[Ben Holmes]

A troll on the Amazon Forums writes: "And the official conclusion is Oswald was the lone shooter."

This is, of course, simply a lie.

The original investigation came to that conclusion - but a much longer investigation known as the House & Senate Commission on Assassinations came to the conclusion that there was a probable conspiracy.

No WCR Supporter has been able to explain why they so dogmatically cling to the Warren Commission - and simply refuse to accept anything by the HSCA.

But if the HSCA made a "mistake" - then how can the Warren Commission be presumed to be perfect?

And make no mistake, this is EXACTLY what supporters believe... for despite many examples where the Warren Commission was provably wrong, believers will never admit it.

And by refusing to ever admit any specific errors by the Warren Commission, believers want to have their cake and eat it too...

But if they wish to uphold the conclusions of the Warren Commission - they're going to have to explain why the same government got it "wrong" in a much longer and more detailed investigation.

[Garry Puffer]

A troll on the Amazon Forums writes: "And the official conclusion is Oswald was the lone shooter."

I find it interesting that when informed that this is incorrect, that the official government position is "probably a conspiracy," the LNers come back with something like this:

"But the HSCA conclusion was based on the audio evidence which was later debunked."

Leaving aside the truth of such a "debunking," it is amazing that they believe the official conclusion can be overridden by a few "experts" offering a different opinion on the audio evidence. Somehow, magically, the official position is negated and reverts to the previous official opinion.

Regardless of what one believes about the audio evidence, it just doesn't work like that.

[Ben Holmes]

Garry Puffer Wrote:I find it interesting that when informed that this is incorrect, that the official government position is "probably a conspiracy," the LNers come back with something like this:

"But the HSCA conclusion was based on the audio evidence which was later debunked."

Leaving aside the truth of such a "debunking," it is amazing that they believe the official conclusion can be overridden by a few "experts" offering a different opinion on the audio evidence. Somehow, magically, the official position is negated and reverts to the previous official opinion.

Regardless of what one believes about the audio evidence, it just doesn't work like that.

Indeed correct! It doesn't work that way...

Most people instinctively realize that when you indict the capability of someone at one moment - it tells you something about that person in a more general fashion.

If you catch someone lying to you - you know that you will have to be more careful in judging what they tell you.

Believers accept that the Government failed to draw the correct conclusions from an investigation that was much longer, and included all the information gained from the first few investigations.

Yet they believe that the government failed... and if the government failed, on what basis do they believe that the government got it right???

This is a philosophical question that will never be touched by believers...

[renevil]

I actually thought that the HSCA stated in their conclusion.....

"Scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that at least two gunmen fired at the President. Other scientific evidence does not preclude the possibility of two gunmen firing at the President. Scientific evidence negates some specific conspiracy allegations."

They don't have a sole reliance on acoustical evidence, just that it establishes a high probability at least 2 gunmen fired at the President. It clearly states that, "Other scientific evidence does not preclude the possibility of two gunmen firing at the President"

The thing that is of most interest to me though is the wording within their conclusion....

Firstly, they state that the acoustic evidence establishes a high probability of AT LEAST 2 gunmen. Why the, "AT LEAST"? I thought they were saying it was Oswald with 3 shots from the TSBD and 1 unknown from behind the picket fence that missed! Surely the wording should be, "a high probability of 2 gunmen"

Secondly, they state, "The committee was unable to identify the other gunmen or the extent of the conspiracy." Again, that is strangely worded for a Committee that is stating that "probably" 2 shooters had fired at JFK. Why do they say, "the other gunMEN" and not, "the other gunMAN"?

I am from the UK and it may just simply be down to the differences in the way we explain things here compared to the US but it seems to me that they had a very begrudgingly limited hangout in suggesting a second shooter but word it as if there could have been more than 2 gunmen.

Am I right in saying nothing was allowed to be published unless it had the OK from the CIA?

[Ben Holmes]

renevil Wrote:I actually thought that the HSCA stated in their conclusion.....

"Scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that at least two gunmen fired at the President. Other scientific evidence does not preclude the possibility of two gunmen firing at the President. Scientific evidence negates some specific conspiracy allegations."

They don't have a sole reliance on acoustical evidence, just that it establishes a high probability at least 2 gunmen fired at the President. It clearly states that, "Other scientific evidence does not preclude the possibility of two gunmen firing at the President"

The thing that is of most interest to me though is the wording within their conclusion....

Firstly, they state that the acoustic evidence establishes a high probability of AT LEAST 2 gunmen. Why the, "AT LEAST"? I thought they were saying it was Oswald with 3 shots from the TSBD and 1 unknown from behind the picket fence that missed! Surely the wording should be, "a high probability of 2 gunmen"

While I can't presume to tell you their logic, the evidence they had showed a minimum of two gunmen, but didn't refute the possibility of more. I think the HSCA was simply hedging their statement ... in order to appear accurate as more information comes out. Interestingly, there's still quite a bit of testimony sealed, so the HSCA knew things that they aren't telling us.

renevil Wrote:Secondly, they state, "The committee was unable to identify the other gunmen or the extent of the conspiracy." Again, that is strangely worded for a Committee that is stating that "probably" 2 shooters had fired at JFK. Why do they say, "the other gunMEN" and not, "the other gunMAN"?

I am from the UK and it may just simply be down to the differences in the way we explain things here compared to the US but it seems to me that they had a very begrudgingly limited hangout in suggesting a second shooter but word it as if there could have been more than 2 gunmen.

Plural of gunman is gunmen... nothing more to it than that.

renevil Wrote:Am I right in saying nothing was allowed to be published unless it had the OK from the CIA?

I'd suspect that you're referring to evidential material provided by the CIA. The CIA had no control over anything else.

[William Charleston]

Garry Puffer Wrote:A troll on the Amazon Forums writes: "And the official conclusion is Oswald was the lone shooter."

I find it interesting that when informed that this is incorrect, that the official government position is "probably a conspiracy," the LNers come back with something like this:

"But the HSCA conclusion was based on the audio evidence which was later debunked."

Leaving aside the truth of such a "debunking," it is amazing that they believe the official conclusion can be overridden by a few "experts" offering a different opinion on the audio evidence. Somehow, magically, the official position is negated and reverts to the previous official opinion.

Regardless of what one believes about the audio evidence, it just doesn't work like that.

=================================================
Part of your question is whether the HSCA acoustical evidence is valid, i.e. Are the sounds of the shots on the tape recording of the Dallas police radio channel?

Here is HOW YOU can prove to yourself they are:

IF the sounds of the shots were recorded, then the times between shots would match the times between shots in the Zapruder film. Nothing could be simpler, even a child could understand that.

In the Zapruder film, virtually everyone agrees that when Connally begins his movements immediately after he emerges from behind the sign that he is reacting to a shot. The first frame number is frame 224.



You can see Connally after the sign first glance to his left then turn towards his right where he said he thought the sound of the shot came from. He said in many interviews he was NOT shot (in the back) before that turn but that he had time to turn to his right then back toward his left just as you see in the Zapruder film.

Another time in the Zapruder film that a shot was fired is frame 313, the frame that President Kennedy was hit in the head.

The FBI measured the film speed by filming a clock and counting the number of frames (18.3 frames per second).

Time between frames (Z313 - Z224) = (313 - 224)/18.3 = 4.8 seconds

Looking at the acoustical analysis times between shots:


It is immediately apparent that the times between shots #3 and #4 using the police radio audio tape matches the time between shots using the Zapruder film between frames 224 and 313. That suggests that the sounds of the shots WERE RECORDED. If you don't believe that, then you have to believe that the audio experts who analyzed the police radio recording were looking at random noise and just happened to show 4.8 seconds between two of the shots exactly like the Zapruder film shows.

Looking at other intervals between shots using BOTH the Zapruder film and the audio evidence shows that all five shots match! That effort takes a lot more work than the introduction I showed here. Multiple intervals between shots of course proves that the sounds of the shots really were recorded. That, of course, proves a conspiracy killed President Kennedy. The critics of the HSCA audio analysis did NOT disprove anything, they only published their opinions that the acoustical analysis is not valid. Who are you going to believe, audio experts or PhD's in other fields who gave their unlearned opinions?

And note, no one has previously used 4.8 seconds being common in BOTH the Zapruder and the audio evidence to solve the shooting mystery. In fact, you will find an incredible, idiotic mistake the HSCA made when you continue on. When I wrote one of the HSCA acoustical experts and asked him why he did it that way, I was told they made him! In other words, it wasn't idiotic, it was misinformation to hide the truth. That will make more sense as you learn and understand more about the topic.

If you look at most documentaries and publications, you will see the HSCA publicized that there were actually four shots. But the figure I showed indicates the analysis showed FIVE shots. You must understand why and how the audio analysis was updated to five shots when the HSCA published four shots in 1978. That is part of the reason 4.8 seconds has NOT been noticed by very many JFK researchers.

Another question seems to be about how the audio analysis itself was done by two sets of audio experts for the HSCA. If you look at the figure of the acoustical gunshot timing, you will notice at the very top that the peaks of the audio waveform are numbered. Is your screen resolution good enough to see that? The JFK assassination audio analysis was not the first time that an audio tape was used to solve a case.

[Ben Holmes]

William Charleston Wrote:IF the sounds of the shots were recorded, then the times between shots would match the times between shots in the Zapruder film. Nothing could be simpler, even a child could understand that.

The only major problem is that you only have an agreed and uncontestable time for a single shot... between Z-312 and Z-313.

There are no other agreed locations for a shot.

This makes matching the audio to the video quite impossible.

The audio data stands quite well enough on it's own. But the extant Zapruder film has holes a truck could drive through.

(I enjoyed your post, however!)

[Patrick C]

William

William Charleston Wrote:If you look at most documentaries and publications, you will see the HSCA publicized that there were actually four shots. But the figure I showed indicates the analysis showed FIVE shots. You must understand why and how the audio analysis was updated to five shots when the HSCA published four shots in 1978. That is part of the reason 4.8 seconds has NOT been noticed by very many JFK researchers.

I think I am right in suggesting that if the acoustics analysis identifies 5 shots that can be measured .....then I would like to ask how come almost everyone who was there and heard those shots said there were only 3 or even just 2.....ie if they can be measured, they can be heard..

I would suggest that had there been 5 shots, many more people would have said 5 or 6 or even more given that Dealey Plaza was somewhat of an echo chamber......

[Lee Abbott]

Was that what Secret Service agent Kellerman referred to as a "flurry of shots" .... An echo chamber?

[Patrick C]

The single shot to head that was fired from the TSBD 6th floor SE window had three composite sounds initially:

Sound barrier
Muzzle blast
Impact

Fragmentation of the bullet caused pieces to strike the windshield and the mirror and trimming

Echoes would occur.....

And as Roy K was right there in the thick of it, it is no surprise he thought he was hearing more than one shot....

Interestingly, Clint Hill and Paul Landis heard only two distinctly separate shots about 5 seconds apart.....the JFK back shot and head shot......I think THEY got it right......

Does the term common sense ring any bells with you Lee....?