordings when Thomas
wrote his peer reviewed paper in 2001. After Michael presented Thomas with
the facts--that the channel two recording was useless as a timing tool to
prove the HSCA's claim that H.B. McLain had the open mic was correct.
(This was nearly twenty years after the Ramsey panel Report in 1982).
You have that reversed. It was the NAS panel who LIED about the channel
two timing to falsely claim that the "shots" were one minute after the
assassination. They and you think that it took a fill minute for Decker to
realize what had happened and tell everyone to go to the hospital. Was
Greer listening to channel one or channel two?
Congratulations! You win the Stupid Post Of The Day award, Marsh!
This is not an honest and open debate. McAdams allows YOU to call me
stupid because you are one of his minions, but I am not even allowed to
point out when you are wrong.
Stop whining, Marsh and grow a pair.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
FYI, Curry held the mic and was on the radio talking to the motorcade
officers and the dispatcher, therefore, Decker couldn't use the radio
until after Curry was finished with the mic. There was only one mic
because Decker didn't have a direct line to his office so had to use
Curry's radio and tell the dispatcher at DPD headquarters to contact his
department.
That is why I asked you which message you were talking about.
Again, do your really think it took Decker a full minute before he made
that call? Yes or no?
This is a loaded question coming from you, of course. I gave you my
answer above. You cannot be taken seriously.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Furthermore, none of us knows exactly how long it was after the shooting
before Curry made the transmission "Go to the hospital, officers!"
Well, again, do you think it took a full minute? Yes or no?
And WHo first claimed to hear the message, "Going to the hospital"?
Who is going to take credit for this orphan? Do we need a paternity test?
The "Going to the hospital words are *NOT* "a message", Marsh, and you
know it. Stop playing your insane games! What we "need" is for you to
get off this kick about a typo BOZ made and move on. You look totally
ridiculous harping about something that was an accident.
Then why did BOZ say it? WHo put him up to it?
WHen some flat out lies you cover up for him and all it a typo.
I just want to know who put him up to it.
So if another one of you guys did exactly the same thing you would again
excuse it as just a typo.
I see a pattern emerging.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Furthermore, you'd better get your stopwatch out! On the channel 2
recording, the dispatcher had announced the time "12:30 KKB 364, Dallas".
Nine seconds pass then Curry announces "Triple Underpass". It is a known
fact that After 4 seconds of silence, the grey audograph recorder stopped
recording until the next transmission reactivated it. Since the voice
It is not a fact. It is an ASSuMPTION.
No, it's not an assumption. You want it to be, but it isn't. It *IS* a
fact and you have to live with it. Otherwise, post your prrof that it is
an "assumption"!
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
traffic was constant from the moment that Curry opened his mic and gave
You can't prove that the voice traffic was constant. If you try, that
gives you problems for the silence on channel 2.
ATTENTION PLEASE! LISTEN TO THE RECORDING, MARSH! LISTEN TO THE
RECORDING! And do not use your recording that you purchased from Hawkins
back in the 70's that contains skips and was recorded at the wrong speed!
THE VOICE TRAFFIC WAS CONSTANT AND HEAVY FOLLOWING "GO TO THE HOSPITAL,
OFFICERS!" Stop living in denial and get with the program!
Try to pay attention. YOU gave me a copy. Are you saying that was bogus?
You just linked to a copy on YouTube. Are you saying that is bogus?
I have your 45 record from Gallery. Are you saying that is bogus?
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
the first transmission following the shooting, which is "Go to the
hospital, officers!" timing is accurate and possible because from that
point on, radio activity was heavy and constant and the recorder did not
stop because there was never a 4 second gap between transmissions --
therefore giving us a clock from the time Curry breaks in and says "Go to
the hospital, officers!" until Decker completes saying the words "hold
BOZ said it was, "Going to the hospital." Was BOZ lying? Are you allowed
to call a fewllow minion a liar?
Post by Steve Barber
everything until the homicide and other investigators can get there". Over
a minute elapsed. Therefore, you are full of poop and the Ramsey panel
did no such thing as "lie" about the timing on channel 2! You, on the
The magical one minute of silence.
"Magical" only in your twisted thinking, because there was no "One
minute of silence"!
Yes, there was. According to the NAS panel there was one whole minute
when no units were calling in.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
other hand, made up something ridiculously false. Are you still using an
inferior copy a channel two, relying on the copy you purchased from Dave
Hawkins, Marsh? Shame on you.
Bulderdash. YOU gave me a copy. And I have your Gallery record too.
GREAT! Then get busy and put it to use, old man!
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
After Michael O'Dell convinced Don Thomas he was wrong, Thomas conceded.
No.
Don't tell me "No"! I know for a fact!
No, you have a habit of making up false claims.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Apparently, Thomas couldn't admit complete defeat, so, he invented his
"crosstalk" theory, based primarily on the transcript written by James C.
Bowles) DPD Communications Supervisor at the time of the assassination
(See the transcript in Larry Sneed's excellent book "No More Silence").
Thomas was/is wrong, again, and several members of the Ramsey panel
regrouped performed a study on Thomas' conclusions, wrote a detailed
report regarding Thomas' theory, and Micheal O'Dell aided in proving
http://jfk-records.com/ScienceAndJustice_45%284%29_207-226%282005%29.pdf
Are you saying that Bowles was part of a hoax to put shots on the tape?
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
I also wrote an article(which was featured in Bugliosi's Reclaiming
History) which you can read here, regarding heterodyne tones (beep tones)
that accompany the speech which Thomas claims is crosstalk on channel 1.
The fact that there are heterodyne tones accompanying the speech that
Thomas says is crosstalk proves that it isn't crosstalk at all. Which you
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2007/07/of-crosstalk-and-bells-rebuttal-to-don.html
But did he quote your essay about the "bell" sound?
Post by Steve Barber
To this day, Thomas speaks at JFK conspiracy conferences spreading his
untruth regarding the speech on channel 1 which he claims is crosstalk.
Then why do YOU keep calling it crosstalk? Are you trying to cave in?
I am quoting, Thomas because *he* calls the N.T. Fisher ch. 2
transmission "crosstalk". Your poor reading comprehension skills get the
best of you.
Do you always put it in air quotes?
No. Only when I have to point something out to you!!
Can you even admit that it was crosstalk?
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Thomas believes that the "gunshots" are on the channel 1 Dictabelt, but
that there are five--not four gunshots-- and he supports the conclusions
reached by the acoustics experts for the HSCA.
OMG, do you realize that you just admitted that I am not the only one who
thinks there were 5 shots on the tape? Can't the cover-up do a better job
of corralling you in? Next week you'll admit that you KNOW it was a
conspiracy and you knew the grassy knoll shooter. Somebody stop him before
he ruins your perfect little cover-up.
"OMG", do you realize that I admitted nothing of the kind and that you
poor reading skills have gotten the best of you again? Read that
paragraph again, old man.
You just said that someone else believes there are 5 shots on the tape.
Post by Steve Barber
"Thomas believes that the "gunshots" are on the channel 1 Dictabelt, but
that there are five--not four gunshots--and he supports the conclusions
reached by the acoustics experts for the HSCA."
There, you did it again. Stop incriminating yourself.
You are filled with poop, Old Man!
And McAdams approves messages like that because you are one of his minions.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Where within the paragraph have I "admitted" anything? I have always
known and acknowledged that Thomas believes there are 5--not 4 --gunshots
on the Dictabelt recording!
Then I am not the only one claiming 5 gunshots.
No, you aren't. You and Thomas are the only two that I am aware of who do
believe in 5 shots! I believe there are NONE on the Dictabelt!
Oh, that YOU are aware of.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
He might even admit that Trump paid back Cohen after he lied about it
1,000 times.
We all know that you suffer with Trump derangement syndrome, old man.
I am just rubbing it in because almost all WC defenders here are also
Trump defenders.
And I like getting your goat and rubbing your nose in it because you
suffer from Trump derangement syndrome.
Because you are a Trump supporter.
Says the man whose posts (WITCH HUNT, HOAX, FAKE NEWS) could have come
directly from his hero President Trump's Twitter feed.
Slander.
"Slander" is a legal term, Anthony. Since you have shown here previously
that you do not possess the intestinal fortitude to take any legal action
whatsoever, you should probably refrain from using that word and replace
it with something more appropriate.
I am not here to sue people, I am here to educate people. When you see
wrong speak up.
Post by OHLeeRedux
Can you find a short way to say "Something nasty that somebody said to me
and I don't like"?
OHLeeRedux
2018-05-25 23:21:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by BOZ
https://jfk007.com/1053-2/
The last section re: Don Thomas, is spot on. Thomas, to this day, spreads
his absolute lies regarding what he claims is "crosstalk", knowing fully
well that it isn't crosstalk. It was Micheal o'Dell who convinced Thomas
that he was using inferior copies of the police recordings when Thomas
wrote his peer reviewed paper in 2001. After Michael presented Thomas with
the facts--that the channel two recording was useless as a timing tool to
prove the HSCA's claim that H.B. McLain had the open mic was correct.
(This was nearly twenty years after the Ramsey panel Report in 1982).
You have that reversed. It was the NAS panel who LIED about the channel
two timing to falsely claim that the "shots" were one minute after the
assassination. They and you think that it took a fill minute for Decker to
realize what had happened and tell everyone to go to the hospital. Was
Greer listening to channel one or channel two?
Congratulations! You win the Stupid Post Of The Day award, Marsh!
This is not an honest and open debate. McAdams allows YOU to call me
stupid because you are one of his minions, but I am not even allowed to
point out when you are wrong.
Stop whining, Marsh and grow a pair.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
FYI, Curry held the mic and was on the radio talking to the motorcade
officers and the dispatcher, therefore, Decker couldn't use the radio
until after Curry was finished with the mic. There was only one mic
because Decker didn't have a direct line to his office so had to use
Curry's radio and tell the dispatcher at DPD headquarters to contact his
department.
That is why I asked you which message you were talking about.
Again, do your really think it took Decker a full minute before he made
that call? Yes or no?
This is a loaded question coming from you, of course. I gave you my
answer above. You cannot be taken seriously.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Furthermore, none of us knows exactly how long it was after the shooting
before Curry made the transmission "Go to the hospital, officers!"
Well, again, do you think it took a full minute? Yes or no?
And WHo first claimed to hear the message, "Going to the hospital"?
Who is going to take credit for this orphan? Do we need a paternity test?
The "Going to the hospital words are *NOT* "a message", Marsh, and you
know it. Stop playing your insane games! What we "need" is for you to
get off this kick about a typo BOZ made and move on. You look totally
ridiculous harping about something that was an accident.
Then why did BOZ say it? WHo put him up to it?
WHen some flat out lies you cover up for him and all it a typo.
I just want to know who put him up to it.
So if another one of you guys did exactly the same thing you would again
excuse it as just a typo.
I see a pattern emerging.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Furthermore, you'd better get your stopwatch out! On the channel 2
recording, the dispatcher had announced the time "12:30 KKB 364, Dallas".
Nine seconds pass then Curry announces "Triple Underpass". It is a known
fact that After 4 seconds of silence, the grey audograph recorder stopped
recording until the next transmission reactivated it. Since the voice
It is not a fact. It is an ASSuMPTION.
No, it's not an assumption. You want it to be, but it isn't. It *IS* a
fact and you have to live with it. Otherwise, post your prrof that it is
an "assumption"!
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
traffic was constant from the moment that Curry opened his mic and gave
You can't prove that the voice traffic was constant. If you try, that
gives you problems for the silence on channel 2.
ATTENTION PLEASE! LISTEN TO THE RECORDING, MARSH! LISTEN TO THE
RECORDING! And do not use your recording that you purchased from Hawkins
back in the 70's that contains skips and was recorded at the wrong speed!
THE VOICE TRAFFIC WAS CONSTANT AND HEAVY FOLLOWING "GO TO THE HOSPITAL,
OFFICERS!" Stop living in denial and get with the program!
Try to pay attention. YOU gave me a copy. Are you saying that was bogus?
You just linked to a copy on YouTube. Are you saying that is bogus?
I have your 45 record from Gallery. Are you saying that is bogus?
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
the first transmission following the shooting, which is "Go to the
hospital, officers!" timing is accurate and possible because from that
point on, radio activity was heavy and constant and the recorder did not
stop because there was never a 4 second gap between transmissions --
therefore giving us a clock from the time Curry breaks in and says "Go to
the hospital, officers!" until Decker completes saying the words "hold
BOZ said it was, "Going to the hospital." Was BOZ lying? Are you allowed
to call a fewllow minion a liar?
Post by Steve Barber
everything until the homicide and other investigators can get there". Over
a minute elapsed. Therefore, you are full of poop and the Ramsey panel
did no such thing as "lie" about the timing on channel 2! You, on the
The magical one minute of silence.
"Magical" only in your twisted thinking, because there was no "One
minute of silence"!
Yes, there was. According to the NAS panel there was one whole minute
when no units were calling in.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
other hand, made up something ridiculously false. Are you still using an
inferior copy a channel two, relying on the copy you purchased from Dave
Hawkins, Marsh? Shame on you.
Bulderdash. YOU gave me a copy. And I have your Gallery record too.
GREAT! Then get busy and put it to use, old man!
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
After Michael O'Dell convinced Don Thomas he was wrong, Thomas conceded.
No.
Don't tell me "No"! I know for a fact!
No, you have a habit of making up false claims.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Apparently, Thomas couldn't admit complete defeat, so, he invented his
"crosstalk" theory, based primarily on the transcript written by James C.
Bowles) DPD Communications Supervisor at the time of the assassination
(See the transcript in Larry Sneed's excellent book "No More Silence").
Thomas was/is wrong, again, and several members of the Ramsey panel
regrouped performed a study on Thomas' conclusions, wrote a detailed
report regarding Thomas' theory, and Micheal O'Dell aided in proving
http://jfk-records.com/ScienceAndJustice_45%284%29_207-226%282005%29.pdf
Are you saying that Bowles was part of a hoax to put shots on the tape?
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
I also wrote an article(which was featured in Bugliosi's Reclaiming
History) which you can read here, regarding heterodyne tones (beep tones)
that accompany the speech which Thomas claims is crosstalk on channel 1.
The fact that there are heterodyne tones accompanying the speech that
Thomas says is crosstalk proves that it isn't crosstalk at all. Which you
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2007/07/of-crosstalk-and-bells-rebuttal-to-don.html
But did he quote your essay about the "bell" sound?
Post by Steve Barber
To this day, Thomas speaks at JFK conspiracy conferences spreading his
untruth regarding the speech on channel 1 which he claims is crosstalk.
Then why do YOU keep calling it crosstalk? Are you trying to cave in?
I am quoting, Thomas because *he* calls the N.T. Fisher ch. 2
transmission "crosstalk". Your poor reading comprehension skills get the
best of you.
Do you always put it in air quotes?
No. Only when I have to point something out to you!!
Can you even admit that it was crosstalk?
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Thomas believes that the "gunshots" are on the channel 1 Dictabelt, but
that there are five--not four gunshots-- and he supports the conclusions
reached by the acoustics experts for the HSCA.
OMG, do you realize that you just admitted that I am not the only one who
thinks there were 5 shots on the tape? Can't the cover-up do a better job
of corralling you in? Next week you'll admit that you KNOW it was a
conspiracy and you knew the grassy knoll shooter. Somebody stop him before
he ruins your perfect little cover-up.
"OMG", do you realize that I admitted nothing of the kind and that you
poor reading skills have gotten the best of you again? Read that
paragraph again, old man.
You just said that someone else believes there are 5 shots on the tape.
Post by Steve Barber
"Thomas believes that the "gunshots" are on the channel 1 Dictabelt, but
that there are five--not four gunshots--and he supports the conclusions
reached by the acoustics experts for the HSCA."
There, you did it again. Stop incriminating yourself.
You are filled with poop, Old Man!
And McAdams approves messages like that because you are one of his minions.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Where within the paragraph have I "admitted" anything? I have always
known and acknowledged that Thomas believes there are 5--not 4 --gunshots
on the Dictabelt recording!
Then I am not the only one claiming 5 gunshots.
No, you aren't. You and Thomas are the only two that I am aware of who do
believe in 5 shots! I believe there are NONE on the Dictabelt!
Oh, that YOU are aware of.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
He might even admit that Trump paid back Cohen after he lied about it
1,000 times.
We all know that you suffer with Trump derangement syndrome, old man.
I am just rubbing it in because almost all WC defenders here are also
Trump defenders.
And I like getting your goat and rubbing your nose in it because you
suffer from Trump derangement syndrome.
Because you are a Trump supporter.
Says the man whose posts (WITCH HUNT, HOAX, FAKE NEWS) could have come
directly from his hero President Trump's Twitter feed.
Slander.
"Slander" is a legal term, Anthony. Since you have shown here previously
that you do not possess the intestinal fortitude to take any legal action
whatsoever, you should probably refrain from using that word and replace
it with something more appropriate.
I am not here to sue people, I am here to educate people.
Then stop talking like a tough guy. Your constantly replying to your own
posts and misrepresenting just about every fact you present disqualifies
you from trying to educate anyone. Bus driving was definitely the better
career choice for you.
Steve Barber
2018-05-22 05:15:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by BOZ
https://jfk007.com/1053-2/
The last section re: Don Thomas, is spot on. Thomas, to this day, spreads
his absolute lies regarding what he claims is "crosstalk", knowing fully
well that it isn't crosstalk. It was Micheal o'Dell who convinced Thomas
that he was using inferior copies of the police recordings when Thomas
wrote his peer reviewed paper in 2001. After Michael presented Thomas with
the facts--that the channel two recording was useless as a timing tool to
prove the HSCA's claim that H.B. McLain had the open mic was correct.
(This was nearly twenty years after the Ramsey panel Report in 1982).
You have that reversed. It was the NAS panel who LIED about the channel
two timing to falsely claim that the "shots" were one minute after the
assassination. They and you think that it took a fill minute for Decker to
realize what had happened and tell everyone to go to the hospital. Was
Greer listening to channel one or channel two?
Congratulations! You win the Stupid Post Of The Day award, Marsh!
This is not an honest and open debate. McAdams allows YOU to call me
stupid because you are one of his minions, but I am not even allowed to
point out when you are wrong.
Stop whining, Marsh and grow a pair.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
FYI, Curry held the mic and was on the radio talking to the motorcade
officers and the dispatcher, therefore, Decker couldn't use the radio
until after Curry was finished with the mic. There was only one mic
because Decker didn't have a direct line to his office so had to use
Curry's radio and tell the dispatcher at DPD headquarters to contact his
department.
That is why I asked you which message you were talking about.
Again, do your really think it took Decker a full minute before he made
that call? Yes or no?
This is a loaded question coming from you, of course. I gave you my
answer above. You cannot be taken seriously.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Furthermore, none of us knows exactly how long it was after the shooting
before Curry made the transmission "Go to the hospital, officers!"
Well, again, do you think it took a full minute? Yes or no?
And WHo first claimed to hear the message, "Going to the hospital"?
Who is going to take credit for this orphan? Do we need a paternity test?
The "Going to the hospital words are *NOT* "a message", Marsh, and you
know it. Stop playing your insane games! What we "need" is for you to
get off this kick about a typo BOZ made and move on. You look totally
ridiculous harping about something that was an accident.
Then why did BOZ say it? WHo put him up to it?
WHen some flat out lies you cover up for him and all it a typo.
I just want to know who put him up to it.
So if another one of you guys did exactly the same thing you would again
excuse it as just a typo.
I see a pattern emerging.
What on earth is wrong with you, Marsh?! Why do you think "somone put
him up to it"?! You don't think that he just made an honest mistake? If
you don't, you've got serious issues that need looking at! This entire
things with BOZ and what you say happened is STUPID!
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Furthermore, you'd better get your stopwatch out! On the channel 2
recording, the dispatcher had announced the time "12:30 KKB 364, Dallas".
Nine seconds pass then Curry announces "Triple Underpass". It is a known
fact that After 4 seconds of silence, the grey audograph recorder stopped
recording until the next transmission reactivated it. Since the voice
It is not a fact. It is an ASSuMPTION.
No, it's not an assumption. You want it to be, but it isn't. It *IS* a
fact and you have to live with it. Otherwise, post your prrof that it is
an "assumption"!
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
traffic was constant from the moment that Curry opened his mic and gave
You can't prove that the voice traffic was constant. If you try, that
gives you problems for the silence on channel 2.
ATTENTION PLEASE! LISTEN TO THE RECORDING, MARSH! LISTEN TO THE
RECORDING! And do not use your recording that you purchased from Hawkins
back in the 70's that contains skips and was recorded at the wrong speed!
THE VOICE TRAFFIC WAS CONSTANT AND HEAVY FOLLOWING "GO TO THE HOSPITAL,
OFFICERS!" Stop living in denial and get with the program!
Try to pay attention. YOU gave me a copy. Are you saying that was bogus?
You just linked to a copy on YouTube. Are you saying that is bogus?
I have your 45 record from Gallery. Are you saying that is bogus?
Yeah.

I gave you a copy of channel two without skips and repeats. And guess what
you did? You did nothing but criticize it. That's your problem. I could
care less about you having the Gallery record. Since you have a copy, then
listen to it and stop saying that the voice traffic wasn't constant and
heavy after Curry's transmission, "Go to the hospital officers!" And stop
saying that the Rasmey panel "lies" in their timing of the channel two
recording, because **THAT** is a false claim by you!
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
the first transmission following the shooting, which is "Go to the
hospital, officers!" timing is accurate and possible because from that
point on, radio activity was heavy and constant and the recorder did not
stop because there was never a 4 second gap between transmissions --
therefore giving us a clock from the time Curry breaks in and says "Go to
the hospital, officers!" until Decker completes saying the words "hold
BOZ said it was, "Going to the hospital." Was BOZ lying? Are you allowed
to call a fewllow minion a liar?
Post by Steve Barber
everything until the homicide and other investigators can get there". Over
a minute elapsed. Therefore, you are full of poop and the Ramsey panel
did no such thing as "lie" about the timing on channel 2! You, on the
The magical one minute of silence.
"Magical" only in your twisted thinking, because there was no "One
minute of silence"!
Yes, there was. According to the NAS panel there was one whole minute
when no units were calling in.
Post the citation!!! Post it, Marsh! Put up or shut up!
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
other hand, made up something ridiculously false. Are you still using an
inferior copy a channel two, relying on the copy you purchased from Dave
Hawkins, Marsh? Shame on you.
Bulderdash. YOU gave me a copy. And I have your Gallery record too.
GREAT! Then get busy and put it to use, old man!
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
After Michael O'Dell convinced Don Thomas he was wrong, Thomas conceded.
No.
Don't tell me "No"! I know for a fact!
No, you have a habit of making up false claims.
Wrong. Doing that is your forte` not mine!
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Apparently, Thomas couldn't admit complete defeat, so, he invented his
"crosstalk" theory, based primarily on the transcript written by James C.
Bowles) DPD Communications Supervisor at the time of the assassination
(See the transcript in Larry Sneed's excellent book "No More Silence").
Thomas was/is wrong, again, and several members of the Ramsey panel
regrouped performed a study on Thomas' conclusions, wrote a detailed
report regarding Thomas' theory, and Micheal O'Dell aided in proving
http://jfk-records.com/ScienceAndJustice_45%284%29_207-226%282005%29.pdf
Are you saying that Bowles was part of a hoax to put shots on the tape?
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
I also wrote an article(which was featured in Bugliosi's Reclaiming
History) which you can read here, regarding heterodyne tones (beep tones)
that accompany the speech which Thomas claims is crosstalk on channel 1.
The fact that there are heterodyne tones accompanying the speech that
Thomas says is crosstalk proves that it isn't crosstalk at all. Which you
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2007/07/of-crosstalk-and-bells-rebuttal-to-don.html
But did he quote your essay about the "bell" sound?
Post by Steve Barber
To this day, Thomas speaks at JFK conspiracy conferences spreading his
untruth regarding the speech on channel 1 which he claims is crosstalk.
Then why do YOU keep calling it crosstalk? Are you trying to cave in?
I am quoting, Thomas because *he* calls the N.T. Fisher ch. 2
transmission "crosstalk". Your poor reading comprehension skills get the
best of you.
Do you always put it in air quotes?
No. Only when I have to point something out to you!!
Can you even admit that it was crosstalk?
Admit *WHAT* is crosstalk?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Thomas believes that the "gunshots" are on the channel 1 Dictabelt, but
that there are five--not four gunshots-- and he supports the conclusions
reached by the acoustics experts for the HSCA.
OMG, do you realize that you just admitted that I am not the only one who
thinks there were 5 shots on the tape? Can't the cover-up do a better job
of corralling you in? Next week you'll admit that you KNOW it was a
conspiracy and you knew the grassy knoll shooter. Somebody stop him before
he ruins your perfect little cover-up.
"OMG", do you realize that I admitted nothing of the kind and that you
poor reading skills have gotten the best of you again? Read that
paragraph again, old man.
You just said that someone else believes there are 5 shots on the tape.
Post by Steve Barber
"Thomas believes that the "gunshots" are on the channel 1 Dictabelt, but
that there are five--not four gunshots--and he supports the conclusions
reached by the acoustics experts for the HSCA."
There, you did it again. Stop incriminating yourself.
You are filled with poop, Old Man!
And McAdams approves messages like that because you are one of his minions.
Well, you are!!!!
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Where within the paragraph have I "admitted" anything? I have always
known and acknowledged that Thomas believes there are 5--not 4 --gunshots
on the Dictabelt recording!
Then I am not the only one claiming 5 gunshots.
No, you aren't. You and Thomas are the only two that I am aware of who do
believe in 5 shots! I believe there are NONE on the Dictabelt!
Oh, that YOU are aware of.
Yeah! That I am aware of! Have a problem with that, old man? Tough!
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
He might even admit that Trump paid back Cohen after he lied about it
1,000 times.
We all know that you suffer with Trump derangement syndrome, old man.
I am just rubbing it in because almost all WC defenders here are also
Trump defenders.
And I like getting your goat and rubbing your nose in it because you
suffer from Trump derangement syndrome.
Because you are a Trump supporter.
Darned right I am, and I am proud of it!
BOZ
2018-05-22 05:15:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by BOZ
https://jfk007.com/1053-2/
The last section re: Don Thomas, is spot on. Thomas, to this day, spreads
his absolute lies regarding what he claims is "crosstalk", knowing fully
well that it isn't crosstalk. It was Micheal o'Dell who convinced Thomas
that he was using inferior copies of the police recordings when Thomas
wrote his peer reviewed paper in 2001. After Michael presented Thomas with
the facts--that the channel two recording was useless as a timing tool to
prove the HSCA's claim that H.B. McLain had the open mic was correct.
(This was nearly twenty years after the Ramsey panel Report in 1982).
You have that reversed. It was the NAS panel who LIED about the channel
two timing to falsely claim that the "shots" were one minute after the
assassination. They and you think that it took a fill minute for Decker to
realize what had happened and tell everyone to go to the hospital. Was
Greer listening to channel one or channel two?
Congratulations! You win the Stupid Post Of The Day award, Marsh!
This is not an honest and open debate. McAdams allows YOU to call me
stupid because you are one of his minions, but I am not even allowed to
point out when you are wrong.
Stop whining, Marsh and grow a pair.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
FYI, Curry held the mic and was on the radio talking to the motorcade
officers and the dispatcher, therefore, Decker couldn't use the radio
until after Curry was finished with the mic. There was only one mic
because Decker didn't have a direct line to his office so had to use
Curry's radio and tell the dispatcher at DPD headquarters to contact his
department.
That is why I asked you which message you were talking about.
Again, do your really think it took Decker a full minute before he made
that call? Yes or no?
This is a loaded question coming from you, of course. I gave you my
answer above. You cannot be taken seriously.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Furthermore, none of us knows exactly how long it was after the shooting
before Curry made the transmission "Go to the hospital, officers!"
Well, again, do you think it took a full minute? Yes or no?
And WHo first claimed to hear the message, "Going to the hospital"?
Who is going to take credit for this orphan? Do we need a paternity test?
The "Going to the hospital words are *NOT* "a message", Marsh, and you
know it. Stop playing your insane games! What we "need" is for you to
get off this kick about a typo BOZ made and move on. You look totally
ridiculous harping about something that was an accident.
Then why did BOZ say it? WHo put him up to it?
WHen some flat out lies you cover up for him and all it a typo.
I just want to know who put him up to it.
So if another one of you guys did exactly the same thing you would again
excuse it as just a typo.
I see a pattern emerging.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Furthermore, you'd better get your stopwatch out! On the channel 2
recording, the dispatcher had announced the time "12:30 KKB 364, Dallas".
Nine seconds pass then Curry announces "Triple Underpass". It is a known
fact that After 4 seconds of silence, the grey audograph recorder stopped
recording until the next transmission reactivated it. Since the voice
It is not a fact. It is an ASSuMPTION.
No, it's not an assumption. You want it to be, but it isn't. It *IS* a
fact and you have to live with it. Otherwise, post your prrof that it is
an "assumption"!
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
traffic was constant from the moment that Curry opened his mic and gave
You can't prove that the voice traffic was constant. If you try, that
gives you problems for the silence on channel 2.
ATTENTION PLEASE! LISTEN TO THE RECORDING, MARSH! LISTEN TO THE
RECORDING! And do not use your recording that you purchased from Hawkins
back in the 70's that contains skips and was recorded at the wrong speed!
THE VOICE TRAFFIC WAS CONSTANT AND HEAVY FOLLOWING "GO TO THE HOSPITAL,
OFFICERS!" Stop living in denial and get with the program!
Try to pay attention. YOU gave me a copy. Are you saying that was bogus?
You just linked to a copy on YouTube. Are you saying that is bogus?
I have your 45 record from Gallery. Are you saying that is bogus?
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
the first transmission following the shooting, which is "Go to the
hospital, officers!" timing is accurate and possible because from that
point on, radio activity was heavy and constant and the recorder did not
stop because there was never a 4 second gap between transmissions --
therefore giving us a clock from the time Curry breaks in and says "Go to
the hospital, officers!" until Decker completes saying the words "hold
BOZ said it was, "Going to the hospital." Was BOZ lying? Are you allowed
to call a fewllow minion a liar?
Post by Steve Barber
everything until the homicide and other investigators can get there". Over
a minute elapsed. Therefore, you are full of poop and the Ramsey panel
did no such thing as "lie" about the timing on channel 2! You, on the
The magical one minute of silence.
"Magical" only in your twisted thinking, because there was no "One
minute of silence"!
Yes, there was. According to the NAS panel there was one whole minute
when no units were calling in.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
other hand, made up something ridiculously false. Are you still using an
inferior copy a channel two, relying on the copy you purchased from Dave
Hawkins, Marsh? Shame on you.
Bulderdash. YOU gave me a copy. And I have your Gallery record too.
GREAT! Then get busy and put it to use, old man!
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
After Michael O'Dell convinced Don Thomas he was wrong, Thomas conceded.
No.
Don't tell me "No"! I know for a fact!
No, you have a habit of making up false claims.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Apparently, Thomas couldn't admit complete defeat, so, he invented his
"crosstalk" theory, based primarily on the transcript written by James C.
Bowles) DPD Communications Supervisor at the time of the assassination
(See the transcript in Larry Sneed's excellent book "No More Silence").
Thomas was/is wrong, again, and several members of the Ramsey panel
regrouped performed a study on Thomas' conclusions, wrote a detailed
report regarding Thomas' theory, and Micheal O'Dell aided in proving
http://jfk-records.com/ScienceAndJustice_45%284%29_207-226%282005%29.pdf
Are you saying that Bowles was part of a hoax to put shots on the tape?
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
I also wrote an article(which was featured in Bugliosi's Reclaiming
History) which you can read here, regarding heterodyne tones (beep tones)
that accompany the speech which Thomas claims is crosstalk on channel 1.
The fact that there are heterodyne tones accompanying the speech that
Thomas says is crosstalk proves that it isn't crosstalk at all. Which you
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2007/07/of-crosstalk-and-bells-rebuttal-to-don.html
But did he quote your essay about the "bell" sound?
Post by Steve Barber
To this day, Thomas speaks at JFK conspiracy conferences spreading his
untruth regarding the speech on channel 1 which he claims is crosstalk.
Then why do YOU keep calling it crosstalk? Are you trying to cave in?
I am quoting, Thomas because *he* calls the N.T. Fisher ch. 2
transmission "crosstalk". Your poor reading comprehension skills get the
best of you.
Do you always put it in air quotes?
No. Only when I have to point something out to you!!
Can you even admit that it was crosstalk?
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Thomas believes that the "gunshots" are on the channel 1 Dictabelt, but
that there are five--not four gunshots-- and he supports the conclusions
reached by the acoustics experts for the HSCA.
OMG, do you realize that you just admitted that I am not the only one who
thinks there were 5 shots on the tape? Can't the cover-up do a better job
of corralling you in? Next week you'll admit that you KNOW it was a
conspiracy and you knew the grassy knoll shooter. Somebody stop him before
he ruins your perfect little cover-up.
"OMG", do you realize that I admitted nothing of the kind and that you
poor reading skills have gotten the best of you again? Read that
paragraph again, old man.
You just said that someone else believes there are 5 shots on the tape.
Post by Steve Barber
"Thomas believes that the "gunshots" are on the channel 1 Dictabelt, but
that there are five--not four gunshots--and he supports the conclusions
reached by the acoustics experts for the HSCA."
There, you did it again. Stop incriminating yourself.
You are filled with poop, Old Man!
And McAdams approves messages like that because you are one of his minions.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Where within the paragraph have I "admitted" anything? I have always
known and acknowledged that Thomas believes there are 5--not 4 --gunshots
on the Dictabelt recording!
Then I am not the only one claiming 5 gunshots.
No, you aren't. You and Thomas are the only two that I am aware of who do
believe in 5 shots! I believe there are NONE on the Dictabelt!
Oh, that YOU are aware of.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
He might even admit that Trump paid back Cohen after he lied about it
1,000 times.
We all know that you suffer with Trump derangement syndrome, old man.
I am just rubbing it in because almost all WC defenders here are also
Trump defenders.
And I like getting your goat and rubbing your nose in it because you
suffer from Trump derangement syndrome.
Because you are a Trump supporter.
TRUMP HIRED ME. I CONFESS. I WAS THERE WHEN HE MET STORMY DANIELS.
odellm
2018-05-23 03:16:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by BOZ
https://jfk007.com/1053-2/
The last section re: Don Thomas, is spot on. Thomas, to this day, spreads
his absolute lies regarding what he claims is "crosstalk", knowing fully
well that it isn't crosstalk. It was Micheal o'Dell who convinced Thomas
that he was using inferior copies of the police recordings when Thomas
wrote his peer reviewed paper in 2001. After Michael presented Thomas with
the facts--that the channel two recording was useless as a timing tool to
prove the HSCA's claim that H.B. McLain had the open mic was correct.
(This was nearly twenty years after the Ramsey panel Report in 1982).
You have that reversed. It was the NAS panel who LIED about the channel
two timing to falsely claim that the "shots" were one minute after the
assassination. They and you think that it took a fill minute for Decker to
realize what had happened and tell everyone to go to the hospital. Was
Greer listening to channel one or channel two?
Congratulations! You win the Stupid Post Of The Day award, Marsh!
This is not an honest and open debate. McAdams allows YOU to call me
stupid because you are one of his minions, but I am not even allowed to
point out when you are wrong.
Stop whining, Marsh and grow a pair.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
FYI, Curry held the mic and was on the radio talking to the motorcade
officers and the dispatcher, therefore, Decker couldn't use the radio
until after Curry was finished with the mic. There was only one mic
because Decker didn't have a direct line to his office so had to use
Curry's radio and tell the dispatcher at DPD headquarters to contact his
department.
That is why I asked you which message you were talking about.
Again, do your really think it took Decker a full minute before he made
that call? Yes or no?
This is a loaded question coming from you, of course. I gave you my
answer above. You cannot be taken seriously.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Furthermore, none of us knows exactly how long it was after the shooting
before Curry made the transmission "Go to the hospital, officers!"
Well, again, do you think it took a full minute? Yes or no?
And WHo first claimed to hear the message, "Going to the hospital"?
Who is going to take credit for this orphan? Do we need a paternity test?
The "Going to the hospital words are *NOT* "a message", Marsh, and you
know it. Stop playing your insane games! What we "need" is for you to
get off this kick about a typo BOZ made and move on. You look totally
ridiculous harping about something that was an accident.
Then why did BOZ say it? WHo put him up to it?
WHen some flat out lies you cover up for him and all it a typo.
I just want to know who put him up to it.
So if another one of you guys did exactly the same thing you would again
excuse it as just a typo.
I see a pattern emerging.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Furthermore, you'd better get your stopwatch out! On the channel 2
recording, the dispatcher had announced the time "12:30 KKB 364, Dallas".
Nine seconds pass then Curry announces "Triple Underpass". It is a known
fact that After 4 seconds of silence, the grey audograph recorder stopped
recording until the next transmission reactivated it. Since the voice
It is not a fact. It is an ASSuMPTION.
No, it's not an assumption. You want it to be, but it isn't. It *IS* a
fact and you have to live with it. Otherwise, post your prrof that it is
an "assumption"!
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
traffic was constant from the moment that Curry opened his mic and gave
You can't prove that the voice traffic was constant. If you try, that
gives you problems for the silence on channel 2.
ATTENTION PLEASE! LISTEN TO THE RECORDING, MARSH! LISTEN TO THE
RECORDING! And do not use your recording that you purchased from Hawkins
back in the 70's that contains skips and was recorded at the wrong speed!
THE VOICE TRAFFIC WAS CONSTANT AND HEAVY FOLLOWING "GO TO THE HOSPITAL,
OFFICERS!" Stop living in denial and get with the program!
Try to pay attention. YOU gave me a copy. Are you saying that was bogus?
You just linked to a copy on YouTube. Are you saying that is bogus?
I have your 45 record from Gallery. Are you saying that is bogus?
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
the first transmission following the shooting, which is "Go to the
hospital, officers!" timing is accurate and possible because from that
point on, radio activity was heavy and constant and the recorder did not
stop because there was never a 4 second gap between transmissions --
therefore giving us a clock from the time Curry breaks in and says "Go to
the hospital, officers!" until Decker completes saying the words "hold
BOZ said it was, "Going to the hospital." Was BOZ lying? Are you allowed
to call a fewllow minion a liar?
Post by Steve Barber
everything until the homicide and other investigators can get there". Over
a minute elapsed. Therefore, you are full of poop and the Ramsey panel
did no such thing as "lie" about the timing on channel 2! You, on the
The magical one minute of silence.
"Magical" only in your twisted thinking, because there was no "One
minute of silence"!
Yes, there was. According to the NAS panel there was one whole minute
when no units were calling in.
The NAS panel timing was a little off. The correct number is as low as 30
seconds. And it's not 30 seconds in one chunk, it's a cuumulative 30
seconds.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
other hand, made up something ridiculously false. Are you still using an
inferior copy a channel two, relying on the copy you purchased from Dave
Hawkins, Marsh? Shame on you.
Bulderdash. YOU gave me a copy. And I have your Gallery record too.
GREAT! Then get busy and put it to use, old man!
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
After Michael O'Dell convinced Don Thomas he was wrong, Thomas conceded.
No.
Don't tell me "No"! I know for a fact!
No, you have a habit of making up false claims.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Apparently, Thomas couldn't admit complete defeat, so, he invented his
"crosstalk" theory, based primarily on the transcript written by James C.
Bowles) DPD Communications Supervisor at the time of the assassination
(See the transcript in Larry Sneed's excellent book "No More Silence").
Thomas was/is wrong, again, and several members of the Ramsey panel
regrouped performed a study on Thomas' conclusions, wrote a detailed
report regarding Thomas' theory, and Micheal O'Dell aided in proving
http://jfk-records.com/ScienceAndJustice_45%284%29_207-226%282005%29.pdf
Are you saying that Bowles was part of a hoax to put shots on the tape?
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
I also wrote an article(which was featured in Bugliosi's Reclaiming
History) which you can read here, regarding heterodyne tones (beep tones)
that accompany the speech which Thomas claims is crosstalk on channel 1.
The fact that there are heterodyne tones accompanying the speech that
Thomas says is crosstalk proves that it isn't crosstalk at all. Which you
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2007/07/of-crosstalk-and-bells-rebuttal-to-don.html
But did he quote your essay about the "bell" sound?
Post by Steve Barber
To this day, Thomas speaks at JFK conspiracy conferences spreading his
untruth regarding the speech on channel 1 which he claims is crosstalk.
Then why do YOU keep calling it crosstalk? Are you trying to cave in?
I am quoting, Thomas because *he* calls the N.T. Fisher ch. 2
transmission "crosstalk". Your poor reading comprehension skills get the
best of you.
Do you always put it in air quotes?
No. Only when I have to point something out to you!!
Can you even admit that it was crosstalk?
It isn't crosstalk.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Thomas believes that the "gunshots" are on the channel 1 Dictabelt, but
that there are five--not four gunshots-- and he supports the conclusions
reached by the acoustics experts for the HSCA.
OMG, do you realize that you just admitted that I am not the only one who
thinks there were 5 shots on the tape? Can't the cover-up do a better job
of corralling you in? Next week you'll admit that you KNOW it was a
conspiracy and you knew the grassy knoll shooter. Somebody stop him before
he ruins your perfect little cover-up.
"OMG", do you realize that I admitted nothing of the kind and that you
poor reading skills have gotten the best of you again? Read that
paragraph again, old man.
You just said that someone else believes there are 5 shots on the tape.
Post by Steve Barber
"Thomas believes that the "gunshots" are on the channel 1 Dictabelt, but
that there are five--not four gunshots--and he supports the conclusions
reached by the acoustics experts for the HSCA."
There, you did it again. Stop incriminating yourself.
You are filled with poop, Old Man!
And McAdams approves messages like that because you are one of his minions.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Where within the paragraph have I "admitted" anything? I have always
known and acknowledged that Thomas believes there are 5--not 4 --gunshots
on the Dictabelt recording!
Then I am not the only one claiming 5 gunshots.
No, you aren't. You and Thomas are the only two that I am aware of who do
believe in 5 shots! I believe there are NONE on the Dictabelt!
Oh, that YOU are aware of.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
He might even admit that Trump paid back Cohen after he lied about it
1,000 times.
We all know that you suffer with Trump derangement syndrome, old man.
I am just rubbing it in because almost all WC defenders here are also
Trump defenders.
And I like getting your goat and rubbing your nose in it because you
suffer from Trump derangement syndrome.
Because you are a Trump supporter.
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-24 14:33:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by odellm
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by BOZ
https://jfk007.com/1053-2/
The last section re: Don Thomas, is spot on. Thomas, to this day, spreads
his absolute lies regarding what he claims is "crosstalk", knowing fully
well that it isn't crosstalk. It was Micheal o'Dell who convinced Thomas
that he was using inferior copies of the police recordings when Thomas
wrote his peer reviewed paper in 2001. After Michael presented Thomas with
the facts--that the channel two recording was useless as a timing tool to
prove the HSCA's claim that H.B. McLain had the open mic was correct.
(This was nearly twenty years after the Ramsey panel Report in 1982).
You have that reversed. It was the NAS panel who LIED about the channel
two timing to falsely claim that the "shots" were one minute after the
assassination. They and you think that it took a fill minute for Decker to
realize what had happened and tell everyone to go to the hospital. Was
Greer listening to channel one or channel two?
Congratulations! You win the Stupid Post Of The Day award, Marsh!
This is not an honest and open debate. McAdams allows YOU to call me
stupid because you are one of his minions, but I am not even allowed to
point out when you are wrong.
Stop whining, Marsh and grow a pair.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
FYI, Curry held the mic and was on the radio talking to the motorcade
officers and the dispatcher, therefore, Decker couldn't use the radio
until after Curry was finished with the mic. There was only one mic
because Decker didn't have a direct line to his office so had to use
Curry's radio and tell the dispatcher at DPD headquarters to contact his
department.
That is why I asked you which message you were talking about.
Again, do your really think it took Decker a full minute before he made
that call? Yes or no?
This is a loaded question coming from you, of course. I gave you my
answer above. You cannot be taken seriously.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Furthermore, none of us knows exactly how long it was after the shooting
before Curry made the transmission "Go to the hospital, officers!"
Well, again, do you think it took a full minute? Yes or no?
And WHo first claimed to hear the message, "Going to the hospital"?
Who is going to take credit for this orphan? Do we need a paternity test?
The "Going to the hospital words are *NOT* "a message", Marsh, and you
know it. Stop playing your insane games! What we "need" is for you to
get off this kick about a typo BOZ made and move on. You look totally
ridiculous harping about something that was an accident.
Then why did BOZ say it? WHo put him up to it?
WHen some flat out lies you cover up for him and all it a typo.
I just want to know who put him up to it.
So if another one of you guys did exactly the same thing you would again
excuse it as just a typo.
I see a pattern emerging.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Furthermore, you'd better get your stopwatch out! On the channel 2
recording, the dispatcher had announced the time "12:30 KKB 364, Dallas".
Nine seconds pass then Curry announces "Triple Underpass". It is a known
fact that After 4 seconds of silence, the grey audograph recorder stopped
recording until the next transmission reactivated it. Since the voice
It is not a fact. It is an ASSuMPTION.
No, it's not an assumption. You want it to be, but it isn't. It *IS* a
fact and you have to live with it. Otherwise, post your prrof that it is
an "assumption"!
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
traffic was constant from the moment that Curry opened his mic and gave
You can't prove that the voice traffic was constant. If you try, that
gives you problems for the silence on channel 2.
ATTENTION PLEASE! LISTEN TO THE RECORDING, MARSH! LISTEN TO THE
RECORDING! And do not use your recording that you purchased from Hawkins
back in the 70's that contains skips and was recorded at the wrong speed!
THE VOICE TRAFFIC WAS CONSTANT AND HEAVY FOLLOWING "GO TO THE HOSPITAL,
OFFICERS!" Stop living in denial and get with the program!
Try to pay attention. YOU gave me a copy. Are you saying that was bogus?
You just linked to a copy on YouTube. Are you saying that is bogus?
I have your 45 record from Gallery. Are you saying that is bogus?
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
the first transmission following the shooting, which is "Go to the
hospital, officers!" timing is accurate and possible because from that
point on, radio activity was heavy and constant and the recorder did not
stop because there was never a 4 second gap between transmissions --
therefore giving us a clock from the time Curry breaks in and says "Go to
the hospital, officers!" until Decker completes saying the words "hold
BOZ said it was, "Going to the hospital." Was BOZ lying? Are you allowed
to call a fewllow minion a liar?
Post by Steve Barber
everything until the homicide and other investigators can get there". Over
a minute elapsed. Therefore, you are full of poop and the Ramsey panel
did no such thing as "lie" about the timing on channel 2! You, on the
The magical one minute of silence.
"Magical" only in your twisted thinking, because there was no "One
minute of silence"!
Yes, there was. According to the NAS panel there was one whole minute
when no units were calling in.
The NAS panel timing was a little off. The correct number is as low as 30
seconds. And it's not 30 seconds in one chunk, it's a cuumulative 30
seconds.
Very good. So you admit that the NAS panel was wrong. How come Steve can
never admit anything?
Do you know the segment I am talking about? The NAS said that there was
a whole minute when no messages were recorded on channel 2.
BBN stated that "Channel 1 transmissions were a continuous record of
Dallas police activity; channel 2 transmissions were voice activated,
and therefore an intermittent record of communications, for the most
part those of Dallas Police Chief Jesse E. Curry and the headquarters
dispatcher."
I pointed out that it doesn't make sense that there would be absolutely
no radio traffic on channel just after the shooting.
That was the only way that the NAS could try to claim that the shots are
one minute after the assassination. By lying about the timing of channel 2.


Plus we can HEAR the dispatcher say that someone up on Stemmons has his
mic button stuck on. Do you deny that he said that?
Post by odellm
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
other hand, made up something ridiculously false. Are you still using an
inferior copy a channel two, relying on the copy you purchased from Dave
Hawkins, Marsh? Shame on you.
Bulderdash. YOU gave me a copy. And I have your Gallery record too.
GREAT! Then get busy and put it to use, old man!
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
After Michael O'Dell convinced Don Thomas he was wrong, Thomas conceded.
No.
Don't tell me "No"! I know for a fact!
No, you have a habit of making up false claims.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Apparently, Thomas couldn't admit complete defeat, so, he invented his
"crosstalk" theory, based primarily on the transcript written by James C.
Bowles) DPD Communications Supervisor at the time of the assassination
(See the transcript in Larry Sneed's excellent book "No More Silence").
Thomas was/is wrong, again, and several members of the Ramsey panel
regrouped performed a study on Thomas' conclusions, wrote a detailed
report regarding Thomas' theory, and Micheal O'Dell aided in proving
http://jfk-records.com/ScienceAndJustice_45%284%29_207-226%282005%29.pdf
Are you saying that Bowles was part of a hoax to put shots on the tape?
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
I also wrote an article(which was featured in Bugliosi's Reclaiming
History) which you can read here, regarding heterodyne tones (beep tones)
that accompany the speech which Thomas claims is crosstalk on channel 1.
The fact that there are heterodyne tones accompanying the speech that
Thomas says is crosstalk proves that it isn't crosstalk at all. Which you
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2007/07/of-crosstalk-and-bells-rebuttal-to-don.html
But did he quote your essay about the "bell" sound?
Post by Steve Barber
To this day, Thomas speaks at JFK conspiracy conferences spreading his
untruth regarding the speech on channel 1 which he claims is crosstalk.
Then why do YOU keep calling it crosstalk? Are you trying to cave in?
I am quoting, Thomas because *he* calls the N.T. Fisher ch. 2
transmission "crosstalk". Your poor reading comprehension skills get the
best of you.
Do you always put it in air quotes?
No. Only when I have to point something out to you!!
Can you even admit that it was crosstalk?
It isn't crosstalk.
Fine. WHat do you call it? You admit that 2 units are transmitting on
the same channel at the same time?
Post by odellm
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Thomas believes that the "gunshots" are on the channel 1 Dictabelt, but
that there are five--not four gunshots-- and he supports the conclusions
reached by the acoustics experts for the HSCA.
OMG, do you realize that you just admitted that I am not the only one who
thinks there were 5 shots on the tape? Can't the cover-up do a better job
of corralling you in? Next week you'll admit that you KNOW it was a
conspiracy and you knew the grassy knoll shooter. Somebody stop him before
he ruins your perfect little cover-up.
"OMG", do you realize that I admitted nothing of the kind and that you
poor reading skills have gotten the best of you again? Read that
paragraph again, old man.
You just said that someone else believes there are 5 shots on the tape.
Post by Steve Barber
"Thomas believes that the "gunshots" are on the channel 1 Dictabelt, but
that there are five--not four gunshots--and he supports the conclusions
reached by the acoustics experts for the HSCA."
There, you did it again. Stop incriminating yourself.
You are filled with poop, Old Man!
And McAdams approves messages like that because you are one of his minions.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Where within the paragraph have I "admitted" anything? I have always
known and acknowledged that Thomas believes there are 5--not 4 --gunshots
on the Dictabelt recording!
Then I am not the only one claiming 5 gunshots.
No, you aren't. You and Thomas are the only two that I am aware of who do
believe in 5 shots! I believe there are NONE on the Dictabelt!
Oh, that YOU are aware of.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
He might even admit that Trump paid back Cohen after he lied about it
1,000 times.
We all know that you suffer with Trump derangement syndrome, old man.
I am just rubbing it in because almost all WC defenders here are also
Trump defenders.
And I like getting your goat and rubbing your nose in it because you
suffer from Trump derangement syndrome.
Because you are a Trump supporter.
______________

Something else. Steve and the NAS seem to believe that the cycle with
the stuck open mic was PARKED in the basement of the Trade Mart. Do you
believe the same thing?
How do guys explain the comments that Bowles added to his transcript
which point out the same things that I have been pointing out to
indicate that the cycle was slowing down and speeding up?

(A single tone of a bell.)(62)
12:31:24 (Motorcycle at a very slow idle.)
12:31:32 (A "bonk" sound is recorded and the motorcycle engine
revved-up.)(63)
12:31:40 (Motorcycle sounds like it started moving.)
12:31:48 (Motor slowed down. Perhaps, another approached.)
12:31:52 ? . . . on the phone. (Motor slowed to an idle.)(64)
12:31:56 (Someone whistling a tune in the background of open
microphone.)(65)
12:31:58 (A "bonk, bonk" sound again.)
12:32:04 ? (Unreadable, sounds like ". . . 87 . . .")
12:32:05 (Heterodyne sound of Morse Code "V" and the motor seems to
speed up.)(66)
12:32:08 603 603 out, Baylor.
12:32:22 36 (Motor slowed, then:) 36 . . .
12:32:35 36 36 . . . (Motor slow and irregular.)
12:32:38 91 91 clear, request a "5."
12:32:39 Disp 531 testing, 1-2-3-4.
12:32:42 (Someone whistling again; the tune is unidentifiable.)(67)
12:32:46 ? Loud and clear.(68)
12:32:48 48 48, loud and clear.(69)
12:32:56 56 56 . . . (Motor revved-up.)
12:32:56 91 91, request a "5."
12:33:01 (Blending with the end of 91's message, the sound of sirens
can be heard, faintly, but increasing in loudness.)(70)
12:33:03 Disp 10-4. Anybody know where 56 is? (The siren sounds
continue.)(71)
12:33:08 ? He checked out on traffic.
12:33:18 75 75, Signal 5? (Sirens continue; motor sounds slow and
irregular.)
12:33:26 76 76 clear. (Sirens continue; motor sound revved-up.)
12:33:34 (Sirens fade to inaudible.)(72)
12:33:55 (Someone whistling again.)(73)
12:33:38 DSO? Attention all units, all units . . .(74)
12:33:50 ? (Unreadable.)(75)
12:33:52 190 (Ch 2) You want me to still hold this traffic on Stemmons
until we find out something, or . . .(76)
12:33:57 (103) 103 clear. (Motor is idling.)
12:33:59 Disp Clear, 12:34. (Motorcycle engine revved up.)(77)
(12:34)
12:34:00 76 76 clear. (Motor revved up.)
76 76 clear.
12:34:09 Disp 76 clear, 12:34. (Motorcycle sounds like it is moving.)
(12:34)
12:34:18 75 75, a "5." (Motorcycle seems to gain speed.)
12:34:19 (Microphone closed.)(78)


How can a parked cycle be slowing down and speeding up?
You guys need to get together and clean up your cover-up.
odellm
2018-05-24 22:09:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by odellm
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by BOZ
https://jfk007.com/1053-2/
The last section re: Don Thomas, is spot on. Thomas, to this day, spreads
his absolute lies regarding what he claims is "crosstalk", knowing fully
well that it isn't crosstalk. It was Micheal o'Dell who convinced Thomas
that he was using inferior copies of the police recordings when Thomas
wrote his peer reviewed paper in 2001. After Michael presented Thomas with
the facts--that the channel two recording was useless as a timing tool to
prove the HSCA's claim that H.B. McLain had the open mic was correct.
(This was nearly twenty years after the Ramsey panel Report in 1982).
You have that reversed. It was the NAS panel who LIED about the channel
two timing to falsely claim that the "shots" were one minute after the
assassination. They and you think that it took a fill minute for Decker to
realize what had happened and tell everyone to go to the hospital. Was
Greer listening to channel one or channel two?
Congratulations! You win the Stupid Post Of The Day award, Marsh!
This is not an honest and open debate. McAdams allows YOU to call me
stupid because you are one of his minions, but I am not even allowed to
point out when you are wrong.
Stop whining, Marsh and grow a pair.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
FYI, Curry held the mic and was on the radio talking to the motorcade
officers and the dispatcher, therefore, Decker couldn't use the radio
until after Curry was finished with the mic. There was only one mic
because Decker didn't have a direct line to his office so had to use
Curry's radio and tell the dispatcher at DPD headquarters to contact his
department.
That is why I asked you which message you were talking about.
Again, do your really think it took Decker a full minute before he made
that call? Yes or no?
This is a loaded question coming from you, of course. I gave you my
answer above. You cannot be taken seriously.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Furthermore, none of us knows exactly how long it was after the shooting
before Curry made the transmission "Go to the hospital, officers!"
Well, again, do you think it took a full minute? Yes or no?
And WHo first claimed to hear the message, "Going to the hospital"?
Who is going to take credit for this orphan? Do we need a paternity test?
The "Going to the hospital words are *NOT* "a message", Marsh, and you
know it. Stop playing your insane games! What we "need" is for you to
get off this kick about a typo BOZ made and move on. You look totally
ridiculous harping about something that was an accident.
Then why did BOZ say it? WHo put him up to it?
WHen some flat out lies you cover up for him and all it a typo.
I just want to know who put him up to it.
So if another one of you guys did exactly the same thing you would again
excuse it as just a typo.
I see a pattern emerging.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Furthermore, you'd better get your stopwatch out! On the channel 2
recording, the dispatcher had announced the time "12:30 KKB 364, Dallas".
Nine seconds pass then Curry announces "Triple Underpass". It is a known
fact that After 4 seconds of silence, the grey audograph recorder stopped
recording until the next transmission reactivated it. Since the voice
It is not a fact. It is an ASSuMPTION.
No, it's not an assumption. You want it to be, but it isn't. It *IS* a
fact and you have to live with it. Otherwise, post your prrof that it is
an "assumption"!
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
traffic was constant from the moment that Curry opened his mic and gave
You can't prove that the voice traffic was constant. If you try, that
gives you problems for the silence on channel 2.
ATTENTION PLEASE! LISTEN TO THE RECORDING, MARSH! LISTEN TO THE
RECORDING! And do not use your recording that you purchased from Hawkins
back in the 70's that contains skips and was recorded at the wrong speed!
THE VOICE TRAFFIC WAS CONSTANT AND HEAVY FOLLOWING "GO TO THE HOSPITAL,
OFFICERS!" Stop living in denial and get with the program!
Try to pay attention. YOU gave me a copy. Are you saying that was bogus?
You just linked to a copy on YouTube. Are you saying that is bogus?
I have your 45 record from Gallery. Are you saying that is bogus?
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
the first transmission following the shooting, which is "Go to the
hospital, officers!" timing is accurate and possible because from that
point on, radio activity was heavy and constant and the recorder did not
stop because there was never a 4 second gap between transmissions --
therefore giving us a clock from the time Curry breaks in and says "Go to
the hospital, officers!" until Decker completes saying the words "hold
BOZ said it was, "Going to the hospital." Was BOZ lying? Are you allowed
to call a fewllow minion a liar?
Post by Steve Barber
everything until the homicide and other investigators can get there". Over
a minute elapsed. Therefore, you are full of poop and the Ramsey panel
did no such thing as "lie" about the timing on channel 2! You, on the
The magical one minute of silence.
"Magical" only in your twisted thinking, because there was no "One
minute of silence"!
Yes, there was. According to the NAS panel there was one whole minute
when no units were calling in.
The NAS panel timing was a little off. The correct number is as low as 30
seconds. And it's not 30 seconds in one chunk, it's a cuumulative 30
seconds.
Very good. So you admit that the NAS panel was wrong. How come Steve can
never admit anything?
I'm not "admitting" it. I've always said it. Their timing was wrong.
Their conclusions were not.

How come you can never admit anything? How come you can't have an honest
conversation about the subject without the inflammatory language?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Do you know the segment I am talking about? The NAS said that there was
a whole minute when no messages were recorded on channel 2.
Didn't we just cover that?
Post by Anthony Marsh
BBN stated that "Channel 1 transmissions were a continuous record of
Dallas police activity; channel 2 transmissions were voice activated,
and therefore an intermittent record of communications, for the most
part those of Dallas Police Chief Jesse E. Curry and the headquarters
dispatcher."
I pointed out that it doesn't make sense that there would be absolutely
no radio traffic on channel just after the shooting.
That was the only way that the NAS could try to claim that the shots are
one minute after the assassination. By lying about the timing of channel 2.
That's not true. Nobody said there was absolutely no traffic after the
shooting. It's only that in the few minutes after the shooting there a
cuumulative total of at least 30 seconds of machine pauses.

And that's not the reason the shots are after the assassination. This is
repeatedly misreprsented by NAS critics. The machine pauses are not
injected to justify the conclusion. The conclusion is justified by the
simulatneous existinence of "hold everything secure..." right where the
shots are supposed to be. The machine pauses are a factual observation of
the timing data.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Plus we can HEAR the dispatcher say that someone up on Stemmons has his
mic button stuck on. Do you deny that he said that?
So what? The dispatcher didn't have eyes on anyone. He only heard what
we can hear on the recording.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by odellm
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
other hand, made up something ridiculously false. Are you still using an
inferior copy a channel two, relying on the copy you purchased from Dave
Hawkins, Marsh? Shame on you.
Bulderdash. YOU gave me a copy. And I have your Gallery record too.
GREAT! Then get busy and put it to use, old man!
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
After Michael O'Dell convinced Don Thomas he was wrong, Thomas conceded.
No.
Don't tell me "No"! I know for a fact!
No, you have a habit of making up false claims.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Apparently, Thomas couldn't admit complete defeat, so, he invented his
"crosstalk" theory, based primarily on the transcript written by James C.
Bowles) DPD Communications Supervisor at the time of the assassination
(See the transcript in Larry Sneed's excellent book "No More Silence").
Thomas was/is wrong, again, and several members of the Ramsey panel
regrouped performed a study on Thomas' conclusions, wrote a detailed
report regarding Thomas' theory, and Micheal O'Dell aided in proving
http://jfk-records.com/ScienceAndJustice_45%284%29_207-226%282005%29.pdf
Are you saying that Bowles was part of a hoax to put shots on the tape?
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
I also wrote an article(which was featured in Bugliosi's Reclaiming
History) which you can read here, regarding heterodyne tones (beep tones)
that accompany the speech which Thomas claims is crosstalk on channel 1.
The fact that there are heterodyne tones accompanying the speech that
Thomas says is crosstalk proves that it isn't crosstalk at all. Which you
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2007/07/of-crosstalk-and-bells-rebuttal-to-don.html
But did he quote your essay about the "bell" sound?
Post by Steve Barber
To this day, Thomas speaks at JFK conspiracy conferences spreading his
untruth regarding the speech on channel 1 which he claims is crosstalk.
Then why do YOU keep calling it crosstalk? Are you trying to cave in?
I am quoting, Thomas because *he* calls the N.T. Fisher ch. 2
transmission "crosstalk". Your poor reading comprehension skills get the
best of you.
Do you always put it in air quotes?
No. Only when I have to point something out to you!!
Can you even admit that it was crosstalk?
It isn't crosstalk.
Fine. WHat do you call it? You admit that 2 units are transmitting on
the same channel at the same time?
There you are with the "admit" thing again. It isn't crosstalk. It's not
the same phrase. It can't be used for timing. That's all that matters.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by odellm
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Thomas believes that the "gunshots" are on the channel 1 Dictabelt, but
that there are five--not four gunshots-- and he supports the conclusions
reached by the acoustics experts for the HSCA.
OMG, do you realize that you just admitted that I am not the only one who
thinks there were 5 shots on the tape? Can't the cover-up do a better job
of corralling you in? Next week you'll admit that you KNOW it was a
conspiracy and you knew the grassy knoll shooter. Somebody stop him before
he ruins your perfect little cover-up.
"OMG", do you realize that I admitted nothing of the kind and that you
poor reading skills have gotten the best of you again? Read that
paragraph again, old man.
You just said that someone else believes there are 5 shots on the tape.
Post by Steve Barber
"Thomas believes that the "gunshots" are on the channel 1 Dictabelt, but
that there are five--not four gunshots--and he supports the conclusions
reached by the acoustics experts for the HSCA."
There, you did it again. Stop incriminating yourself.
You are filled with poop, Old Man!
And McAdams approves messages like that because you are one of his minions.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Where within the paragraph have I "admitted" anything? I have always
known and acknowledged that Thomas believes there are 5--not 4 --gunshots
on the Dictabelt recording!
Then I am not the only one claiming 5 gunshots.
No, you aren't. You and Thomas are the only two that I am aware of who do
believe in 5 shots! I believe there are NONE on the Dictabelt!
Oh, that YOU are aware of.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
He might even admit that Trump paid back Cohen after he lied about it
1,000 times.
We all know that you suffer with Trump derangement syndrome, old man.
I am just rubbing it in because almost all WC defenders here are also
Trump defenders.
And I like getting your goat and rubbing your nose in it because you
suffer from Trump derangement syndrome.
Because you are a Trump supporter.
______________
Something else. Steve and the NAS seem to believe that the cycle with
the stuck open mic was PARKED in the basement of the Trade Mart. Do you
believe the same thing?
The NAS didn't say that. Rader said that in a personal interview many
years later. I assume it's his opinion. He may be right, or not. I have
no position on where the motorcycle really was.

Michael
John McAdams
2018-05-24 22:12:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by odellm
Post by Anthony Marsh
Something else. Steve and the NAS seem to believe that the cycle with
the stuck open mic was PARKED in the basement of the Trade Mart. Do you
believe the same thing?
The NAS didn't say that. Rader said that in a personal interview many
years later. I assume it's his opinion. He may be right, or not. I have
no position on where the motorcycle really was.
I haven't any strong opinion on this, and haven't listened to the tape
more than a couple of times.

So I really would like your opinion on this.

When I did listen, I got the strong impression of a mic in some static
location, with the motorcade approaching, passing, and then moving
away.

I *think* I heard a doppler shift, but that might have been
suggestion, since I think I read such a thing was on the tape.

Would you agree or disagree?

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-25 18:30:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by odellm
Post by Anthony Marsh
Something else. Steve and the NAS seem to believe that the cycle with
the stuck open mic was PARKED in the basement of the Trade Mart. Do you
believe the same thing?
The NAS didn't say that. Rader said that in a personal interview many
years later. I assume it's his opinion. He may be right, or not. I have
no position on where the motorcycle really was.
I haven't any strong opinion on this, and haven't listened to the tape
more than a couple of times.
So I really would like your opinion on this.
When I did listen, I got the strong impression of a mic in some static
location, with the motorcade approaching, passing, and then moving
away.
Doesn't mean he was parked. He got closer to other cycles and fell behind.
Post by John McAdams
I *think* I heard a doppler shift, but that might have been
suggestion, since I think I read such a thing was on the tape.
There ARE doppler shifts as the cycles pass each other.
Did you listen to Rader? Have you talked to Rader.
Post by John McAdams
Would you agree or disagree?
Do you believe the cycle with the stuck open microphone was parked? Yes
or no?

If yes, how can you explain Bowles talking about the cycle slowing down
and speeding up?

As leader of the cover-up it is your job to corral your minions.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
odellm
2018-05-25 18:34:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by odellm
Post by Anthony Marsh
Something else. Steve and the NAS seem to believe that the cycle with
the stuck open mic was PARKED in the basement of the Trade Mart. Do you
believe the same thing?
The NAS didn't say that. Rader said that in a personal interview many
years later. I assume it's his opinion. He may be right, or not. I have
no position on where the motorcycle really was.
I haven't any strong opinion on this, and haven't listened to the tape
more than a couple of times.
So I really would like your opinion on this.
When I did listen, I got the strong impression of a mic in some static
location, with the motorcade approaching, passing, and then moving
away.
I *think* I heard a doppler shift, but that might have been
suggestion, since I think I read such a thing was on the tape.
Would you agree or disagree?
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
The volume of the sirens rises then falls, just as if they approach the
microphone and then pass it. My experience is that many people refer to
this as a "Doppler Shift", but it isn't. A Doppler Shift refers to a
change in frequency with a change in relative motion.

In this case it's hard to tell. There are multiple sirens and each is a
variable frequency.

What the NAS panel actually said about the location of the mic is this:

"The absence of siren sounds for two minutes is fully compatible with the
Committee's scenario, which does not require the open microphone to have
been in the procession. James Bowles' hypothesis that the motorcycle was
at the Trade Mart can be supported by reasonable arguments but there is no
firm evidence for that location."

This is also my position. It may have been at the Trade Mart. I'd say
it's very likely. But it's a secondary argument not directly related to
the disproof of the acoustic evidence.

Michael
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-26 23:17:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by odellm
Post by John McAdams
Post by odellm
Post by Anthony Marsh
Something else. Steve and the NAS seem to believe that the cycle with
the stuck open mic was PARKED in the basement of the Trade Mart. Do you
believe the same thing?
The NAS didn't say that. Rader said that in a personal interview many
years later. I assume it's his opinion. He may be right, or not. I have
no position on where the motorcycle really was.
I haven't any strong opinion on this, and haven't listened to the tape
more than a couple of times.
So I really would like your opinion on this.
When I did listen, I got the strong impression of a mic in some static
location, with the motorcade approaching, passing, and then moving
away.
I *think* I heard a doppler shift, but that might have been
suggestion, since I think I read such a thing was on the tape.
Would you agree or disagree?
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
The volume of the sirens rises then falls, just as if they approach the
microphone and then pass it. My experience is that many people refer to
this as a "Doppler Shift", but it isn't. A Doppler Shift refers to a
change in frequency with a change in relative motion.
In this case it's hard to tell. There are multiple sirens and each is a
variable frequency.
"The absence of siren sounds for two minutes is fully compatible with the
Committee's scenario, which does not require the open microphone to have
been in the procession. James Bowles' hypothesis that the motorcycle was
at the Trade Mart can be supported by reasonable arguments but there is no
firm evidence for that location."
This is also my position. It may have been at the Trade Mart. I'd say
it's very likely. But it's a secondary argument not directly related to
the disproof of the acoustic evidence.
Michael
Almost correct. But some people also forget that on those old cycles the
PITCH of the siren would rise or fall depending on speed. Doppler Shift
is the apparent rising and falling of pitch from a sound source which is
emitting a constant pitch.
GKnoll
2018-05-25 14:28:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by odellm
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by odellm
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by BOZ
https://jfk007.com/1053-2/
The last section re: Don Thomas, is spot on. Thomas, to this day, spreads
his absolute lies regarding what he claims is "crosstalk", knowing fully
well that it isn't crosstalk. It was Micheal o'Dell who convinced Thomas
that he was using inferior copies of the police recordings when Thomas
wrote his peer reviewed paper in 2001. After Michael presented Thomas with
the facts--that the channel two recording was useless as a timing tool to
prove the HSCA's claim that H.B. McLain had the open mic was correct.
(This was nearly twenty years after the Ramsey panel Report in 1982).
You have that reversed. It was the NAS panel who LIED about the channel
two timing to falsely claim that the "shots" were one minute after the
assassination. They and you think that it took a fill minute for Decker to
realize what had happened and tell everyone to go to the hospital. Was
Greer listening to channel one or channel two?
Congratulations! You win the Stupid Post Of The Day award, Marsh!
This is not an honest and open debate. McAdams allows YOU to call me
stupid because you are one of his minions, but I am not even allowed to
point out when you are wrong.
Stop whining, Marsh and grow a pair.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
FYI, Curry held the mic and was on the radio talking to the motorcade
officers and the dispatcher, therefore, Decker couldn't use the radio
until after Curry was finished with the mic. There was only one mic
because Decker didn't have a direct line to his office so had to use
Curry's radio and tell the dispatcher at DPD headquarters to contact his
department.
That is why I asked you which message you were talking about.
Again, do your really think it took Decker a full minute before he made
that call? Yes or no?
This is a loaded question coming from you, of course. I gave you my
answer above. You cannot be taken seriously.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Furthermore, none of us knows exactly how long it was after the shooting
before Curry made the transmission "Go to the hospital, officers!"
Well, again, do you think it took a full minute? Yes or no?
And WHo first claimed to hear the message, "Going to the hospital"?
Who is going to take credit for this orphan? Do we need a paternity test?
The "Going to the hospital words are *NOT* "a message", Marsh, and you
know it. Stop playing your insane games! What we "need" is for you to
get off this kick about a typo BOZ made and move on. You look totally
ridiculous harping about something that was an accident.
Then why did BOZ say it? WHo put him up to it?
WHen some flat out lies you cover up for him and all it a typo.
I just want to know who put him up to it.
So if another one of you guys did exactly the same thing you would again
excuse it as just a typo.
I see a pattern emerging.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Furthermore, you'd better get your stopwatch out! On the channel 2
recording, the dispatcher had announced the time "12:30 KKB 364, Dallas".
Nine seconds pass then Curry announces "Triple Underpass". It is a known
fact that After 4 seconds of silence, the grey audograph recorder stopped
recording until the next transmission reactivated it. Since the voice
It is not a fact. It is an ASSuMPTION.
No, it's not an assumption. You want it to be, but it isn't. It *IS* a
fact and you have to live with it. Otherwise, post your prrof that it is
an "assumption"!
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
traffic was constant from the moment that Curry opened his mic and gave
You can't prove that the voice traffic was constant. If you try, that
gives you problems for the silence on channel 2.
ATTENTION PLEASE! LISTEN TO THE RECORDING, MARSH! LISTEN TO THE
RECORDING! And do not use your recording that you purchased from Hawkins
back in the 70's that contains skips and was recorded at the wrong speed!
THE VOICE TRAFFIC WAS CONSTANT AND HEAVY FOLLOWING "GO TO THE HOSPITAL,
OFFICERS!" Stop living in denial and get with the program!
Try to pay attention. YOU gave me a copy. Are you saying that was bogus?
You just linked to a copy on YouTube. Are you saying that is bogus?
I have your 45 record from Gallery. Are you saying that is bogus?
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
the first transmission following the shooting, which is "Go to the
hospital, officers!" timing is accurate and possible because from that
point on, radio activity was heavy and constant and the recorder did not
stop because there was never a 4 second gap between transmissions --
therefore giving us a clock from the time Curry breaks in and says "Go to
the hospital, officers!" until Decker completes saying the words "hold
BOZ said it was, "Going to the hospital." Was BOZ lying? Are you allowed
to call a fewllow minion a liar?
Post by Steve Barber
everything until the homicide and other investigators can get there". Over
a minute elapsed. Therefore, you are full of poop and the Ramsey panel
did no such thing as "lie" about the timing on channel 2! You, on the
The magical one minute of silence.
"Magical" only in your twisted thinking, because there was no "One
minute of silence"!
Yes, there was. According to the NAS panel there was one whole minute
when no units were calling in.
The NAS panel timing was a little off. The correct number is as low as 30
seconds. And it's not 30 seconds in one chunk, it's a cuumulative 30
seconds.
Very good. So you admit that the NAS panel was wrong. How come Steve can
never admit anything?
I'm not "admitting" it. I've always said it. Their timing was wrong.
Their conclusions were not.
How come you can never admit anything? How come you can't have an honest
conversation about the subject without the inflammatory language?
Marsh has poisoned the "research" well. He forces everyone, over time, to
adopt his inflamatory method of responding. McAdams is also to blame for
this because he has consistently allowed Marsh to make constant
inflamatory statements. I have been affected, so has Barber, everyone is
affected because of the anticipation of Marsh's vitrol. McAdams wants
Marsh to act that way because McAdams motive is to have Marsh attack
conspiracy advocates. It is a tag team match.

As I said before, Marsh has had a bad influence on research and
researchers in general.
Post by odellm
Post by Anthony Marsh
Do you know the segment I am talking about? The NAS said that there was
a whole minute when no messages were recorded on channel 2.
Didn't we just cover that?
Post by Anthony Marsh
BBN stated that "Channel 1 transmissions were a continuous record of
Dallas police activity; channel 2 transmissions were voice activated,
and therefore an intermittent record of communications, for the most
part those of Dallas Police Chief Jesse E. Curry and the headquarters
dispatcher."
I pointed out that it doesn't make sense that there would be absolutely
no radio traffic on channel just after the shooting.
That was the only way that the NAS could try to claim that the shots are
one minute after the assassination. By lying about the timing of channel 2.
That's not true. Nobody said there was absolutely no traffic after the
shooting. It's only that in the few minutes after the shooting there a
cuumulative total of at least 30 seconds of machine pauses.
And that's not the reason the shots are after the assassination. This is
repeatedly misreprsented by NAS critics. The machine pauses are not
injected to justify the conclusion. The conclusion is justified by the
simulatneous existinence of "hold everything secure..." right where the
shots are supposed to be. The machine pauses are a factual observation of
the timing data.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Plus we can HEAR the dispatcher say that someone up on Stemmons has his
mic button stuck on. Do you deny that he said that?
So what? The dispatcher didn't have eyes on anyone. He only heard what
we can hear on the recording.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by odellm
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
other hand, made up something ridiculously false. Are you still using an
inferior copy a channel two, relying on the copy you purchased from Dave
Hawkins, Marsh? Shame on you.
Bulderdash. YOU gave me a copy. And I have your Gallery record too.
GREAT! Then get busy and put it to use, old man!
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
After Michael O'Dell convinced Don Thomas he was wrong, Thomas conceded.
No.
Don't tell me "No"! I know for a fact!
No, you have a habit of making up false claims.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Apparently, Thomas couldn't admit complete defeat, so, he invented his
"crosstalk" theory, based primarily on the transcript written by James C.
Bowles) DPD Communications Supervisor at the time of the assassination
(See the transcript in Larry Sneed's excellent book "No More Silence").
Thomas was/is wrong, again, and several members of the Ramsey panel
regrouped performed a study on Thomas' conclusions, wrote a detailed
report regarding Thomas' theory, and Micheal O'Dell aided in proving
http://jfk-records.com/ScienceAndJustice_45%284%29_207-226%282005%29.pdf
Are you saying that Bowles was part of a hoax to put shots on the tape?
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
I also wrote an article(which was featured in Bugliosi's Reclaiming
History) which you can read here, regarding heterodyne tones (beep tones)
that accompany the speech which Thomas claims is crosstalk on channel 1.
The fact that there are heterodyne tones accompanying the speech that
Thomas says is crosstalk proves that it isn't crosstalk at all. Which you
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2007/07/of-crosstalk-and-bells-rebuttal-to-don.html
But did he quote your essay about the "bell" sound?
Post by Steve Barber
To this day, Thomas speaks at JFK conspiracy conferences spreading his
untruth regarding the speech on channel 1 which he claims is crosstalk.
Then why do YOU keep calling it crosstalk? Are you trying to cave in?
I am quoting, Thomas because *he* calls the N.T. Fisher ch. 2
transmission "crosstalk". Your poor reading comprehension skills get the
best of you.
Do you always put it in air quotes?
No. Only when I have to point something out to you!!
Can you even admit that it was crosstalk?
It isn't crosstalk.
Fine. WHat do you call it? You admit that 2 units are transmitting on
the same channel at the same time?
There you are with the "admit" thing again. It isn't crosstalk. It's not
the same phrase. It can't be used for timing. That's all that matters.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by odellm
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Thomas believes that the "gunshots" are on the channel 1 Dictabelt, but
that there are five--not four gunshots-- and he supports the conclusions
reached by the acoustics experts for the HSCA.
OMG, do you realize that you just admitted that I am not the only one who
thinks there were 5 shots on the tape? Can't the cover-up do a better job
of corralling you in? Next week you'll admit that you KNOW it was a
conspiracy and you knew the grassy knoll shooter. Somebody stop him before
he ruins your perfect little cover-up.
"OMG", do you realize that I admitted nothing of the kind and that you
poor reading skills have gotten the best of you again? Read that
paragraph again, old man.
You just said that someone else believes there are 5 shots on the tape.
Post by Steve Barber
"Thomas believes that the "gunshots" are on the channel 1 Dictabelt, but
that there are five--not four gunshots--and he supports the conclusions
reached by the acoustics experts for the HSCA."
There, you did it again. Stop incriminating yourself.
You are filled with poop, Old Man!
And McAdams approves messages like that because you are one of his minions.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Where within the paragraph have I "admitted" anything? I have always
known and acknowledged that Thomas believes there are 5--not 4 --gunshots
on the Dictabelt recording!
Then I am not the only one claiming 5 gunshots.
No, you aren't. You and Thomas are the only two that I am aware of who do
believe in 5 shots! I believe there are NONE on the Dictabelt!
Oh, that YOU are aware of.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
He might even admit that Trump paid back Cohen after he lied about it
1,000 times.
We all know that you suffer with Trump derangement syndrome, old man.
I am just rubbing it in because almost all WC defenders here are also
Trump defenders.
And I like getting your goat and rubbing your nose in it because you
suffer from Trump derangement syndrome.
Because you are a Trump supporter.
______________
Something else. Steve and the NAS seem to believe that the cycle with
the stuck open mic was PARKED in the basement of the Trade Mart. Do you
believe the same thing?
The NAS didn't say that. Rader said that in a personal interview many
years later. I assume it's his opinion. He may be right, or not. I have
no position on where the motorcycle really was.
Michael
OHLeeRedux
2018-05-26 18:38:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by odellm
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by BOZ
https://jfk007.com/1053-2/
The last section re: Don Thomas, is spot on. Thomas, to this day, spreads
his absolute lies regarding what he claims is "crosstalk", knowing fully
well that it isn't crosstalk. It was Micheal o'Dell who convinced Thomas
that he was using inferior copies of the police recordings when Thomas
wrote his peer reviewed paper in 2001. After Michael presented Thomas with
the facts--that the channel two recording was useless as a timing tool to
prove the HSCA's claim that H.B. McLain had the open mic was correct.
(This was nearly twenty years after the Ramsey panel Report in 1982).
You have that reversed. It was the NAS panel who LIED about the channel
two timing to falsely claim that the "shots" were one minute after the
assassination. They and you think that it took a fill minute for Decker to
realize what had happened and tell everyone to go to the hospital. Was
Greer listening to channel one or channel two?
Congratulations! You win the Stupid Post Of The Day award, Marsh!
This is not an honest and open debate. McAdams allows YOU to call me
stupid because you are one of his minions, but I am not even allowed to
point out when you are wrong.
Stop whining, Marsh and grow a pair.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
FYI, Curry held the mic and was on the radio talking to the motorcade
officers and the dispatcher, therefore, Decker couldn't use the radio
until after Curry was finished with the mic. There was only one mic
because Decker didn't have a direct line to his office so had to use
Curry's radio and tell the dispatcher at DPD headquarters to contact his
department.
That is why I asked you which message you were talking about.
Again, do your really think it took Decker a full minute before he made
that call? Yes or no?
This is a loaded question coming from you, of course. I gave you my
answer above. You cannot be taken seriously.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Furthermore, none of us knows exactly how long it was after the shooting
before Curry made the transmission "Go to the hospital, officers!"
Well, again, do you think it took a full minute? Yes or no?
And WHo first claimed to hear the message, "Going to the hospital"?
Who is going to take credit for this orphan? Do we need a paternity test?
The "Going to the hospital words are *NOT* "a message", Marsh, and you
know it. Stop playing your insane games! What we "need" is for you to
get off this kick about a typo BOZ made and move on. You look totally
ridiculous harping about something that was an accident.
Then why did BOZ say it? WHo put him up to it?
WHen some flat out lies you cover up for him and all it a typo.
I just want to know who put him up to it.
So if another one of you guys did exactly the same thing you would again
excuse it as just a typo.
I see a pattern emerging.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Furthermore, you'd better get your stopwatch out! On the channel 2
recording, the dispatcher had announced the time "12:30 KKB 364, Dallas".
Nine seconds pass then Curry announces "Triple Underpass". It is a known
fact that After 4 seconds of silence, the grey audograph recorder stopped
recording until the next transmission reactivated it. Since the voice
It is not a fact. It is an ASSuMPTION.
No, it's not an assumption. You want it to be, but it isn't. It *IS* a
fact and you have to live with it. Otherwise, post your prrof that it is
an "assumption"!
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
traffic was constant from the moment that Curry opened his mic and gave
You can't prove that the voice traffic was constant. If you try, that
gives you problems for the silence on channel 2.
ATTENTION PLEASE! LISTEN TO THE RECORDING, MARSH! LISTEN TO THE
RECORDING! And do not use your recording that you purchased from Hawkins
back in the 70's that contains skips and was recorded at the wrong speed!
THE VOICE TRAFFIC WAS CONSTANT AND HEAVY FOLLOWING "GO TO THE HOSPITAL,
OFFICERS!" Stop living in denial and get with the program!
Try to pay attention. YOU gave me a copy. Are you saying that was bogus?
You just linked to a copy on YouTube. Are you saying that is bogus?
I have your 45 record from Gallery. Are you saying that is bogus?
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
the first transmission following the shooting, which is "Go to the
hospital, officers!" timing is accurate and possible because from that
point on, radio activity was heavy and constant and the recorder did not
stop because there was never a 4 second gap between transmissions --
therefore giving us a clock from the time Curry breaks in and says "Go to
the hospital, officers!" until Decker completes saying the words "hold
BOZ said it was, "Going to the hospital." Was BOZ lying? Are you allowed
to call a fewllow minion a liar?
Post by Steve Barber
everything until the homicide and other investigators can get there". Over
a minute elapsed. Therefore, you are full of poop and the Ramsey panel
did no such thing as "lie" about the timing on channel 2! You, on the
The magical one minute of silence.
"Magical" only in your twisted thinking, because there was no "One
minute of silence"!
Yes, there was. According to the NAS panel there was one whole minute
when no units were calling in.
The NAS panel timing was a little off. The correct number is as low as 30
seconds. And it's not 30 seconds in one chunk, it's a cuumulative 30
seconds.
Very good. So you admit that the NAS panel was wrong. How come Steve can
never admit anything?
I'm not "admitting" it. I've always said it. Their timing was wrong.
Their conclusions were not.
How come you can never admit anything? How come you can't have an honest
conversation about the subject without the inflammatory language?
Marsh has poisoned the "research" well. He forces everyone, over time, to
adopt his inflamatory method of responding.
Marsh's credibility expired long ago. And he did it himself.



Ma McAdams is also to blame for
Post by GKnoll
this because he has consistently allowed Marsh to make constant
inflamatory statements. I have been affected, so has Barber, everyone is
affected because of the anticipation of Marsh's vitrol. McAdams wants
Marsh to act that way because McAdams motive is to have Marsh attack
conspiracy advocates. It is a tag team match.
McAdams lets a lot of Marsh's nonsense get through, and I say, Good for
him. It let's us all see what kind of person we are dealing with and
allows us to make our own estimations of the reliability -- and lack
thereof -- of the excreta he posts here.
Post by GKnoll
As I said before, Marsh has had a bad influence on research and
researchers in general.
Post by odellm
Post by Anthony Marsh
Do you know the segment I am talking about? The NAS said that there was
a whole minute when no messages were recorded on channel 2.
Didn't we just cover that?
Post by Anthony Marsh
BBN stated that "Channel 1 transmissions were a continuous record of
Dallas police activity; channel 2 transmissions were voice activated,
and therefore an intermittent record of communications, for the most
part those of Dallas Police Chief Jesse E. Curry and the headquarters
dispatcher."
I pointed out that it doesn't make sense that there would be absolutely
no radio traffic on channel just after the shooting.
That was the only way that the NAS could try to claim that the shots are
one minute after the assassination. By lying about the timing of channel 2.
That's not true. Nobody said there was absolutely no traffic after the
shooting. It's only that in the few minutes after the shooting there a
cuumulative total of at least 30 seconds of machine pauses.
And that's not the reason the shots are after the assassination. This is
repeatedly misreprsented by NAS critics. The machine pauses are not
injected to justify the conclusion. The conclusion is justified by the
simulatneous existinence of "hold everything secure..." right where the
shots are supposed to be. The machine pauses are a factual observation of
the timing data.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Plus we can HEAR the dispatcher say that someone up on Stemmons has his
mic button stuck on. Do you deny that he said that?
So what? The dispatcher didn't have eyes on anyone. He only heard what
we can hear on the recording.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by odellm
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
other hand, made up something ridiculously false. Are you still using an
inferior copy a channel two, relying on the copy you purchased from Dave
Hawkins, Marsh? Shame on you.
Bulderdash. YOU gave me a copy. And I have your Gallery record too.
GREAT! Then get busy and put it to use, old man!
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
After Michael O'Dell convinced Don Thomas he was wrong, Thomas conceded.
No.
Don't tell me "No"! I know for a fact!
No, you have a habit of making up false claims.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Apparently, Thomas couldn't admit complete defeat, so, he invented his
"crosstalk" theory, based primarily on the transcript written by James C.
Bowles) DPD Communications Supervisor at the time of the assassination
(See the transcript in Larry Sneed's excellent book "No More Silence").
Thomas was/is wrong, again, and several members of the Ramsey panel
regrouped performed a study on Thomas' conclusions, wrote a detailed
report regarding Thomas' theory, and Micheal O'Dell aided in proving
http://jfk-records.com/ScienceAndJustice_45%284%29_207-226%282005%29.pdf
Are you saying that Bowles was part of a hoax to put shots on the tape?
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
I also wrote an article(which was featured in Bugliosi's Reclaiming
History) which you can read here, regarding heterodyne tones (beep tones)
that accompany the speech which Thomas claims is crosstalk on channel 1.
The fact that there are heterodyne tones accompanying the speech that
Thomas says is crosstalk proves that it isn't crosstalk at all. Which you
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2007/07/of-crosstalk-and-bells-rebuttal-to-don.html
But did he quote your essay about the "bell" sound?
Post by Steve Barber
To this day, Thomas speaks at JFK conspiracy conferences spreading his
untruth regarding the speech on channel 1 which he claims is crosstalk.
Then why do YOU keep calling it crosstalk? Are you trying to cave in?
I am quoting, Thomas because *he* calls the N.T. Fisher ch. 2
transmission "crosstalk". Your poor reading comprehension skills get the
best of you.
Do you always put it in air quotes?
No. Only when I have to point something out to you!!
Can you even admit that it was crosstalk?
It isn't crosstalk.
Fine. WHat do you call it? You admit that 2 units are transmitting on
the same channel at the same time?
There you are with the "admit" thing again. It isn't crosstalk. It's not
the same phrase. It can't be used for timing. That's all that matters.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by odellm
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Thomas believes that the "gunshots" are on the channel 1 Dictabelt, but
that there are five--not four gunshots-- and he supports the conclusions
reached by the acoustics experts for the HSCA.
OMG, do you realize that you just admitted that I am not the only one who
thinks there were 5 shots on the tape? Can't the cover-up do a better job
of corralling you in? Next week you'll admit that you KNOW it was a
conspiracy and you knew the grassy knoll shooter. Somebody stop him before
he ruins your perfect little cover-up.
"OMG", do you realize that I admitted nothing of the kind and that you
poor reading skills have gotten the best of you again? Read that
paragraph again, old man.
You just said that someone else believes there are 5 shots on the tape.
Post by Steve Barber
"Thomas believes that the "gunshots" are on the channel 1 Dictabelt, but
that there are five--not four gunshots--and he supports the conclusions
reached by the acoustics experts for the HSCA."
There, you did it again. Stop incriminating yourself.
You are filled with poop, Old Man!
And McAdams approves messages like that because you are one of his minions.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Where within the paragraph have I "admitted" anything? I have always
known and acknowledged that Thomas believes there are 5--not 4 --gunshots
on the Dictabelt recording!
Then I am not the only one claiming 5 gunshots.
No, you aren't. You and Thomas are the only two that I am aware of who do
believe in 5 shots! I believe there are NONE on the Dictabelt!
Oh, that YOU are aware of.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
He might even admit that Trump paid back Cohen after he lied about it
1,000 times.
We all know that you suffer with Trump derangement syndrome, old man.
I am just rubbing it in because almost all WC defenders here are also
Trump defenders.
And I like getting your goat and rubbing your nose in it because you
suffer from Trump derangement syndrome.
Because you are a Trump supporter.
______________
Something else. Steve and the NAS seem to believe that the cycle with
the stuck open mic was PARKED in the basement of the Trade Mart. Do you
believe the same thing?
The NAS didn't say that. Rader said that in a personal interview many
years later. I assume it's his opinion. He may be right, or not. I have
no position on where the motorcycle really was.
Michael
GKnoll
2018-05-25 18:30:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by odellm
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by odellm
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by BOZ
https://jfk007.com/1053-2/
The last section re: Don Thomas, is spot on. Thomas, to this day, spreads
his absolute lies regarding what he claims is "crosstalk", knowing fully
well that it isn't crosstalk. It was Micheal o'Dell who convinced Thomas
that he was using inferior copies of the police recordings when Thomas
wrote his peer reviewed paper in 2001. After Michael presented Thomas with
the facts--that the channel two recording was useless as a timing tool to
prove the HSCA's claim that H.B. McLain had the open mic was correct.
(This was nearly twenty years after the Ramsey panel Report in 1982).
You have that reversed. It was the NAS panel who LIED about the channel
two timing to falsely claim that the "shots" were one minute after the
assassination. They and you think that it took a fill minute for Decker to
realize what had happened and tell everyone to go to the hospital. Was
Greer listening to channel one or channel two?
Congratulations! You win the Stupid Post Of The Day award, Marsh!
This is not an honest and open debate. McAdams allows YOU to call me
stupid because you are one of his minions, but I am not even allowed to
point out when you are wrong.
Stop whining, Marsh and grow a pair.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
FYI, Curry held the mic and was on the radio talking to the motorcade
officers and the dispatcher, therefore, Decker couldn't use the radio
until after Curry was finished with the mic. There was only one mic
because Decker didn't have a direct line to his office so had to use
Curry's radio and tell the dispatcher at DPD headquarters to contact his
department.
That is why I asked you which message you were talking about.
Again, do your really think it took Decker a full minute before he made
that call? Yes or no?
This is a loaded question coming from you, of course. I gave you my
answer above. You cannot be taken seriously.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Furthermore, none of us knows exactly how long it was after the shooting
before Curry made the transmission "Go to the hospital, officers!"
Well, again, do you think it took a full minute? Yes or no?
And WHo first claimed to hear the message, "Going to the hospital"?
Who is going to take credit for this orphan? Do we need a paternity test?
The "Going to the hospital words are *NOT* "a message", Marsh, and you
know it. Stop playing your insane games! What we "need" is for you to
get off this kick about a typo BOZ made and move on. You look totally
ridiculous harping about something that was an accident.
Then why did BOZ say it? WHo put him up to it?
WHen some flat out lies you cover up for him and all it a typo.
I just want to know who put him up to it.
So if another one of you guys did exactly the same thing you would again
excuse it as just a typo.
I see a pattern emerging.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Furthermore, you'd better get your stopwatch out! On the channel 2
recording, the dispatcher had announced the time "12:30 KKB 364, Dallas".
Nine seconds pass then Curry announces "Triple Underpass". It is a known
fact that After 4 seconds of silence, the grey audograph recorder stopped
recording until the next transmission reactivated it. Since the voice
It is not a fact. It is an ASSuMPTION.
No, it's not an assumption. You want it to be, but it isn't. It *IS* a
fact and you have to live with it. Otherwise, post your prrof that it is
an "assumption"!
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
traffic was constant from the moment that Curry opened his mic and gave
You can't prove that the voice traffic was constant. If you try, that
gives you problems for the silence on channel 2.
ATTENTION PLEASE! LISTEN TO THE RECORDING, MARSH! LISTEN TO THE
RECORDING! And do not use your recording that you purchased from Hawkins
back in the 70's that contains skips and was recorded at the wrong speed!
THE VOICE TRAFFIC WAS CONSTANT AND HEAVY FOLLOWING "GO TO THE HOSPITAL,
OFFICERS!" Stop living in denial and get with the program!
Try to pay attention. YOU gave me a copy. Are you saying that was bogus?
You just linked to a copy on YouTube. Are you saying that is bogus?
I have your 45 record from Gallery. Are you saying that is bogus?
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
the first transmission following the shooting, which is "Go to the
hospital, officers!" timing is accurate and possible because from that
point on, radio activity was heavy and constant and the recorder did not
stop because there was never a 4 second gap between transmissions --
therefore giving us a clock from the time Curry breaks in and says "Go to
the hospital, officers!" until Decker completes saying the words "hold
BOZ said it was, "Going to the hospital." Was BOZ lying? Are you allowed
to call a fewllow minion a liar?
Post by Steve Barber
everything until the homicide and other investigators can get there". Over
a minute elapsed. Therefore, you are full of poop and the Ramsey panel
did no such thing as "lie" about the timing on channel 2! You, on the
The magical one minute of silence.
"Magical" only in your twisted thinking, because there was no "One
minute of silence"!
Yes, there was. According to the NAS panel there was one whole minute
when no units were calling in.
The NAS panel timing was a little off. The correct number is as low as 30
seconds. And it's not 30 seconds in one chunk, it's a cuumulative 30
seconds.
Very good. So you admit that the NAS panel was wrong. How come Steve can
never admit anything?
I'm not "admitting" it. I've always said it. Their timing was wrong.
Their conclusions were not.
How come you can never admit anything? How come you can't have an honest
conversation about the subject without the inflammatory language?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Do you know the segment I am talking about? The NAS said that there was
a whole minute when no messages were recorded on channel 2.
Didn't we just cover that?
Post by Anthony Marsh
BBN stated that "Channel 1 transmissions were a continuous record of
Dallas police activity; channel 2 transmissions were voice activated,
and therefore an intermittent record of communications, for the most
part those of Dallas Police Chief Jesse E. Curry and the headquarters
dispatcher."
I pointed out that it doesn't make sense that there would be absolutely
no radio traffic on channel just after the shooting.
That was the only way that the NAS could try to claim that the shots are
one minute after the assassination. By lying about the timing of channel 2.
That's not true. Nobody said there was absolutely no traffic after the
shooting. It's only that in the few minutes after the shooting there a
cuumulative total of at least 30 seconds of machine pauses.
And that's not the reason the shots are after the assassination. This is
repeatedly misreprsented by NAS critics. The machine pauses are not
injected to justify the conclusion. The conclusion is justified by the
simulatneous existinence of "hold everything secure..." right where the
shots are supposed to be. The machine pauses are a factual observation of
the timing data.
The "hold everything secure..." crosstalk is not sufficient to prove that
the impulses identified by W&A and BBN are not impulses from gun shots.
Post by odellm
Post by Anthony Marsh
Plus we can HEAR the dispatcher say that someone up on Stemmons has his
mic button stuck on. Do you deny that he said that?
So what? The dispatcher didn't have eyes on anyone. He only heard what
we can hear on the recording.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by odellm
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
other hand, made up something ridiculously false. Are you still using an
inferior copy a channel two, relying on the copy you purchased from Dave
Hawkins, Marsh? Shame on you.
Bulderdash. YOU gave me a copy. And I have your Gallery record too.
GREAT! Then get busy and put it to use, old man!
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
After Michael O'Dell convinced Don Thomas he was wrong, Thomas conceded.
No.
Don't tell me "No"! I know for a fact!
No, you have a habit of making up false claims.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Apparently, Thomas couldn't admit complete defeat, so, he invented his
"crosstalk" theory, based primarily on the transcript written by James C.
Bowles) DPD Communications Supervisor at the time of the assassination
(See the transcript in Larry Sneed's excellent book "No More Silence").
Thomas was/is wrong, again, and several members of the Ramsey panel
regrouped performed a study on Thomas' conclusions, wrote a detailed
report regarding Thomas' theory, and Micheal O'Dell aided in proving
http://jfk-records.com/ScienceAndJustice_45%284%29_207-226%282005%29.pdf
Are you saying that Bowles was part of a hoax to put shots on the tape?
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
I also wrote an article(which was featured in Bugliosi's Reclaiming
History) which you can read here, regarding heterodyne tones (beep tones)
that accompany the speech which Thomas claims is crosstalk on channel 1.
The fact that there are heterodyne tones accompanying the speech that
Thomas says is crosstalk proves that it isn't crosstalk at all. Which you
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2007/07/of-crosstalk-and-bells-rebuttal-to-don.html
But did he quote your essay about the "bell" sound?
Post by Steve Barber
To this day, Thomas speaks at JFK conspiracy conferences spreading his
untruth regarding the speech on channel 1 which he claims is crosstalk.
Then why do YOU keep calling it crosstalk? Are you trying to cave in?
I am quoting, Thomas because *he* calls the N.T. Fisher ch. 2
transmission "crosstalk". Your poor reading comprehension skills get the
best of you.
Do you always put it in air quotes?
No. Only when I have to point something out to you!!
Can you even admit that it was crosstalk?
It isn't crosstalk.
Fine. WHat do you call it? You admit that 2 units are transmitting on
the same channel at the same time?
There you are with the "admit" thing again. It isn't crosstalk. It's not
the same phrase. It can't be used for timing. That's all that matters.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by odellm
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Thomas believes that the "gunshots" are on the channel 1 Dictabelt, but
that there are five--not four gunshots-- and he supports the conclusions
reached by the acoustics experts for the HSCA.
OMG, do you realize that you just admitted that I am not the only one who
thinks there were 5 shots on the tape? Can't the cover-up do a better job
of corralling you in? Next week you'll admit that you KNOW it was a
conspiracy and you knew the grassy knoll shooter. Somebody stop him before
he ruins your perfect little cover-up.
"OMG", do you realize that I admitted nothing of the kind and that you
poor reading skills have gotten the best of you again? Read that
paragraph again, old man.
You just said that someone else believes there are 5 shots on the tape.
Post by Steve Barber
"Thomas believes that the "gunshots" are on the channel 1 Dictabelt, but
that there are five--not four gunshots--and he supports the conclusions
reached by the acoustics experts for the HSCA."
There, you did it again. Stop incriminating yourself.
You are filled with poop, Old Man!
And McAdams approves messages like that because you are one of his minions.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Where within the paragraph have I "admitted" anything? I have always
known and acknowledged that Thomas believes there are 5--not 4 --gunshots
on the Dictabelt recording!
Then I am not the only one claiming 5 gunshots.
No, you aren't. You and Thomas are the only two that I am aware of who do
believe in 5 shots! I believe there are NONE on the Dictabelt!
Oh, that YOU are aware of.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
He might even admit that Trump paid back Cohen after he lied about it
1,000 times.
We all know that you suffer with Trump derangement syndrome, old man.
I am just rubbing it in because almost all WC defenders here are also
Trump defenders.
And I like getting your goat and rubbing your nose in it because you
suffer from Trump derangement syndrome.
Because you are a Trump supporter.
______________
Something else. Steve and the NAS seem to believe that the cycle with
the stuck open mic was PARKED in the basement of the Trade Mart. Do you
believe the same thing?
The NAS didn't say that. Rader said that in a personal interview many
years later. I assume it's his opinion. He may be right, or not. I have
no position on where the motorcycle really was.
Michael
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-26 23:22:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GKnoll
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by BOZ
https://jfk007.com/1053-2/
The last section re: Don Thomas, is spot on. Thomas, to this day, spreads
his absolute lies regarding what he claims is "crosstalk", knowing fully
well that it isn't crosstalk. It was Micheal o'Dell who convinced Thomas
that he was using inferior copies of the police recordings when Thomas
wrote his peer reviewed paper in 2001. After Michael presented
Thomas with
the facts--that the channel two recording was useless as a timing tool to
prove the HSCA's claim that H.B. McLain had the open mic was correct.
(This was nearly twenty years after the Ramsey panel Report in 1982).
You have that reversed. It was the NAS panel who LIED about the channel
two timing to falsely claim that the "shots" were one minute after the
assassination. They and you think that it took a fill minute for Decker to
realize what had happened and tell everyone to go to the hospital. Was
Greer listening to channel one or channel two?
        Congratulations! You win the Stupid Post Of The Day
award, Marsh!
This is not an honest and open debate. McAdams allows YOU to call me
stupid because you are one of his minions, but I am not even allowed to
point out when you are wrong.
      Stop whining, Marsh and grow a pair.
Post by Anthony Marsh
     FYI, Curry held the mic and was on the radio talking to the
motorcade
officers and the dispatcher, therefore, Decker couldn't use the radio
until after Curry was finished with the mic.  There was only one
mic
because Decker didn't have a direct line to his office so had to use
Curry's radio and tell the dispatcher at DPD headquarters to contact his
department.
That is why I asked you which message you were talking about.
Again, do your really think it took Decker a full minute before he made
that call? Yes or no?
      This is a loaded question coming from you, of course. I gave
you my
answer above. You cannot be taken seriously.
Post by Anthony Marsh
     Furthermore, none of us knows exactly how long it was after
the shooting
before Curry made the transmission "Go to the hospital, officers!"
Well, again, do you think it took a full minute? Yes or no?
And WHo first claimed to hear the message, "Going to the hospital"?
Who is going to take credit for this orphan? Do we need a paternity test?
      The "Going to the hospital words are *NOT* "a message",
Marsh, and you
know it.  Stop playing your insane games!  What we "need" is for
you to
get off this kick about a typo BOZ made and move on.  You look
totally
ridiculous harping about something that was an accident.
Then why did BOZ say it? WHo put him up to it?
WHen some flat out lies you cover up for him and all it a typo.
I just want to know who put him up to it.
So if another one of you guys did exactly the same thing you would again
excuse it as just a typo.
I see a pattern emerging.
Post by Anthony Marsh
     Furthermore, you'd better get your stopwatch out! On the
channel 2
recording, the dispatcher had announced the time "12:30 KKB 364, Dallas".
Nine seconds pass then Curry announces "Triple Underpass". It is a known
fact that After 4 seconds of silence, the grey audograph recorder stopped
recording until the next transmission reactivated it.  Since the
voice
It is not a fact. It is an ASSuMPTION.
     No, it's not an assumption. You want it to be, but it isn't.
It *IS* a
fact and you have to live with it. Otherwise, post your prrof that it is
an "assumption"!
Post by Anthony Marsh
traffic was constant from the moment that Curry opened his mic and gave
You can't prove that the voice traffic was constant. If you try, that
gives you problems for the silence on channel 2.
      ATTENTION PLEASE! LISTEN TO THE RECORDING, MARSH!  LISTEN TO
THE
RECORDING! And do not use your recording that you purchased from Hawkins
back in the 70's that contains skips and was recorded at the wrong speed!
THE VOICE TRAFFIC WAS CONSTANT AND HEAVY FOLLOWING "GO TO THE HOSPITAL,
OFFICERS!"  Stop living in denial and get with the program!
Try to pay attention. YOU gave me a copy. Are you saying that was bogus?
You just linked to a copy on YouTube. Are you saying that is bogus?
I have your 45 record from Gallery. Are you saying that is bogus?
Post by Anthony Marsh
the first transmission following the shooting, which is "Go to the
hospital, officers!" timing is accurate and possible because from that
point on, radio activity was heavy and constant and the recorder did not
stop because there was never a 4 second gap between
transmissions --
therefore giving us a clock from the time Curry breaks in and says "Go to
the hospital, officers!" until Decker completes saying the words "hold
BOZ said it was, "Going to the hospital." Was BOZ lying? Are you allowed
to call a fewllow minion a liar?
everything until the homicide and other investigators can get there". Over
a minute elapsed.  Therefore, you are full of poop and the
Ramsey panel
did no such thing as "lie" about the timing on channel 2! You, on the
The magical one minute of silence.
      "Magical" only in your twisted thinking, because there was
no "One
minute of silence"!
Yes, there was. According to the NAS panel there was one whole minute
when no units were calling in.
The NAS panel timing was a little off.  The correct number is as low
as 30
seconds.  And it's not 30 seconds in one chunk, it's a cuumulative 30
seconds.
Very good. So you admit that the NAS panel was wrong. How come Steve can
never admit anything?
I'm not "admitting" it.  I've always said it.  Their timing was wrong.
Their conclusions were not.
How come you can never admit anything?  How come you can't have an honest
conversation about the subject without the inflammatory language?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Do you know the segment I am talking about? The NAS said that there was
a whole minute when no messages were recorded on channel 2.
Didn't we just cover that?
Post by Anthony Marsh
BBN stated that "Channel 1 transmissions were a continuous record of
Dallas police activity; channel 2 transmissions were voice activated,
and therefore an intermittent record of communications, for the most
part those of Dallas Police Chief Jesse E. Curry and the headquarters
dispatcher."
I pointed out that it doesn't make sense that there would be absolutely
no radio traffic on channel just after the shooting.
That was the only way that the NAS could try to claim that the shots are
one minute after the assassination. By lying about the timing of channel 2.
That's not true.  Nobody said there was absolutely no traffic after the
shooting.  It's only that in the few minutes after the shooting there a
cuumulative total of at least 30 seconds of machine pauses.
And that's not the reason the shots are after the assassination.  This is
repeatedly misreprsented by NAS critics.  The machine pauses are not
injected to justify the conclusion.  The conclusion is justified by the
simulatneous existinence of "hold everything secure..." right where the
shots are supposed to be.  The machine pauses are a factual
observation of
the timing data.
The "hold everything secure..." crosstalk is not sufficient to prove
that the impulses identified by W&A and BBN are not impulses from gun
shots.
Thanks for admitting that. Did you tell Steve?
But can we still thank him for identifying it as crosstalk?
Post by GKnoll
Post by Anthony Marsh
Plus we can HEAR the dispatcher say that someone up on Stemmons has his
mic button stuck on. Do you deny that he said that?
So what?  The dispatcher didn't have eyes on anyone.  He only heard what
we can hear on the recording.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
other hand, made up something ridiculously false.  Are you still
using an
inferior copy a channel two, relying on the copy you purchased from Dave
Hawkins, Marsh? Shame on you.
Bulderdash. YOU gave me a copy. And I have your Gallery record too.
      GREAT! Then get busy and put it to use, old man!
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
       After Michael O'Dell convinced Don Thomas he was wrong,
Thomas conceded.
No.
     Don't tell me "No"! I know for a fact!
No, you have a habit of making up false claims.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Apparently, Thomas couldn't admit complete defeat, so, he invented his
"crosstalk" theory, based primarily on the transcript written by James C.
Bowles) DPD Communications Supervisor at the time of the assassination
(See the transcript in Larry Sneed's excellent book "No More Silence").
Thomas was/is wrong, again, and several members of the Ramsey panel
regrouped performed a study on Thomas' conclusions, wrote a detailed
report regarding Thomas' theory, and Micheal O'Dell aided in proving
http://jfk-records.com/ScienceAndJustice_45%284%29_207-226%282005%29.pdf
Are you saying that Bowles was part of a hoax to put shots on the tape?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
      I also wrote an article(which was featured in Bugliosi's
Reclaiming
History) which you can read here, regarding heterodyne tones (beep tones)
that accompany the speech which Thomas claims is crosstalk on channel 1.
The fact that there are heterodyne tones accompanying the speech that
Thomas says is crosstalk proves that it isn't crosstalk at
all.  Which you
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2007/07/of-crosstalk-and-bells-rebuttal-to-don.html
But did he quote your essay about the "bell" sound?
Post by Steve Barber
       To this day, Thomas speaks at JFK conspiracy
conferences spreading his
untruth regarding the speech on channel 1 which he claims is crosstalk.
Then why do YOU keep calling it crosstalk? Are you trying to cave in?
       I am quoting, Thomas because *he* calls the N.T. Fisher
ch. 2
transmission "crosstalk".  Your poor reading comprehension
skills get the
best of you.
Do you always put it in air quotes?
     No. Only when I have to point something out to you!!
Can you even admit that it was crosstalk?
It isn't crosstalk.
Fine. WHat do you call it? You admit that 2 units are transmitting on
the same channel at the same time?
There you are with the "admit" thing again.  It isn't crosstalk.  It's
not
the same phrase.  It can't be used for timing.  That's all that matters.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Thomas believes that the "gunshots" are on the channel 1 Dictabelt, but
that there are five--not four gunshots-- and he supports the conclusions
reached by the acoustics experts for the HSCA.
OMG, do you realize that you just admitted that I am not the only one who
thinks there were 5 shots on the tape? Can't the cover-up do a better job
of corralling you in? Next week you'll admit that you KNOW it was a
conspiracy and you knew the grassy knoll shooter. Somebody stop him before
he ruins your perfect little cover-up.
      "OMG", do you realize that I admitted nothing of the kind
and that you
poor reading skills have gotten the best of you again?  Read that
paragraph again, old man.
You just said that someone else believes there are 5 shots on the tape.
     "Thomas believes that the "gunshots" are on the channel 1
Dictabelt, but
that there are five--not four gunshots--and he supports the conclusions
reached by the acoustics experts for the HSCA."
There, you did it again. Stop incriminating yourself.
     You are filled with poop, Old Man!
And McAdams approves messages like that because you are one of his minions.
Post by Anthony Marsh
     Where within the paragraph have I "admitted" anything? I
have always
known and acknowledged that Thomas believes there are 5--not 4 --gunshots
on the Dictabelt recording!
Then I am not the only one claiming 5 gunshots.
No, you aren't. You and Thomas are the only two that I am aware of who do
believe in 5 shots! I believe there are NONE on the Dictabelt!
Oh, that YOU are aware of.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
He might even admit that Trump paid back Cohen after he lied about it
1,000 times.
We all know that you suffer with Trump derangement syndrome, old man.
I am just rubbing it in because almost all WC defenders here are also
Trump defenders.
     And I like getting your goat and rubbing your nose in it
because you
suffer from Trump derangement syndrome.
Because you are a Trump supporter.
______________
Something else. Steve and the NAS seem to believe that the cycle with
the stuck open mic was PARKED in the basement of the Trade Mart. Do you
believe the same thing?
The NAS didn't say that.  Rader said that in a personal interview many
years later.  I assume it's his opinion.  He may be right, or not.  I
have
no position on where the motorcycle really was.
Michael
GKnoll
2018-05-25 18:31:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by odellm
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by odellm
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by BOZ
https://jfk007.com/1053-2/
The last section re: Don Thomas, is spot on. Thomas, to this day, spreads
his absolute lies regarding what he claims is "crosstalk", knowing fully
well that it isn't crosstalk. It was Micheal o'Dell who convinced Thomas
that he was using inferior copies of the police recordings when Thomas
wrote his peer reviewed paper in 2001. After Michael presented Thomas with
the facts--that the channel two recording was useless as a timing tool to
prove the HSCA's claim that H.B. McLain had the open mic was correct.
(This was nearly twenty years after the Ramsey panel Report in 1982).
You have that reversed. It was the NAS panel who LIED about the channel
two timing to falsely claim that the "shots" were one minute after the
assassination. They and you think that it took a fill minute for Decker to
realize what had happened and tell everyone to go to the hospital. Was
Greer listening to channel one or channel two?
Congratulations! You win the Stupid Post Of The Day award, Marsh!
This is not an honest and open debate. McAdams allows YOU to call me
stupid because you are one of his minions, but I am not even allowed to
point out when you are wrong.
Stop whining, Marsh and grow a pair.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
FYI, Curry held the mic and was on the radio talking to the motorcade
officers and the dispatcher, therefore, Decker couldn't use the radio
until after Curry was finished with the mic. There was only one mic
because Decker didn't have a direct line to his office so had to use
Curry's radio and tell the dispatcher at DPD headquarters to contact his
department.
That is why I asked you which message you were talking about.
Again, do your really think it took Decker a full minute before he made
that call? Yes or no?
This is a loaded question coming from you, of course. I gave you my
answer above. You cannot be taken seriously.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Furthermore, none of us knows exactly how long it was after the shooting
before Curry made the transmission "Go to the hospital, officers!"
Well, again, do you think it took a full minute? Yes or no?
And WHo first claimed to hear the message, "Going to the hospital"?
Who is going to take credit for this orphan? Do we need a paternity test?
The "Going to the hospital words are *NOT* "a message", Marsh, and you
know it. Stop playing your insane games! What we "need" is for you to
get off this kick about a typo BOZ made and move on. You look totally
ridiculous harping about something that was an accident.
Then why did BOZ say it? WHo put him up to it?
WHen some flat out lies you cover up for him and all it a typo.
I just want to know who put him up to it.
So if another one of you guys did exactly the same thing you would again
excuse it as just a typo.
I see a pattern emerging.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Furthermore, you'd better get your stopwatch out! On the channel 2
recording, the dispatcher had announced the time "12:30 KKB 364, Dallas".
Nine seconds pass then Curry announces "Triple Underpass". It is a known
fact that After 4 seconds of silence, the grey audograph recorder stopped
recording until the next transmission reactivated it. Since the voice
It is not a fact. It is an ASSuMPTION.
No, it's not an assumption. You want it to be, but it isn't. It *IS* a
fact and you have to live with it. Otherwise, post your prrof that it is
an "assumption"!
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
traffic was constant from the moment that Curry opened his mic and gave
You can't prove that the voice traffic was constant. If you try, that
gives you problems for the silence on channel 2.
ATTENTION PLEASE! LISTEN TO THE RECORDING, MARSH! LISTEN TO THE
RECORDING! And do not use your recording that you purchased from Hawkins
back in the 70's that contains skips and was recorded at the wrong speed!
THE VOICE TRAFFIC WAS CONSTANT AND HEAVY FOLLOWING "GO TO THE HOSPITAL,
OFFICERS!" Stop living in denial and get with the program!
Try to pay attention. YOU gave me a copy. Are you saying that was bogus?
You just linked to a copy on YouTube. Are you saying that is bogus?
I have your 45 record from Gallery. Are you saying that is bogus?
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
the first transmission following the shooting, which is "Go to the
hospital, officers!" timing is accurate and possible because from that
point on, radio activity was heavy and constant and the recorder did not
stop because there was never a 4 second gap between transmissions --
therefore giving us a clock from the time Curry breaks in and says "Go to
the hospital, officers!" until Decker completes saying the words "hold
BOZ said it was, "Going to the hospital." Was BOZ lying? Are you allowed
to call a fewllow minion a liar?
Post by Steve Barber
everything until the homicide and other investigators can get there". Over
a minute elapsed. Therefore, you are full of poop and the Ramsey panel
did no such thing as "lie" about the timing on channel 2! You, on the
The magical one minute of silence.
"Magical" only in your twisted thinking, because there was no "One
minute of silence"!
Yes, there was. According to the NAS panel there was one whole minute
when no units were calling in.
The NAS panel timing was a little off. The correct number is as low as 30
seconds. And it's not 30 seconds in one chunk, it's a cuumulative 30
seconds.
Very good. So you admit that the NAS panel was wrong. How come Steve can
never admit anything?
I'm not "admitting" it. I've always said it. Their timing was wrong.
Their conclusions were not.
How come you can never admit anything? How come you can't have an honest
conversation about the subject without the inflammatory language?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Do you know the segment I am talking about? The NAS said that there was
a whole minute when no messages were recorded on channel 2.
Didn't we just cover that?
Post by Anthony Marsh
BBN stated that "Channel 1 transmissions were a continuous record of
Dallas police activity; channel 2 transmissions were voice activated,
and therefore an intermittent record of communications, for the most
part those of Dallas Police Chief Jesse E. Curry and the headquarters
dispatcher."
I pointed out that it doesn't make sense that there would be absolutely
no radio traffic on channel just after the shooting.
That was the only way that the NAS could try to claim that the shots are
one minute after the assassination. By lying about the timing of channel 2.
That's not true. Nobody said there was absolutely no traffic after the
shooting. It's only that in the few minutes after the shooting there a
cuumulative total of at least 30 seconds of machine pauses.
And that's not the reason the shots are after the assassination. This is
repeatedly misreprsented by NAS critics. The machine pauses are not
injected to justify the conclusion. The conclusion is justified by the
simulatneous existinence of "hold everything secure..." right where the
shots are supposed to be. The machine pauses are a factual observation of
the timing data.
The "hold everything secure..." crosstalk starts with a loud click. What
caused the loud click?
Post by odellm
Post by Anthony Marsh
Plus we can HEAR the dispatcher say that someone up on Stemmons has his
mic button stuck on. Do you deny that he said that?
So what? The dispatcher didn't have eyes on anyone. He only heard what
we can hear on the recording.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by odellm
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
other hand, made up something ridiculously false. Are you still using an
inferior copy a channel two, relying on the copy you purchased from Dave
Hawkins, Marsh? Shame on you.
Bulderdash. YOU gave me a copy. And I have your Gallery record too.
GREAT! Then get busy and put it to use, old man!
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
After Michael O'Dell convinced Don Thomas he was wrong, Thomas conceded.
No.
Don't tell me "No"! I know for a fact!
No, you have a habit of making up false claims.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Apparently, Thomas couldn't admit complete defeat, so, he invented his
"crosstalk" theory, based primarily on the transcript written by James C.
Bowles) DPD Communications Supervisor at the time of the assassination
(See the transcript in Larry Sneed's excellent book "No More Silence").
Thomas was/is wrong, again, and several members of the Ramsey panel
regrouped performed a study on Thomas' conclusions, wrote a detailed
report regarding Thomas' theory, and Micheal O'Dell aided in proving
http://jfk-records.com/ScienceAndJustice_45%284%29_207-226%282005%29.pdf
Are you saying that Bowles was part of a hoax to put shots on the tape?
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
I also wrote an article(which was featured in Bugliosi's Reclaiming
History) which you can read here, regarding heterodyne tones (beep tones)
that accompany the speech which Thomas claims is crosstalk on channel 1.
The fact that there are heterodyne tones accompanying the speech that
Thomas says is crosstalk proves that it isn't crosstalk at all. Which you
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2007/07/of-crosstalk-and-bells-rebuttal-to-don.html
But did he quote your essay about the "bell" sound?
Post by Steve Barber
To this day, Thomas speaks at JFK conspiracy conferences spreading his
untruth regarding the speech on channel 1 which he claims is crosstalk.
Then why do YOU keep calling it crosstalk? Are you trying to cave in?
I am quoting, Thomas because *he* calls the N.T. Fisher ch. 2
transmission "crosstalk". Your poor reading comprehension skills get the
best of you.
Do you always put it in air quotes?
No. Only when I have to point something out to you!!
Can you even admit that it was crosstalk?
It isn't crosstalk.
Fine. WHat do you call it? You admit that 2 units are transmitting on
the same channel at the same time?
There you are with the "admit" thing again. It isn't crosstalk. It's not
the same phrase. It can't be used for timing. That's all that matters.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by odellm
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Thomas believes that the "gunshots" are on the channel 1 Dictabelt, but
that there are five--not four gunshots-- and he supports the conclusions
reached by the acoustics experts for the HSCA.
OMG, do you realize that you just admitted that I am not the only one who
thinks there were 5 shots on the tape? Can't the cover-up do a better job
of corralling you in? Next week you'll admit that you KNOW it was a
conspiracy and you knew the grassy knoll shooter. Somebody stop him before
he ruins your perfect little cover-up.
"OMG", do you realize that I admitted nothing of the kind and that you
poor reading skills have gotten the best of you again? Read that
paragraph again, old man.
You just said that someone else believes there are 5 shots on the tape.
Post by Steve Barber
"Thomas believes that the "gunshots" are on the channel 1 Dictabelt, but
that there are five--not four gunshots--and he supports the conclusions
reached by the acoustics experts for the HSCA."
There, you did it again. Stop incriminating yourself.
You are filled with poop, Old Man!
And McAdams approves messages like that because you are one of his minions.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Where within the paragraph have I "admitted" anything? I have always
known and acknowledged that Thomas believes there are 5--not 4 --gunshots
on the Dictabelt recording!
Then I am not the only one claiming 5 gunshots.
No, you aren't. You and Thomas are the only two that I am aware of who do
believe in 5 shots! I believe there are NONE on the Dictabelt!
Oh, that YOU are aware of.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
He might even admit that Trump paid back Cohen after he lied about it
1,000 times.
We all know that you suffer with Trump derangement syndrome, old man.
I am just rubbing it in because almost all WC defenders here are also
Trump defenders.
And I like getting your goat and rubbing your nose in it because you
suffer from Trump derangement syndrome.
Because you are a Trump supporter.
______________
Something else. Steve and the NAS seem to believe that the cycle with
the stuck open mic was PARKED in the basement of the Trade Mart. Do you
believe the same thing?
The NAS didn't say that. Rader said that in a personal interview many
years later. I assume it's his opinion. He may be right, or not. I have
no position on where the motorcycle really was.
Michael
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-26 23:20:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GKnoll
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by BOZ
https://jfk007.com/1053-2/
The last section re: Don Thomas, is spot on. Thomas, to this day, spreads
his absolute lies regarding what he claims is "crosstalk", knowing fully
well that it isn't crosstalk. It was Micheal o'Dell who convinced Thomas
that he was using inferior copies of the police recordings when Thomas
wrote his peer reviewed paper in 2001. After Michael presented
Thomas with
the facts--that the channel two recording was useless as a timing tool to
prove the HSCA's claim that H.B. McLain had the open mic was correct.
(This was nearly twenty years after the Ramsey panel Report in 1982).
You have that reversed. It was the NAS panel who LIED about the channel
two timing to falsely claim that the "shots" were one minute after the
assassination. They and you think that it took a fill minute for Decker to
realize what had happened and tell everyone to go to the hospital. Was
Greer listening to channel one or channel two?
        Congratulations! You win the Stupid Post Of The Day
award, Marsh!
This is not an honest and open debate. McAdams allows YOU to call me
stupid because you are one of his minions, but I am not even allowed to
point out when you are wrong.
      Stop whining, Marsh and grow a pair.
Post by Anthony Marsh
     FYI, Curry held the mic and was on the radio talking to the
motorcade
officers and the dispatcher, therefore, Decker couldn't use the radio
until after Curry was finished with the mic.  There was only one
mic
because Decker didn't have a direct line to his office so had to use
Curry's radio and tell the dispatcher at DPD headquarters to contact his
department.
That is why I asked you which message you were talking about.
Again, do your really think it took Decker a full minute before he made
that call? Yes or no?
      This is a loaded question coming from you, of course. I gave
you my
answer above. You cannot be taken seriously.
Post by Anthony Marsh
     Furthermore, none of us knows exactly how long it was after
the shooting
before Curry made the transmission "Go to the hospital, officers!"
Well, again, do you think it took a full minute? Yes or no?
And WHo first claimed to hear the message, "Going to the hospital"?
Who is going to take credit for this orphan? Do we need a paternity test?
      The "Going to the hospital words are *NOT* "a message",
Marsh, and you
know it.  Stop playing your insane games!  What we "need" is for
you to
get off this kick about a typo BOZ made and move on.  You look
totally
ridiculous harping about something that was an accident.
Then why did BOZ say it? WHo put him up to it?
WHen some flat out lies you cover up for him and all it a typo.
I just want to know who put him up to it.
So if another one of you guys did exactly the same thing you would again
excuse it as just a typo.
I see a pattern emerging.
Post by Anthony Marsh
     Furthermore, you'd better get your stopwatch out! On the
channel 2
recording, the dispatcher had announced the time "12:30 KKB 364, Dallas".
Nine seconds pass then Curry announces "Triple Underpass". It is a known
fact that After 4 seconds of silence, the grey audograph recorder stopped
recording until the next transmission reactivated it.  Since the
voice
It is not a fact. It is an ASSuMPTION.
     No, it's not an assumption. You want it to be, but it isn't.
It *IS* a
fact and you have to live with it. Otherwise, post your prrof that it is
an "assumption"!
Post by Anthony Marsh
traffic was constant from the moment that Curry opened his mic and gave
You can't prove that the voice traffic was constant. If you try, that
gives you problems for the silence on channel 2.
      ATTENTION PLEASE! LISTEN TO THE RECORDING, MARSH!  LISTEN TO
THE
RECORDING! And do not use your recording that you purchased from Hawkins
back in the 70's that contains skips and was recorded at the wrong speed!
THE VOICE TRAFFIC WAS CONSTANT AND HEAVY FOLLOWING "GO TO THE HOSPITAL,
OFFICERS!"  Stop living in denial and get with the program!
Try to pay attention. YOU gave me a copy. Are you saying that was bogus?
You just linked to a copy on YouTube. Are you saying that is bogus?
I have your 45 record from Gallery. Are you saying that is bogus?
Post by Anthony Marsh
the first transmission following the shooting, which is "Go to the
hospital, officers!" timing is accurate and possible because from that
point on, radio activity was heavy and constant and the recorder did not
stop because there was never a 4 second gap between
transmissions --
therefore giving us a clock from the time Curry breaks in and says "Go to
the hospital, officers!" until Decker completes saying the words "hold
BOZ said it was, "Going to the hospital." Was BOZ lying? Are you allowed
to call a fewllow minion a liar?
everything until the homicide and other investigators can get there". Over
a minute elapsed.  Therefore, you are full of poop and the
Ramsey panel
did no such thing as "lie" about the timing on channel 2! You, on the
The magical one minute of silence.
      "Magical" only in your twisted thinking, because there was
no "One
minute of silence"!
Yes, there was. According to the NAS panel there was one whole minute
when no units were calling in.
The NAS panel timing was a little off.  The correct number is as low
as 30
seconds.  And it's not 30 seconds in one chunk, it's a cuumulative 30
seconds.
Very good. So you admit that the NAS panel was wrong. How come Steve can
never admit anything?
I'm not "admitting" it.  I've always said it.  Their timing was wrong.
Their conclusions were not.
How come you can never admit anything?  How come you can't have an honest
conversation about the subject without the inflammatory language?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Do you know the segment I am talking about? The NAS said that there was
a whole minute when no messages were recorded on channel 2.
Didn't we just cover that?
Post by Anthony Marsh
BBN stated that "Channel 1 transmissions were a continuous record of
Dallas police activity; channel 2 transmissions were voice activated,
and therefore an intermittent record of communications, for the most
part those of Dallas Police Chief Jesse E. Curry and the headquarters
dispatcher."
I pointed out that it doesn't make sense that there would be absolutely
no radio traffic on channel just after the shooting.
That was the only way that the NAS could try to claim that the shots are
one minute after the assassination. By lying about the timing of channel 2.
That's not true.  Nobody said there was absolutely no traffic after the
shooting.  It's only that in the few minutes after the shooting there a
cuumulative total of at least 30 seconds of machine pauses.
And that's not the reason the shots are after the assassination.  This is
repeatedly misreprsented by NAS critics.  The machine pauses are not
injected to justify the conclusion.  The conclusion is justified by the
simulatneous existinence of "hold everything secure..." right where the
shots are supposed to be.  The machine pauses are a factual
observation of
the timing data.
The "hold everything secure..." crosstalk starts with a loud click. What
caused the loud click?
Maybe mechanical. Maybe internal electronics. Most likely another unit
trying to get onto the channel.
Post by GKnoll
Post by Anthony Marsh
Plus we can HEAR the dispatcher say that someone up on Stemmons has his
mic button stuck on. Do you deny that he said that?
So what?  The dispatcher didn't have eyes on anyone.  He only heard what
we can hear on the recording.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
other hand, made up something ridiculously false.  Are you still
using an
inferior copy a channel two, relying on the copy you purchased from Dave
Hawkins, Marsh? Shame on you.
Bulderdash. YOU gave me a copy. And I have your Gallery record too.
      GREAT! Then get busy and put it to use, old man!
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
       After Michael O'Dell convinced Don Thomas he was wrong,
Thomas conceded.
No.
     Don't tell me "No"! I know for a fact!
No, you have a habit of making up false claims.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Apparently, Thomas couldn't admit complete defeat, so, he invented his
"crosstalk" theory, based primarily on the transcript written by James C.
Bowles) DPD Communications Supervisor at the time of the assassination
(See the transcript in Larry Sneed's excellent book "No More Silence").
Thomas was/is wrong, again, and several members of the Ramsey panel
regrouped performed a study on Thomas' conclusions, wrote a detailed
report regarding Thomas' theory, and Micheal O'Dell aided in proving
http://jfk-records.com/ScienceAndJustice_45%284%29_207-226%282005%29.pdf
Are you saying that Bowles was part of a hoax to put shots on the tape?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
      I also wrote an article(which was featured in Bugliosi's
Reclaiming
History) which you can read here, regarding heterodyne tones (beep tones)
that accompany the speech which Thomas claims is crosstalk on channel 1.
The fact that there are heterodyne tones accompanying the speech that
Thomas says is crosstalk proves that it isn't crosstalk at
all.  Which you
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2007/07/of-crosstalk-and-bells-rebuttal-to-don.html
But did he quote your essay about the "bell" sound?
Post by Steve Barber
       To this day, Thomas speaks at JFK conspiracy
conferences spreading his
untruth regarding the speech on channel 1 which he claims is crosstalk.
Then why do YOU keep calling it crosstalk? Are you trying to cave in?
       I am quoting, Thomas because *he* calls the N.T. Fisher
ch. 2
transmission "crosstalk".  Your poor reading comprehension
skills get the
best of you.
Do you always put it in air quotes?
     No. Only when I have to point something out to you!!
Can you even admit that it was crosstalk?
It isn't crosstalk.
Fine. WHat do you call it? You admit that 2 units are transmitting on
the same channel at the same time?
There you are with the "admit" thing again.  It isn't crosstalk.  It's
not
the same phrase.  It can't be used for timing.  That's all that matters.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Thomas believes that the "gunshots" are on the channel 1 Dictabelt, but
that there are five--not four gunshots-- and he supports the conclusions
reached by the acoustics experts for the HSCA.
OMG, do you realize that you just admitted that I am not the only one who
thinks there were 5 shots on the tape? Can't the cover-up do a better job
of corralling you in? Next week you'll admit that you KNOW it was a
conspiracy and you knew the grassy knoll shooter. Somebody stop him before
he ruins your perfect little cover-up.
      "OMG", do you realize that I admitted nothing of the kind
and that you
poor reading skills have gotten the best of you again?  Read that
paragraph again, old man.
You just said that someone else believes there are 5 shots on the tape.
     "Thomas believes that the "gunshots" are on the channel 1
Dictabelt, but
that there are five--not four gunshots--and he supports the conclusions
reached by the acoustics experts for the HSCA."
There, you did it again. Stop incriminating yourself.
     You are filled with poop, Old Man!
And McAdams approves messages like that because you are one of his minions.
Post by Anthony Marsh
     Where within the paragraph have I "admitted" anything? I
have always
known and acknowledged that Thomas believes there are 5--not 4 --gunshots
on the Dictabelt recording!
Then I am not the only one claiming 5 gunshots.
No, you aren't. You and Thomas are the only two that I am aware of who do
believe in 5 shots! I believe there are NONE on the Dictabelt!
Oh, that YOU are aware of.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
He might even admit that Trump paid back Cohen after he lied about it
1,000 times.
We all know that you suffer with Trump derangement syndrome, old man.
I am just rubbing it in because almost all WC defenders here are also
Trump defenders.
     And I like getting your goat and rubbing your nose in it
because you
suffer from Trump derangement syndrome.
Because you are a Trump supporter.
______________
Something else. Steve and the NAS seem to believe that the cycle with
the stuck open mic was PARKED in the basement of the Trade Mart. Do you
believe the same thing?
The NAS didn't say that.  Rader said that in a personal interview many
years later.  I assume it's his opinion.  He may be right, or not.  I
have
no position on where the motorcycle really was.
Michael
GKnoll
2018-05-25 18:32:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by odellm
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by odellm
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by BOZ
https://jfk007.com/1053-2/
The last section re: Don Thomas, is spot on. Thomas, to this day, spreads
his absolute lies regarding what he claims is "crosstalk", knowing fully
well that it isn't crosstalk. It was Micheal o'Dell who convinced Thomas
that he was using inferior copies of the police recordings when Thomas
wrote his peer reviewed paper in 2001. After Michael presented Thomas with
the facts--that the channel two recording was useless as a timing tool to
prove the HSCA's claim that H.B. McLain had the open mic was correct.
(This was nearly twenty years after the Ramsey panel Report in 1982).
You have that reversed. It was the NAS panel who LIED about the channel
two timing to falsely claim that the "shots" were one minute after the
assassination. They and you think that it took a fill minute for Decker to
realize what had happened and tell everyone to go to the hospital. Was
Greer listening to channel one or channel two?
Congratulations! You win the Stupid Post Of The Day award, Marsh!
This is not an honest and open debate. McAdams allows YOU to call me
stupid because you are one of his minions, but I am not even allowed to
point out when you are wrong.
Stop whining, Marsh and grow a pair.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
FYI, Curry held the mic and was on the radio talking to the motorcade
officers and the dispatcher, therefore, Decker couldn't use the radio
until after Curry was finished with the mic. There was only one mic
because Decker didn't have a direct line to his office so had to use
Curry's radio and tell the dispatcher at DPD headquarters to contact his
department.
That is why I asked you which message you were talking about.
Again, do your really think it took Decker a full minute before he made
that call? Yes or no?
This is a loaded question coming from you, of course. I gave you my
answer above. You cannot be taken seriously.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Furthermore, none of us knows exactly how long it was after the shooting
before Curry made the transmission "Go to the hospital, officers!"
Well, again, do you think it took a full minute? Yes or no?
And WHo first claimed to hear the message, "Going to the hospital"?
Who is going to take credit for this orphan? Do we need a paternity test?
The "Going to the hospital words are *NOT* "a message", Marsh, and you
know it. Stop playing your insane games! What we "need" is for you to
get off this kick about a typo BOZ made and move on. You look totally
ridiculous harping about something that was an accident.
Then why did BOZ say it? WHo put him up to it?
WHen some flat out lies you cover up for him and all it a typo.
I just want to know who put him up to it.
So if another one of you guys did exactly the same thing you would again
excuse it as just a typo.
I see a pattern emerging.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Furthermore, you'd better get your stopwatch out! On the channel 2
recording, the dispatcher had announced the time "12:30 KKB 364, Dallas".
Nine seconds pass then Curry announces "Triple Underpass". It is a known
fact that After 4 seconds of silence, the grey audograph recorder stopped
recording until the next transmission reactivated it. Since the voice
It is not a fact. It is an ASSuMPTION.
No, it's not an assumption. You want it to be, but it isn't. It *IS* a
fact and you have to live with it. Otherwise, post your prrof that it is
an "assumption"!
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
traffic was constant from the moment that Curry opened his mic and gave
You can't prove that the voice traffic was constant. If you try, that
gives you problems for the silence on channel 2.
ATTENTION PLEASE! LISTEN TO THE RECORDING, MARSH! LISTEN TO THE
RECORDING! And do not use your recording that you purchased from Hawkins
back in the 70's that contains skips and was recorded at the wrong speed!
THE VOICE TRAFFIC WAS CONSTANT AND HEAVY FOLLOWING "GO TO THE HOSPITAL,
OFFICERS!" Stop living in denial and get with the program!
Try to pay attention. YOU gave me a copy. Are you saying that was bogus?
You just linked to a copy on YouTube. Are you saying that is bogus?
I have your 45 record from Gallery. Are you saying that is bogus?
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
the first transmission following the shooting, which is "Go to the
hospital, officers!" timing is accurate and possible because from that
point on, radio activity was heavy and constant and the recorder did not
stop because there was never a 4 second gap between transmissions --
therefore giving us a clock from the time Curry breaks in and says "Go to
the hospital, officers!" until Decker completes saying the words "hold
BOZ said it was, "Going to the hospital." Was BOZ lying? Are you allowed
to call a fewllow minion a liar?
Post by Steve Barber
everything until the homicide and other investigators can get there". Over
a minute elapsed. Therefore, you are full of poop and the Ramsey panel
did no such thing as "lie" about the timing on channel 2! You, on the
The magical one minute of silence.
"Magical" only in your twisted thinking, because there was no "One
minute of silence"!
Yes, there was. According to the NAS panel there was one whole minute
when no units were calling in.
The NAS panel timing was a little off. The correct number is as low as 30
seconds. And it's not 30 seconds in one chunk, it's a cuumulative 30
seconds.
Very good. So you admit that the NAS panel was wrong. How come Steve can
never admit anything?
I'm not "admitting" it. I've always said it. Their timing was wrong.
Their conclusions were not.
How come you can never admit anything? How come you can't have an honest
conversation about the subject without the inflammatory language?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Do you know the segment I am talking about? The NAS said that there was
a whole minute when no messages were recorded on channel 2.
Didn't we just cover that?
Post by Anthony Marsh
BBN stated that "Channel 1 transmissions were a continuous record of
Dallas police activity; channel 2 transmissions were voice activated,
and therefore an intermittent record of communications, for the most
part those of Dallas Police Chief Jesse E. Curry and the headquarters
dispatcher."
I pointed out that it doesn't make sense that there would be absolutely
no radio traffic on channel just after the shooting.
That was the only way that the NAS could try to claim that the shots are
one minute after the assassination. By lying about the timing of channel 2.
That's not true. Nobody said there was absolutely no traffic after the
shooting. It's only that in the few minutes after the shooting there a
cuumulative total of at least 30 seconds of machine pauses.
And that's not the reason the shots are after the assassination. This is
repeatedly misreprsented by NAS critics. The machine pauses are not
injected to justify the conclusion. The conclusion is justified by the
simulatneous existinence of "hold everything secure..." right where the
shots are supposed to be. The machine pauses are a factual observation of
the timing data.
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..." crosstalk and the impulses that BBN interpreted as
impulses from a gunshot.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
Post by odellm
Post by Anthony Marsh
Plus we can HEAR the dispatcher say that someone up on Stemmons has his
mic button stuck on. Do you deny that he said that?
So what? The dispatcher didn't have eyes on anyone. He only heard what
we can hear on the recording.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by odellm
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
other hand, made up something ridiculously false. Are you still using an
inferior copy a channel two, relying on the copy you purchased from Dave
Hawkins, Marsh? Shame on you.
Bulderdash. YOU gave me a copy. And I have your Gallery record too.
GREAT! Then get busy and put it to use, old man!
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
After Michael O'Dell convinced Don Thomas he was wrong, Thomas conceded.
No.
Don't tell me "No"! I know for a fact!
No, you have a habit of making up false claims.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Apparently, Thomas couldn't admit complete defeat, so, he invented his
"crosstalk" theory, based primarily on the transcript written by James C.
Bowles) DPD Communications Supervisor at the time of the assassination
(See the transcript in Larry Sneed's excellent book "No More Silence").
Thomas was/is wrong, again, and several members of the Ramsey panel
regrouped performed a study on Thomas' conclusions, wrote a detailed
report regarding Thomas' theory, and Micheal O'Dell aided in proving
http://jfk-records.com/ScienceAndJustice_45%284%29_207-226%282005%29.pdf
Are you saying that Bowles was part of a hoax to put shots on the tape?
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
I also wrote an article(which was featured in Bugliosi's Reclaiming
History) which you can read here, regarding heterodyne tones (beep tones)
that accompany the speech which Thomas claims is crosstalk on channel 1.
The fact that there are heterodyne tones accompanying the speech that
Thomas says is crosstalk proves that it isn't crosstalk at all. Which you
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2007/07/of-crosstalk-and-bells-rebuttal-to-don.html
But did he quote your essay about the "bell" sound?
Post by Steve Barber
To this day, Thomas speaks at JFK conspiracy conferences spreading his
untruth regarding the speech on channel 1 which he claims is crosstalk.
Then why do YOU keep calling it crosstalk? Are you trying to cave in?
I am quoting, Thomas because *he* calls the N.T. Fisher ch. 2
transmission "crosstalk". Your poor reading comprehension skills get the
best of you.
Do you always put it in air quotes?
No. Only when I have to point something out to you!!
Can you even admit that it was crosstalk?
It isn't crosstalk.
Fine. WHat do you call it? You admit that 2 units are transmitting on
the same channel at the same time?
There you are with the "admit" thing again. It isn't crosstalk. It's not
the same phrase. It can't be used for timing. That's all that matters.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by odellm
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Thomas believes that the "gunshots" are on the channel 1 Dictabelt, but
that there are five--not four gunshots-- and he supports the conclusions
reached by the acoustics experts for the HSCA.
OMG, do you realize that you just admitted that I am not the only one who
thinks there were 5 shots on the tape? Can't the cover-up do a better job
of corralling you in? Next week you'll admit that you KNOW it was a
conspiracy and you knew the grassy knoll shooter. Somebody stop him before
he ruins your perfect little cover-up.
"OMG", do you realize that I admitted nothing of the kind and that you
poor reading skills have gotten the best of you again? Read that
paragraph again, old man.
You just said that someone else believes there are 5 shots on the tape.
Post by Steve Barber
"Thomas believes that the "gunshots" are on the channel 1 Dictabelt, but
that there are five--not four gunshots--and he supports the conclusions
reached by the acoustics experts for the HSCA."
There, you did it again. Stop incriminating yourself.
You are filled with poop, Old Man!
And McAdams approves messages like that because you are one of his minions.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Where within the paragraph have I "admitted" anything? I have always
known and acknowledged that Thomas believes there are 5--not 4 --gunshots
on the Dictabelt recording!
Then I am not the only one claiming 5 gunshots.
No, you aren't. You and Thomas are the only two that I am aware of who do
believe in 5 shots! I believe there are NONE on the Dictabelt!
Oh, that YOU are aware of.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
He might even admit that Trump paid back Cohen after he lied about it
1,000 times.
We all know that you suffer with Trump derangement syndrome, old man.
I am just rubbing it in because almost all WC defenders here are also
Trump defenders.
And I like getting your goat and rubbing your nose in it because you
suffer from Trump derangement syndrome.
Because you are a Trump supporter.
______________
Something else. Steve and the NAS seem to believe that the cycle with
the stuck open mic was PARKED in the basement of the Trade Mart. Do you
believe the same thing?
The NAS didn't say that. Rader said that in a personal interview many
years later. I assume it's his opinion. He may be right, or not. I have
no position on where the motorcycle really was.
Michael
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-26 23:19:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GKnoll
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by BOZ
https://jfk007.com/1053-2/
The last section re: Don Thomas, is spot on. Thomas, to this day, spreads
his absolute lies regarding what he claims is "crosstalk", knowing fully
well that it isn't crosstalk. It was Micheal o'Dell who convinced Thomas
that he was using inferior copies of the police recordings when Thomas
wrote his peer reviewed paper in 2001. After Michael presented
Thomas with
the facts--that the channel two recording was useless as a timing tool to
prove the HSCA's claim that H.B. McLain had the open mic was correct.
(This was nearly twenty years after the Ramsey panel Report in 1982).
You have that reversed. It was the NAS panel who LIED about the channel
two timing to falsely claim that the "shots" were one minute after the
assassination. They and you think that it took a fill minute for Decker to
realize what had happened and tell everyone to go to the hospital. Was
Greer listening to channel one or channel two?
        Congratulations! You win the Stupid Post Of The Day
award, Marsh!
This is not an honest and open debate. McAdams allows YOU to call me
stupid because you are one of his minions, but I am not even allowed to
point out when you are wrong.
      Stop whining, Marsh and grow a pair.
Post by Anthony Marsh
     FYI, Curry held the mic and was on the radio talking to the
motorcade
officers and the dispatcher, therefore, Decker couldn't use the radio
until after Curry was finished with the mic.  There was only one
mic
because Decker didn't have a direct line to his office so had to use
Curry's radio and tell the dispatcher at DPD headquarters to contact his
department.
That is why I asked you which message you were talking about.
Again, do your really think it took Decker a full minute before he made
that call? Yes or no?
      This is a loaded question coming from you, of course. I gave
you my
answer above. You cannot be taken seriously.
Post by Anthony Marsh
     Furthermore, none of us knows exactly how long it was after
the shooting
before Curry made the transmission "Go to the hospital, officers!"
Well, again, do you think it took a full minute? Yes or no?
And WHo first claimed to hear the message, "Going to the hospital"?
Who is going to take credit for this orphan? Do we need a paternity test?
      The "Going to the hospital words are *NOT* "a message",
Marsh, and you
know it.  Stop playing your insane games!  What we "need" is for
you to
get off this kick about a typo BOZ made and move on.  You look
totally
ridiculous harping about something that was an accident.
Then why did BOZ say it? WHo put him up to it?
WHen some flat out lies you cover up for him and all it a typo.
I just want to know who put him up to it.
So if another one of you guys did exactly the same thing you would again
excuse it as just a typo.
I see a pattern emerging.
Post by Anthony Marsh
     Furthermore, you'd better get your stopwatch out! On the
channel 2
recording, the dispatcher had announced the time "12:30 KKB 364, Dallas".
Nine seconds pass then Curry announces "Triple Underpass". It is a known
fact that After 4 seconds of silence, the grey audograph recorder stopped
recording until the next transmission reactivated it.  Since the
voice
It is not a fact. It is an ASSuMPTION.
     No, it's not an assumption. You want it to be, but it isn't.
It *IS* a
fact and you have to live with it. Otherwise, post your prrof that it is
an "assumption"!
Post by Anthony Marsh
traffic was constant from the moment that Curry opened his mic and gave
You can't prove that the voice traffic was constant. If you try, that
gives you problems for the silence on channel 2.
      ATTENTION PLEASE! LISTEN TO THE RECORDING, MARSH!  LISTEN TO
THE
RECORDING! And do not use your recording that you purchased from Hawkins
back in the 70's that contains skips and was recorded at the wrong speed!
THE VOICE TRAFFIC WAS CONSTANT AND HEAVY FOLLOWING "GO TO THE HOSPITAL,
OFFICERS!"  Stop living in denial and get with the program!
Try to pay attention. YOU gave me a copy. Are you saying that was bogus?
You just linked to a copy on YouTube. Are you saying that is bogus?
I have your 45 record from Gallery. Are you saying that is bogus?
Post by Anthony Marsh
the first transmission following the shooting, which is "Go to the
hospital, officers!" timing is accurate and possible because from that
point on, radio activity was heavy and constant and the recorder did not
stop because there was never a 4 second gap between
transmissions --
therefore giving us a clock from the time Curry breaks in and says "Go to
the hospital, officers!" until Decker completes saying the words "hold
BOZ said it was, "Going to the hospital." Was BOZ lying? Are you allowed
to call a fewllow minion a liar?
everything until the homicide and other investigators can get there". Over
a minute elapsed.  Therefore, you are full of poop and the
Ramsey panel
did no such thing as "lie" about the timing on channel 2! You, on the
The magical one minute of silence.
      "Magical" only in your twisted thinking, because there was
no "One
minute of silence"!
Yes, there was. According to the NAS panel there was one whole minute
when no units were calling in.
The NAS panel timing was a little off.  The correct number is as low
as 30
seconds.  And it's not 30 seconds in one chunk, it's a cuumulative 30
seconds.
Very good. So you admit that the NAS panel was wrong. How come Steve can
never admit anything?
I'm not "admitting" it.  I've always said it.  Their timing was wrong.
Their conclusions were not.
How come you can never admit anything?  How come you can't have an honest
conversation about the subject without the inflammatory language?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Do you know the segment I am talking about? The NAS said that there was
a whole minute when no messages were recorded on channel 2.
Didn't we just cover that?
Post by Anthony Marsh
BBN stated that "Channel 1 transmissions were a continuous record of
Dallas police activity; channel 2 transmissions were voice activated,
and therefore an intermittent record of communications, for the most
part those of Dallas Police Chief Jesse E. Curry and the headquarters
dispatcher."
I pointed out that it doesn't make sense that there would be absolutely
no radio traffic on channel just after the shooting.
That was the only way that the NAS could try to claim that the shots are
one minute after the assassination. By lying about the timing of channel 2.
That's not true.  Nobody said there was absolutely no traffic after the
shooting.  It's only that in the few minutes after the shooting there a
cuumulative total of at least 30 seconds of machine pauses.
And that's not the reason the shots are after the assassination.  This is
repeatedly misreprsented by NAS critics.  The machine pauses are not
injected to justify the conclusion.  The conclusion is justified by the
simulatneous existinence of "hold everything secure..." right where the
shots are supposed to be.  The machine pauses are a factual
observation of
the timing data.
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..." crosstalk and the impulses that BBN
interpreted as impulses from a gunshot.
So are you agreeing that this is when another unit tried to get onto the
channel?
Post by GKnoll
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
Post by Anthony Marsh
Plus we can HEAR the dispatcher say that someone up on Stemmons has his
mic button stuck on. Do you deny that he said that?
So what?  The dispatcher didn't have eyes on anyone.  He only heard what
we can hear on the recording.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
other hand, made up something ridiculously false.  Are you still
using an
inferior copy a channel two, relying on the copy you purchased from Dave
Hawkins, Marsh? Shame on you.
Bulderdash. YOU gave me a copy. And I have your Gallery record too.
      GREAT! Then get busy and put it to use, old man!
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
       After Michael O'Dell convinced Don Thomas he was wrong,
Thomas conceded.
No.
     Don't tell me "No"! I know for a fact!
No, you have a habit of making up false claims.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Apparently, Thomas couldn't admit complete defeat, so, he invented his
"crosstalk" theory, based primarily on the transcript written by James C.
Bowles) DPD Communications Supervisor at the time of the assassination
(See the transcript in Larry Sneed's excellent book "No More Silence").
Thomas was/is wrong, again, and several members of the Ramsey panel
regrouped performed a study on Thomas' conclusions, wrote a detailed
report regarding Thomas' theory, and Micheal O'Dell aided in proving
http://jfk-records.com/ScienceAndJustice_45%284%29_207-226%282005%29.pdf
Are you saying that Bowles was part of a hoax to put shots on the tape?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
      I also wrote an article(which was featured in Bugliosi's
Reclaiming
History) which you can read here, regarding heterodyne tones (beep tones)
that accompany the speech which Thomas claims is crosstalk on channel 1.
The fact that there are heterodyne tones accompanying the speech that
Thomas says is crosstalk proves that it isn't crosstalk at
all.  Which you
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2007/07/of-crosstalk-and-bells-rebuttal-to-don.html
But did he quote your essay about the "bell" sound?
Post by Steve Barber
       To this day, Thomas speaks at JFK conspiracy
conferences spreading his
untruth regarding the speech on channel 1 which he claims is crosstalk.
Then why do YOU keep calling it crosstalk? Are you trying to cave in?
       I am quoting, Thomas because *he* calls the N.T. Fisher
ch. 2
transmission "crosstalk".  Your poor reading comprehension
skills get the
best of you.
Do you always put it in air quotes?
     No. Only when I have to point something out to you!!
Can you even admit that it was crosstalk?
It isn't crosstalk.
Fine. WHat do you call it? You admit that 2 units are transmitting on
the same channel at the same time?
There you are with the "admit" thing again.  It isn't crosstalk.  It's
not
the same phrase.  It can't be used for timing.  That's all that matters.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Thomas believes that the "gunshots" are on the channel 1 Dictabelt, but
that there are five--not four gunshots-- and he supports the conclusions
reached by the acoustics experts for the HSCA.
OMG, do you realize that you just admitted that I am not the only one who
thinks there were 5 shots on the tape? Can't the cover-up do a better job
of corralling you in? Next week you'll admit that you KNOW it was a
conspiracy and you knew the grassy knoll shooter. Somebody stop him before
he ruins your perfect little cover-up.
      "OMG", do you realize that I admitted nothing of the kind
and that you
poor reading skills have gotten the best of you again?  Read that
paragraph again, old man.
You just said that someone else believes there are 5 shots on the tape.
     "Thomas believes that the "gunshots" are on the channel 1
Dictabelt, but
that there are five--not four gunshots--and he supports the conclusions
reached by the acoustics experts for the HSCA."
There, you did it again. Stop incriminating yourself.
     You are filled with poop, Old Man!
And McAdams approves messages like that because you are one of his minions.
Post by Anthony Marsh
     Where within the paragraph have I "admitted" anything? I
have always
known and acknowledged that Thomas believes there are 5--not 4 --gunshots
on the Dictabelt recording!
Then I am not the only one claiming 5 gunshots.
No, you aren't. You and Thomas are the only two that I am aware of who do
believe in 5 shots! I believe there are NONE on the Dictabelt!
Oh, that YOU are aware of.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
He might even admit that Trump paid back Cohen after he lied about it
1,000 times.
We all know that you suffer with Trump derangement syndrome, old man.
I am just rubbing it in because almost all WC defenders here are also
Trump defenders.
     And I like getting your goat and rubbing your nose in it
because you
suffer from Trump derangement syndrome.
Because you are a Trump supporter.
______________
Something else. Steve and the NAS seem to believe that the cycle with
the stuck open mic was PARKED in the basement of the Trade Mart. Do you
believe the same thing?
The NAS didn't say that.  Rader said that in a personal interview many
years later.  I assume it's his opinion.  He may be right, or not.  I
have
no position on where the motorcycle really was.
Michael
GKnoll
2018-05-25 18:32:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by odellm
And that's not the reason the shots are after the assassination. This is
repeatedly misreprsented by NAS critics. The machine pauses are not
injected to justify the conclusion. The conclusion is justified by the
simulatneous existinence of "hold everything secure..." right where the
shots are supposed to be. The machine pauses are a factual observation of
the timing data.
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..." crosstalk and the impulses that BBN
interpreted as impulses from a gunshot.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-26 23:18:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GKnoll
And that's not the reason the shots are after the assassination.?? This is
repeatedly misreprsented by NAS critics.?? The machine pauses are not
injected to justify the conclusion.?? The conclusion is justified by the
simulatneous existinence of "hold everything secure..." right where the
shots are supposed to be.?? The machine pauses are a factual
observation of
the timing data.
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..." crosstalk and the impulses that BBN
interpreted as impulses from a gunshot.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/m8fUXPblnkkBQS293
OK, so what do YOU think the click is? A shot? Loose contact? Turning
off the mic and then on immediately? Another unit trying to call in?
GKnoll
2018-05-25 18:32:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by odellm
Post by Anthony Marsh
I pointed out that it doesn't make sense that there would be absolutely
no radio traffic on channel just after the shooting.
That was the only way that the NAS could try to claim that the shots are
one minute after the assassination. By lying about the timing of channel 2.
That's not true. Nobody said there was absolutely no traffic after the
shooting. It's only that in the few minutes after the shooting there a
cuumulative total of at least 30 seconds of machine pauses.
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
2018-05-25 23:33:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Post by Anthony Marsh
I pointed out that it doesn't make sense that there would be absolutely
no radio traffic on channel just after the shooting.
That was the only way that the NAS could try to claim that the shots are
one minute after the assassination. By lying about the timing of channel 2.
That's not true. Nobody said there was absolutely no traffic after the
shooting. It's only that in the few minutes after the shooting there a
cuumulative total of at least 30 seconds of machine pauses.
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
And your point is what?

Michael
GKnoll
2018-05-26 23:23:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Post by Anthony Marsh
I pointed out that it doesn't make sense that there would be absolutely
no radio traffic on channel just after the shooting.
That was the only way that the NAS could try to claim that the shots are
one minute after the assassination. By lying about the timing of channel 2.
That's not true. Nobody said there was absolutely no traffic after the
shooting. It's only that in the few minutes after the shooting there a
cuumulative total of at least 30 seconds of machine pauses.
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
And your point is what?
Michael
Do you hear it?
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-28 00:12:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Post by Anthony Marsh
I pointed out that it doesn't make sense that there would be absolutely
no radio traffic on channel just after the shooting.
That was the only way that the NAS could try to claim that the shots are
one minute after the assassination. By lying about the timing of channel 2.
That's not true.  Nobody said there was absolutely no traffic after the
shooting.  It's only that in the few minutes after the shooting there a
cuumulative total of at least 30 seconds of machine pauses.
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
And your point is what?
Michael
Do you hear it?
Yes, it doesn't mean that he is correct and that it is the dispatcher
whose mic button was stuck on.
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-26 23:23:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by odellm
Post by GKnoll
Post by odellm
Post by Anthony Marsh
I pointed out that it doesn't make sense that there would be absolutely
no radio traffic on channel just after the shooting.
That was the only way that the NAS could try to claim that the shots are
one minute after the assassination. By lying about the timing of channel 2.
That's not true. Nobody said there was absolutely no traffic after the
shooting. It's only that in the few minutes after the shooting there a
cuumulative total of at least 30 seconds of machine pauses.
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
And your point is what?
Michael
He seems to think that it was the DISPATCHER who had the microphone
stuck on.
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-26 23:18:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by GKnoll
Post by Anthony Marsh
I pointed out that it doesn't make sense that there would be absolutely
no radio traffic on channel just after the shooting.
That was the only way that the NAS could try to claim that the shots are
one minute after the assassination. By lying about the timing of channel 2.
That's not true.  Nobody said there was absolutely no traffic after the
shooting.  It's only that in the few minutes after the shooting there a
The NAS did.
Post by GKnoll
cuumulative total of at least 30 seconds of machine pauses.
At 12:29:20 Someone told Dispatcher Murray Jackson to "keep his mic
off", Murry responds "All right".
He was confused. It wasn't the dispatcher's mic which was stuck open.
The dispatchers microphones were not constructed the same way as the
cycles microphones. The cycles nicrophones were hand held and operated
by pushing a button with your thumb. The dispatchers used a standup
micrphone with a pad they would hold down. I know of no instance were
the dispacher's mic became stuck open. McLain said it happened to him often.
Post by GKnoll
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
I don't dispute that. He was wrong. The dispatcher's mike is not the one
that was stuck open. The dispacher said that a cycle on Stemmons had his
mic button stuck. Now, do you deny that?
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-25 20:38:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by odellm
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by odellm
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by BOZ
https://jfk007.com/1053-2/
The last section re: Don Thomas, is spot on. Thomas, to this day, spreads
his absolute lies regarding what he claims is "crosstalk", knowing fully
well that it isn't crosstalk. It was Micheal o'Dell who convinced Thomas
that he was using inferior copies of the police recordings when Thomas
wrote his peer reviewed paper in 2001. After Michael presented Thomas with
the facts--that the channel two recording was useless as a timing tool to
prove the HSCA's claim that H.B. McLain had the open mic was correct.
(This was nearly twenty years after the Ramsey panel Report in 1982).
You have that reversed. It was the NAS panel who LIED about the channel
two timing to falsely claim that the "shots" were one minute after the
assassination. They and you think that it took a fill minute for Decker to
realize what had happened and tell everyone to go to the hospital. Was
Greer listening to channel one or channel two?
Congratulations! You win the Stupid Post Of The Day award, Marsh!
This is not an honest and open debate. McAdams allows YOU to call me
stupid because you are one of his minions, but I am not even allowed to
point out when you are wrong.
Stop whining, Marsh and grow a pair.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
FYI, Curry held the mic and was on the radio talking to the motorcade
officers and the dispatcher, therefore, Decker couldn't use the radio
until after Curry was finished with the mic. There was only one mic
because Decker didn't have a direct line to his office so had to use
Curry's radio and tell the dispatcher at DPD headquarters to contact his
department.
That is why I asked you which message you were talking about.
Again, do your really think it took Decker a full minute before he made
that call? Yes or no?
This is a loaded question coming from you, of course. I gave you my
answer above. You cannot be taken seriously.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Furthermore, none of us knows exactly how long it was after the shooting
before Curry made the transmission "Go to the hospital, officers!"
Well, again, do you think it took a full minute? Yes or no?
And WHo first claimed to hear the message, "Going to the hospital"?
Who is going to take credit for this orphan? Do we need a paternity test?
The "Going to the hospital words are *NOT* "a message", Marsh, and you
know it. Stop playing your insane games! What we "need" is for you to
get off this kick about a typo BOZ made and move on. You look totally
ridiculous harping about something that was an accident.
Then why did BOZ say it? WHo put him up to it?
WHen some flat out lies you cover up for him and all it a typo.
I just want to know who put him up to it.
So if another one of you guys did exactly the same thing you would again
excuse it as just a typo.
I see a pattern emerging.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Furthermore, you'd better get your stopwatch out! On the channel 2
recording, the dispatcher had announced the time "12:30 KKB 364, Dallas".
Nine seconds pass then Curry announces "Triple Underpass". It is a known
fact that After 4 seconds of silence, the grey audograph recorder stopped
recording until the next transmission reactivated it. Since the voice
It is not a fact. It is an ASSuMPTION.
No, it's not an assumption. You want it to be, but it isn't. It *IS* a
fact and you have to live with it. Otherwise, post your prrof that it is
an "assumption"!
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
traffic was constant from the moment that Curry opened his mic and gave
You can't prove that the voice traffic was constant. If you try, that
gives you problems for the silence on channel 2.
ATTENTION PLEASE! LISTEN TO THE RECORDING, MARSH! LISTEN TO THE
RECORDING! And do not use your recording that you purchased from Hawkins
back in the 70's that contains skips and was recorded at the wrong speed!
THE VOICE TRAFFIC WAS CONSTANT AND HEAVY FOLLOWING "GO TO THE HOSPITAL,
OFFICERS!" Stop living in denial and get with the program!
Try to pay attention. YOU gave me a copy. Are you saying that was bogus?
You just linked to a copy on YouTube. Are you saying that is bogus?
I have your 45 record from Gallery. Are you saying that is bogus?
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
the first transmission following the shooting, which is "Go to the
hospital, officers!" timing is accurate and possible because from that
point on, radio activity was heavy and constant and the recorder did not
stop because there was never a 4 second gap between transmissions --
therefore giving us a clock from the time Curry breaks in and says "Go to
the hospital, officers!" until Decker completes saying the words "hold
BOZ said it was, "Going to the hospital." Was BOZ lying? Are you allowed
to call a fewllow minion a liar?
Post by Steve Barber
everything until the homicide and other investigators can get there". Over
a minute elapsed. Therefore, you are full of poop and the Ramsey panel
did no such thing as "lie" about the timing on channel 2! You, on the
The magical one minute of silence.
"Magical" only in your twisted thinking, because there was no "One
minute of silence"!
Yes, there was. According to the NAS panel there was one whole minute
when no units were calling in.
The NAS panel timing was a little off. The correct number is as low as 30
seconds. And it's not 30 seconds in one chunk, it's a cuumulative 30
seconds.
Very good. So you admit that the NAS panel was wrong. How come Steve can
never admit anything?
I'm not "admitting" it. I've always said it. Their timing was wrong.
Their conclusions were not.
So, their data was wrong, but their conclusion was right?
Is that how it works in science?
Post by odellm
How come you can never admit anything? How come you can't have an honest
conversation about the subject without the inflammatory language?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Do you know the segment I am talking about? The NAS said that there was
a whole minute when no messages were recorded on channel 2.
Didn't we just cover that?
Post by Anthony Marsh
BBN stated that "Channel 1 transmissions were a continuous record of
Dallas police activity; channel 2 transmissions were voice activated,
and therefore an intermittent record of communications, for the most
part those of Dallas Police Chief Jesse E. Curry and the headquarters
dispatcher."
I pointed out that it doesn't make sense that there would be absolutely
no radio traffic on channel just after the shooting.
That was the only way that the NAS could try to claim that the shots are
one minute after the assassination. By lying about the timing of channel 2.
That's not true. Nobody said there was absolutely no traffic after the
shooting. It's only that in the few minutes after the shooting there a
cuumulative total of at least 30 seconds of machine pauses.
Now you change it to 30 seconds. SO why do they say the crosstalk was
one minute after the shots?
Post by odellm
And that's not the reason the shots are after the assassination. This is
repeatedly misreprsented by NAS critics. The machine pauses are not
injected to justify the conclusion. The conclusion is justified by the
simulatneous existinence of "hold everything secure..." right where the
shots are supposed to be. The machine pauses are a factual observation of
Unless it was a repeat or a skip or both.
Post by odellm
the timing data.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Plus we can HEAR the dispatcher say that someone up on Stemmons has his
mic button stuck on. Do you deny that he said that?
So what? The dispatcher didn't have eyes on anyone. He only heard what
we can hear on the recording.
I didn't say he SAW it. He heard it.
Do you deny what he said? Yes or no?
Post by odellm
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by odellm
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
other hand, made up something ridiculously false. Are you still using an
inferior copy a channel two, relying on the copy you purchased from Dave
Hawkins, Marsh? Shame on you.
Bulderdash. YOU gave me a copy. And I have your Gallery record too.
GREAT! Then get busy and put it to use, old man!
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber
After Michael O'Dell convinced Don Thomas he was wrong, Thomas conceded.
No.
Don't tell me "No"! I know for a fact!
No, you have a habit of making up false claims.
Post by Steve Barber
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve Barber