Discussion:
National Academy of Sciences
(too old to reply)
BOZ
2020-07-29 15:39:36 UTC
Permalink
National Academy of Sciences concluded:

"The acoustic analyses do not demonstrate that there was a grassy knoll
shot, and in particular there is no acoustic basis for the claim of 95%
probability of such a shot. The acoustic impulses attributed to gunshots
were recorded about one minute after the President had been shot and the
motorcade had been instructed to go to the hospital. Therefore, reliable
acoustic data do not support a conclusion that there was a second gunman."
John Corbett
2020-07-29 22:20:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by BOZ
"The acoustic analyses do not demonstrate that there was a grassy knoll
shot, and in particular there is no acoustic basis for the claim of 95%
probability of such a shot. The acoustic impulses attributed to gunshots
were recorded about one minute after the President had been shot and the
motorcade had been instructed to go to the hospital. Therefore, reliable
acoustic data do not support a conclusion that there was a second gunman."
Yet Marsh will continue to insist we are the ones who are against science.
Anthony Marsh
2020-07-31 23:26:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Corbett
Post by BOZ
"The acoustic analyses do not demonstrate that there was a grassy knoll
shot, and in particular there is no acoustic basis for the claim of 95%
probability of such a shot. The acoustic impulses attributed to gunshots
were recorded about one minute after the President had been shot and the
motorcade had been instructed to go to the hospital. Therefore, reliable
acoustic data do not support a conclusion that there was a second gunman."
Yet Marsh will continue to insist we are the ones who are against science.
They didn't use science, They used bias.
BOZ
2020-08-01 02:33:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by BOZ
"The acoustic analyses do not demonstrate that there was a grassy knoll
shot, and in particular there is no acoustic basis for the claim of 95%
probability of such a shot. The acoustic impulses attributed to gunshots
were recorded about one minute after the President had been shot and the
motorcade had been instructed to go to the hospital. Therefore, reliable
acoustic data do not support a conclusion that there was a second gunman."
Yet Marsh will continue to insist we are the ones who are against science.
They didn't use science, They used bias.
Nobody believes you. Do you understand? Nobody believes you.
Anthony Marsh
2020-08-01 19:06:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by BOZ
"The acoustic analyses do not demonstrate that there was a grassy knoll
shot, and in particular there is no acoustic basis for the claim of 95%
probability of such a shot. The acoustic impulses attributed to gunshots
were recorded about one minute after the President had been shot and the
motorcade had been instructed to go to the hospital. Therefore, reliable
acoustic data do not support a conclusion that there was a second gunman."
Yet Marsh will continue to insist we are the ones who are against science.
They didn't use science, They used bias.
Nobody believes you. Do you understand? Nobody believes you.
I know several prople prople who believe me. They are called scientists.
What are you called?
Jason Burke
2020-08-02 13:57:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John Corbett
Post by BOZ
"The acoustic analyses do not demonstrate that there was a grassy knoll
shot, and in particular there is no acoustic basis for the claim of 95%
probability of such a shot. The acoustic impulses attributed to gunshots
were recorded about one minute after the President had been shot and the
motorcade had been instructed to go to the hospital. Therefore, reliable
acoustic data do not support a conclusion that there was a second gunman."
Yet Marsh will continue to insist we are the ones who are against science.
They didn't use science, They used bias.
Nobody believes you. Do you understand? Nobody believes you.
I know several prople prople who believe me. They are called scientists.
What are you called?
Dang, dude. Two tries.
And you failed both times.

Anthony Marsh
2020-07-31 23:26:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by BOZ
"The acoustic analyses do not demonstrate that there was a grassy knoll
shot, and in particular there is no acoustic basis for the claim of 95%
probability of such a shot. The acoustic impulses attributed to gunshots
were recorded about one minute after the President had been shot and the
motorcade had been instructed to go to the hospital. Therefore, reliable
acoustic data do not support a conclusion that there was a second gunman."
Weak.
Jason Burke
2020-08-01 02:33:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by BOZ
"The acoustic analyses do not demonstrate that there was a grassy knoll
shot, and in particular there is no acoustic basis for the claim of 95%
probability of such a shot. The acoustic impulses attributed to gunshots
were recorded about one minute after the President had been shot and the
motorcade had been instructed to go to the hospital. Therefore, reliable
acoustic data do not support a conclusion that there was a second gunman."
Weak.
Yeah, I believe that Anthony is a better data source that NAS.
Loading...