Some Brief Notes on the Acoustics
-----
Misleading Representations of the Data
I place my AR-15 shot at 145.15 seconds into the stuck mic sequence. I get my information on the timing from the HSCA acoustical testimony given by Dr. James Barger (in HSCA Hearings vol. II p. 63), as shown in the chart below. I use this data, but I ignore way it's mis-represented--for example, the handwritten notations in the marginalia (written by who?) and the "6 Segments" of the heading at the top (which I don't think was written by Barger). If you look carefully, you can see that there are actually 7 impulses listed. It either looks like 6 because of the way it's grouped, or it looks like 8 because 139.27 sec is listed twice, because instead of being organized by "Beginning Time" and then "Microphone Array," the chart is actually organized by "Microphone Array" and then "Beginning Time." I don't think Barger wrote either the marginalia grouping or the heading, and I have my doubts whether he presented the rest of the information in exactly this way, but the numbers, including the timing, are referred to in his testimony, and I do accept the "Beginning Time" numbers (as well as the rest of the data) as accurate. But this presentation is misleading, making it appear as if there were only "4" suspect impulses rather than 5, and ignoring the first and last "Beginning Time's" as not having a high enough correlation to "make the cut." (In my view, the lower correlations for the first and last impulses are due to the shots in the evidence tape having been fired from a location other than the two test-shot locations--say, on Houston Street for the first one, or at the top of the Knoll for the last one. A "1.0" correlation would have been a perfect correlation, but I don't think a "0.5" correlation is meaningless.
I place my AR-15 shot at 145.15 seconds into the stuck mic sequence. I get my information on the timing from the HSCA acoustical testimony given by Dr. James Barger (in HSCA Hearings vol. II p. 63), as shown in the chart below. I use this data, but I ignore way it's mis-represented--for example, the handwritten notations in the marginalia (written by who?) and the "6 Segments" of the heading at the top (which I don't think was written by Barger). If you look carefully, you can see that there are actually 7 impulses listed. It either looks like 6 because of the way it's grouped, or it looks like 8 because 139.27 sec is listed twice, because instead of being organized by "Beginning Time" and then "Microphone Array," the chart is actually organized by "Microphone Array" and then "Beginning Time." I don't think Barger wrote either the marginalia grouping or the heading, and I have my doubts whether he presented the rest of the information in exactly this way, but the numbers, including the timing, are referred to in his testimony, and I do accept the "Beginning Time" numbers (as well as the rest of the data) as accurate. But this presentation is misleading, making it appear as if there were only "4" suspect impulses rather than 5, and ignoring the first and last "Beginning Time's" as not having a high enough correlation to "make the cut." (In my view, the lower correlations for the first and last impulses are due to the shots in the evidence tape having been fired from a location other than the two test-shot locations--say, on Houston Street for the first one, or at the top of the Knoll for the last one. A "1.0" correlation would have been a perfect correlation, but I don't think a "0.5" correlation is meaningless.
From https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol2/html/HSCA_Vol2_0034a.htm
To be clear, I don't know who grouped the middle impulses as 1-4 in the handwritten marginalia. Also, the impulse noted as "139.27 sec" and the impulse noted as "140.32 sec" are two separate impulses, 1.05 seconds apart, and I treat them as such in my analysis. The grouping of two impulses as one--despite the odd notation of "139.27 sec" after the notation of "140.32 sec" (again, the organization is by "Microphone Array" rather than "Beginning Time") is certainly odd, along with the double-spacing occurring as it does, and I don't think these were done by Dr. Barger. Instead, I take this format to be a misrepresentation of the data, to give the impression that there were fewer impulses than there actually were. In other words, the data is correct, but the presentation (of "4" impulses) is wrong, as is the grouping of impulses at 139.27 seconds and 140.32 seconds as a "single" impulse. And ultimately, the impulse at 140.32 seconds was rejected by the HSCA--though not by the acoustical experts--in what Donald Thomas calls an "ad hoc" rejection, which I discuss in the next section.
Another problem is the lack of clarity with which some information is presented. In HSCA Hearings Volume VIII we are given the following waveform images from the BBN report:
from https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/pdf/HSCA_Vol8_AS_2_BBN.pdf
Here's another example:
Also from https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/pdf/HSCA_Vol8_AS_2_BBN.pdf
No amount of zooming in will make these waveforms any clearer. There is no reason whatsoever why these images could not be presented in a more clear and understandable manner--except, perhaps, to keep the information out of reach while providing the illusion that the information is available.
There is third type of "misrepresentation" (or at least, incomplete representation) of the acoustical data presented by the HSCA and shown below, in JFK Exhibit F-667. The oscilloscope or wave-form image for the evidence impulse at 145.15 seconds does not show time across the bottom. That fact alone makes this image unique in every oscilloscope/wave-form image I have ever seen (and I've seen a lot of them!) They all show time across the bottom--with the exception of the data presented by the HSCA.
Below is an example of how waveform data would typically be presented. Note how the text accompanying the diagram is specific that the "Peak Pressure Levels (in Pascal)" were plotted against time "in milliseconds"--crucial pieces of information for interpreting the data.
There is third type of "misrepresentation" (or at least, incomplete representation) of the acoustical data presented by the HSCA and shown below, in JFK Exhibit F-667. The oscilloscope or wave-form image for the evidence impulse at 145.15 seconds does not show time across the bottom. That fact alone makes this image unique in every oscilloscope/wave-form image I have ever seen (and I've seen a lot of them!) They all show time across the bottom--with the exception of the data presented by the HSCA.
Below is an example of how waveform data would typically be presented. Note how the text accompanying the diagram is specific that the "Peak Pressure Levels (in Pascal)" were plotted against time "in milliseconds"--crucial pieces of information for interpreting the data.
From https://www.montana.edu/rmaher/publications/routh_maher_asa_0516.pdf
Now, here is how the HSCA presented the acoustic waveforms. Note that there is no information at all about how this information is charted, no amplitude information along the Y-axis, and no time information of any sort across the bottom X-axis, which is how waveforms are normally presented.
This type of omission makes the data extremely difficult to interpret--which, in my view, is the reason it is presented in this manner.
I am reminded of Harold Weisberg's FOIA suit to receive the results of Neutron Activation Analysis for tests done for ballistic Warren Commission. Weisberg won his suit, but when he received the results, they were presented in such a way as to make the data meaningless. Something similar occurs with the acoustical data. It's misrepresentations, obfuscations, and omissions of important information. And it's deliberate. It has to be. There's just no other explanation for it.
I am reminded of Harold Weisberg's FOIA suit to receive the results of Neutron Activation Analysis for tests done for ballistic Warren Commission. Weisberg won his suit, but when he received the results, they were presented in such a way as to make the data meaningless. Something similar occurs with the acoustical data. It's misrepresentations, obfuscations, and omissions of important information. And it's deliberate. It has to be. There's just no other explanation for it.
-----
The Ad Hoc Shot Rejection (Thomas's Correct Analysis)
Dr. Donald Thomas in Hear No Evil notes that the HSCA (but not acoustical expert Dr. James Barger) rejected the impulse at 140.32 seconds as a "false alarm" and emphasizes that it was rejected by the HSCA for the spurious reason that Oswald did not have time to recycle his weapon between this and the previous impulse at 139.27 seconds. That rejection actually makes little sense, because it still only leaves 1.57 seconds between the impulse at 137.7 seconds and the impulse at 139.27 seconds--which is still not enough time for Oswald to have recycled his weapon (which required a minimum of 2.3 seconds just to operate the bolt). Also note that the best correlation for the impulse at 139.27 seconds is for the rifle "Muzzle Withdrawn 2 ft from Plane of Window." I believe that the higher muzzle withdrawn correlation is due to the shot being fired from the road directly in front of the window rather than from the window itself. (Other impulses have "muzzle withdrawn" correlations, but the "muzzle withdrawn" has the strongest correlation for the impulse at 139.27 seconds into the stuck mic sequence of the evidence tape.)
Thomas is absolutely correct in his analysis of the "ad hoc" reason for the premature rejection of the impulse at 140.32 seconds. As Thomas notes, "ad hoc is Latin for bullshit," and the impulse at 140.32 seconds should never have been rejected for the "bullshit" reason that Oswald didn't have enough time to recycle his weapon. (In my view, the first and last impulses should not have been rejected, either, despite the lack of stronger correlations between test shots fired from the TSBD and GK. Other shooter locations were not considered, for example.).
However, Thomas does make one mistake in his analysis of the acoustics in Hear No Evil. This mistake was repeated by Josiah Thompson in his most recent book Last Second in Dallas. It bears pointing out.
Dr. Donald Thomas in Hear No Evil notes that the HSCA (but not acoustical expert Dr. James Barger) rejected the impulse at 140.32 seconds as a "false alarm" and emphasizes that it was rejected by the HSCA for the spurious reason that Oswald did not have time to recycle his weapon between this and the previous impulse at 139.27 seconds. That rejection actually makes little sense, because it still only leaves 1.57 seconds between the impulse at 137.7 seconds and the impulse at 139.27 seconds--which is still not enough time for Oswald to have recycled his weapon (which required a minimum of 2.3 seconds just to operate the bolt). Also note that the best correlation for the impulse at 139.27 seconds is for the rifle "Muzzle Withdrawn 2 ft from Plane of Window." I believe that the higher muzzle withdrawn correlation is due to the shot being fired from the road directly in front of the window rather than from the window itself. (Other impulses have "muzzle withdrawn" correlations, but the "muzzle withdrawn" has the strongest correlation for the impulse at 139.27 seconds into the stuck mic sequence of the evidence tape.)
Thomas is absolutely correct in his analysis of the "ad hoc" reason for the premature rejection of the impulse at 140.32 seconds. As Thomas notes, "ad hoc is Latin for bullshit," and the impulse at 140.32 seconds should never have been rejected for the "bullshit" reason that Oswald didn't have enough time to recycle his weapon. (In my view, the first and last impulses should not have been rejected, either, despite the lack of stronger correlations between test shots fired from the TSBD and GK. Other shooter locations were not considered, for example.).
However, Thomas does make one mistake in his analysis of the acoustics in Hear No Evil. This mistake was repeated by Josiah Thompson in his most recent book Last Second in Dallas. It bears pointing out.
-----
Thomas's and Thompson's Mistake
In presenting the acoustical data, Donald Thomas uses the JFK Exhibit F-367 data presented at the top of this article, but adds an asterisk for the impulse at 145.15 seconds to say that "Subsequent analysis re-sets the onset of this impulse to 144.9 seconds." He does not back this statement up with any evidence presented by the acoustical experts to explain what that "subsequent analysis" was. That's Thomas's Mistake.
Excerpt from the book Hear No Evil by Donald Thomas. (Sorry for the blur--created by scanning my Kindle version of the book.)
I went through the acoustical experts testimonies, and I found no such information that this time was "re-set" or "corrected." "145.15 seconds" is the only time given for this impulse.
I searched the acoustical testimonies for any reference to "144.9" seconds. I found one, but it doesn't have anything to do with "re-setting" the time or "correcting" the given time of 145.15 seconds to 144.9 seconds. The reference comes from the image of the section of oscilloscope displayed in the HSCA documents that contains the impulse at 145.15 seconds:
I searched the acoustical testimonies for any reference to "144.9" seconds. I found one, but it doesn't have anything to do with "re-setting" the time or "correcting" the given time of 145.15 seconds to 144.9 seconds. The reference comes from the image of the section of oscilloscope displayed in the HSCA documents that contains the impulse at 145.15 seconds:
From https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol5/pdf/HSCA_Vol5_1229_2_Weiss.pdf
Now, admittedly, this is an odd oscillograph, because it does not note time across the bottom, as every other oscillograph in the world does. However, the caption would indicate that the start of the section is 144.90 seconds, not that the impulse (presumably the very large spike to the right of where this section starts) occurs at 145.15 seconds. But nowhere in Barger's testimonies (vol II) or the Weiss and Aschkenasy testimony (vol V) do any of these acoustical experts "correct" the time from 145.15 seconds to "144.90 seconds."
Thompson may be correct that a head shot occurred when the limousine was somewhere near the position in Z328, based on the accounts he gives by Altgens and Jack Franzen. (I'll add the FBI "Visual Aid" model's location for the FBI's "third" shot.) However, Thompson's timing in trying to align the Z-film and the acoustics places his second head shot only 15 frames after the Z313 "head shot" (which I don't believe is authentic).
Thompson applies the "next-to-last" impulse (the first of the double-bang impulses) at "144.9" seconds to the Z313 headshot, thus yielding a 0.71 second gap between this impulse and the "last" impulse at 145.61 seconds. There is a slight math issue, because the frame at 0.71 seconds after Z313 would be Z326, not Z328. The math, using a Zapruder frame rate of 18 fps is: 145.61 sec - 144.9 sec = 0.71 sec --> 0.71 X 18fps = 13 frames --> Z313 + 13 frames = frame 326 . (Using the original data of 145.15 seconds instead of 144.9 seconds, and aligning Z313 with 145.15 seconds, we get a somewhat earlier head shot, with a difference of 0.46 sec instead of 0.71 sec: 0.46 X 18 fps = 8 frames --> Z313 + 8 frames = frame 321.) But for the sake of argument, we'll use Thompson's Z328 idea for his second head shot. After all, he uses statements by Altgens and Jack Franzen to align with Z328, and I kind of like that as being about what the FBI "Visual Aid" model shows for the FBI's "Shot 3."
But returning to the "144.9" seconds problem, Josiah Thompson likewise uses the "144.9 seconds" timing for his book Last Second in Dallas. Again, I don't know where Thomas and Thompson get that number from, but it wasn't given by the acoustical experts.
Granted the difference is small, only 0.25 seconds between 145.15 and "144.9" seconds. But when time is measured in hundredths of seconds, as the acoustic evidence is, it makes a difference.
If I am wrong, and if the acoustical experts did indeed "correct" 145.15 seconds to "144.9 seconds," please contact me and share the source of that information of where to find this correction, because it is not in the acoustical experts' testimonies.
Thompson applies the "next-to-last" impulse (the first of the double-bang impulses) at "144.9" seconds to the Z313 headshot, thus yielding a 0.71 second gap between this impulse and the "last" impulse at 145.61 seconds. There is a slight math issue, because the frame at 0.71 seconds after Z313 would be Z326, not Z328. The math, using a Zapruder frame rate of 18 fps is: 145.61 sec - 144.9 sec = 0.71 sec --> 0.71 X 18fps = 13 frames --> Z313 + 13 frames = frame 326 . (Using the original data of 145.15 seconds instead of 144.9 seconds, and aligning Z313 with 145.15 seconds, we get a somewhat earlier head shot, with a difference of 0.46 sec instead of 0.71 sec: 0.46 X 18 fps = 8 frames --> Z313 + 8 frames = frame 321.) But for the sake of argument, we'll use Thompson's Z328 idea for his second head shot. After all, he uses statements by Altgens and Jack Franzen to align with Z328, and I kind of like that as being about what the FBI "Visual Aid" model shows for the FBI's "Shot 3."
But returning to the "144.9" seconds problem, Josiah Thompson likewise uses the "144.9 seconds" timing for his book Last Second in Dallas. Again, I don't know where Thomas and Thompson get that number from, but it wasn't given by the acoustical experts.
Granted the difference is small, only 0.25 seconds between 145.15 and "144.9" seconds. But when time is measured in hundredths of seconds, as the acoustic evidence is, it makes a difference.
If I am wrong, and if the acoustical experts did indeed "correct" 145.15 seconds to "144.9 seconds," please contact me and share the source of that information of where to find this correction, because it is not in the acoustical experts' testimonies.
-----
Thompson's Other Mistakes
In addition to using the "144.9 seconds" (instead of 145.15 seconds) in his Last Second in Dallas analysis, Thompson makes another mistake in accepting the Zapruder film at face value. Thompson may be correct that the head shot (my AR-15 shot) occurred when the limousine was in position Z328, based on the accounts he gives by Altgens and Jack Franzen (as well as the FBI "Visual Aid" model for the "third" shot), although this position does look to be a bit farther from Altgens than the "15 feet" Altgens recounted. However, Thompson's timing in trying to align the Z-film and the acoustics places his second head shot only 15 frames after the Z313 "head shot" (which I don't believe is authentic).
So here's his main problem: If the Zapruder film is truly authentic, this second head shot should be visible. It isn't. Not really.
In addition to using the "144.9 seconds" (instead of 145.15 seconds) in his Last Second in Dallas analysis, Thompson makes another mistake in accepting the Zapruder film at face value. Thompson may be correct that the head shot (my AR-15 shot) occurred when the limousine was in position Z328, based on the accounts he gives by Altgens and Jack Franzen (as well as the FBI "Visual Aid" model for the "third" shot), although this position does look to be a bit farther from Altgens than the "15 feet" Altgens recounted. However, Thompson's timing in trying to align the Z-film and the acoustics places his second head shot only 15 frames after the Z313 "head shot" (which I don't believe is authentic).
So here's his main problem: If the Zapruder film is truly authentic, this second head shot should be visible. It isn't. Not really.
Zapruder film images from the "Lightbox" source at https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/lightbox-frame-sets/z313-z372?authuser=0
Furthermore, the acoustical experts place the shot occurring at 145.15 sec into the stuck mic sequence as the one that came from the Grassy Knoll, "with 95% or better confidence." Since Thompson believes in the Zapruder film's authenticity, this is necessarily the impulse Thompson aligns with Z313, leaving only one acoustical impulse left, the second part of the double-bang. Thompson uses witness accounts of a shot after the head shot to support his scenario of a second head shot almost immediately afterward.
Thompson uses statements by Altens and Jack Franzen to support his scenario. I have no problem with that. In fact, I like their statements. But he ignores the statements of Mary Moorman--who said that she heard the double-bang as the next two shots after she took her picture, and that it was the next shot--the first shot of the double-bang--when she saw Kennedy's "hair lift." She didn't see him get shot with the sound she heard when she took her picture, but with the next sound. And then there was a final shot almost immediately after that.
Thompson should not ignore Moorman's statements. They are crucial. She missed hearing (or registering) the beginning shots due to inattention blindness. But by the time she took her picture, she finally started registering the shots into her consciousness. In fact, she didn't even know Kennedy was struck when she took her picture until she later looked at it and saw him "slumped."
The man was right in front of her, and she was looking right at him. If he had been shot in the head concurrent with her picture, then she, as the closest bystander, would have seen it.
She didn't.
Bill Newman may have seen something--or maybe not. His accounts are often contradictory. I'm not saying there is anything nefarious or deliberate in any mistakes he makes in any particular account, but I do think that he is more susceptible to the Mandela Effect and the Misinformation Effect than other witnesses. I intend to write up a case study on Bill Newman as my next project (after I finish my "What Happened" 5-shot series.) Moorman, however, has been less susceptible to the various effects that might have influenced her emory. She has remained consistent in her accounts--the only real difference being, was she looking through her viewfinder when she saw Kennedy's "hair lift" with the next shot, or did she hold the camera down? That is a very slight difference that makes no difference, in my view. Otherwise, her story--which is contrary to the official version of events and what the Zapruder Film shows--has been consistent: there were shots still being fired after she took her picture, later clarifying that she saw Kennedy's "hair lift" with the sound of the next shot after she took her picture, the first shot of her pow-pow double-bang. This is also consistent with the witnesses Thompson quotes, who described another shot as occurring after the head shot.
Thompson's mistakes are multi-fold: 1) His use of the "144.9" seconds into the stuck mic sequence, 2) his apparent acceptance of the Zapruder film as authentic (despite its not showing the scenario he supports, 3) his ignoring of Mary Moorman's accounts, and 4) his acceptance of another head shot as the second shot of the double-bang, which runs counter to witness accounts. I do like his limousine position at Z328 as something approaching the Altgens & Franzen accounts (as well as the FBI model), but it took longer for the limousine to get there than 0.71 seconds. In my scenario, it took about 4.93 seconds for the limousine to travel from where it is seen in Z313 to the point of the AR-15 head shot. The difference is explainable by the limo-stop (reported by some 60 witnesses or more), Z-film frame removal and other Z-film alterations (for example, I contend that the Z3313 "head shot" is a fake). But again, by placing his head shot as the second shot of the double-bang (with Z313 apparently being the first shot of the double-bang), he ignores the witness accounts that said the head shot occurred as the next-to-last shot. He also does not explain how he can get his scenario to align with the attributions given in the acoustical evidence, given his otherwise general acceptance of the acoustical evidence.
To be clear, I like his Z328 limousine position for his second head shot, which lines up pretty well with the FBI "Visual Aid" model position for their "third" shot, Mary Moorman's description of seeing Kennedy's hair lift with the next shot after she took her picture, the Altgens and Franzen accounts Thompson gives, and Greg Burnham's account of the "other" Zapruder film showing the (only visible) head shot as occurring when the limousine was "closer to the stairs." In fact, I like all the limousine positions given in the FBI model (although it does not include all of the shots fired, and I disagree with their string-line attributions for all 3 of their shots coming from the TSBD window--but the limousine positions are good):
Thompson uses statements by Altens and Jack Franzen to support his scenario. I have no problem with that. In fact, I like their statements. But he ignores the statements of Mary Moorman--who said that she heard the double-bang as the next two shots after she took her picture, and that it was the next shot--the first shot of the double-bang--when she saw Kennedy's "hair lift." She didn't see him get shot with the sound she heard when she took her picture, but with the next sound. And then there was a final shot almost immediately after that.
Thompson should not ignore Moorman's statements. They are crucial. She missed hearing (or registering) the beginning shots due to inattention blindness. But by the time she took her picture, she finally started registering the shots into her consciousness. In fact, she didn't even know Kennedy was struck when she took her picture until she later looked at it and saw him "slumped."
The man was right in front of her, and she was looking right at him. If he had been shot in the head concurrent with her picture, then she, as the closest bystander, would have seen it.
She didn't.
Bill Newman may have seen something--or maybe not. His accounts are often contradictory. I'm not saying there is anything nefarious or deliberate in any mistakes he makes in any particular account, but I do think that he is more susceptible to the Mandela Effect and the Misinformation Effect than other witnesses. I intend to write up a case study on Bill Newman as my next project (after I finish my "What Happened" 5-shot series.) Moorman, however, has been less susceptible to the various effects that might have influenced her emory. She has remained consistent in her accounts--the only real difference being, was she looking through her viewfinder when she saw Kennedy's "hair lift" with the next shot, or did she hold the camera down? That is a very slight difference that makes no difference, in my view. Otherwise, her story--which is contrary to the official version of events and what the Zapruder Film shows--has been consistent: there were shots still being fired after she took her picture, later clarifying that she saw Kennedy's "hair lift" with the sound of the next shot after she took her picture, the first shot of her pow-pow double-bang. This is also consistent with the witnesses Thompson quotes, who described another shot as occurring after the head shot.
Thompson's mistakes are multi-fold: 1) His use of the "144.9" seconds into the stuck mic sequence, 2) his apparent acceptance of the Zapruder film as authentic (despite its not showing the scenario he supports, 3) his ignoring of Mary Moorman's accounts, and 4) his acceptance of another head shot as the second shot of the double-bang, which runs counter to witness accounts. I do like his limousine position at Z328 as something approaching the Altgens & Franzen accounts (as well as the FBI model), but it took longer for the limousine to get there than 0.71 seconds. In my scenario, it took about 4.93 seconds for the limousine to travel from where it is seen in Z313 to the point of the AR-15 head shot. The difference is explainable by the limo-stop (reported by some 60 witnesses or more), Z-film frame removal and other Z-film alterations (for example, I contend that the Z3313 "head shot" is a fake). But again, by placing his head shot as the second shot of the double-bang (with Z313 apparently being the first shot of the double-bang), he ignores the witness accounts that said the head shot occurred as the next-to-last shot. He also does not explain how he can get his scenario to align with the attributions given in the acoustical evidence, given his otherwise general acceptance of the acoustical evidence.
To be clear, I like his Z328 limousine position for his second head shot, which lines up pretty well with the FBI "Visual Aid" model position for their "third" shot, Mary Moorman's description of seeing Kennedy's hair lift with the next shot after she took her picture, the Altgens and Franzen accounts Thompson gives, and Greg Burnham's account of the "other" Zapruder film showing the (only visible) head shot as occurring when the limousine was "closer to the stairs." In fact, I like all the limousine positions given in the FBI model (although it does not include all of the shots fired, and I disagree with their string-line attributions for all 3 of their shots coming from the TSBD window--but the limousine positions are good):
FBI "Visual Aid" model images from Commission Document 298, found at https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10699#relPageId=1
The FBI model shows the limo positions for shots 2, 3, and 4 in my scenario. However, I don't however, like all of the FBI string-line attributions in their model (the only one actually I agree with is their "shot two" attribution). According to the acoustical evidence (and ballistic evidence--but that's another story) there should be five shots. But of course, there were only three hulls found in the TSBD, and witnesses only reported three shots as coming from the window. What the FBI scenario lacks is the first and last shots, the last one being the miss that caused Tague's minor wounding, assuming Buddy Walthers' same-day assessment was correct, and I think it was.
But as it turns out, the FBI "Visual Aid" model does show my shot 1, and shows it with a string line, with angle and distance noted in the description. But oddly, and despite these notations, the FBI model does not note this limousine position as a "shot" location:
But as it turns out, the FBI "Visual Aid" model does show my shot 1, and shows it with a string line, with angle and distance noted in the description. But oddly, and despite these notations, the FBI model does not note this limousine position as a "shot" location:
The FBI "Visual Aid" model's odd "not-a-shot" image with a trajectory string line and angle and distance given, which matches the shot location given by Alan Smith, Pierce Allman, and others. Although I believe the President's throat wound did appear at the same time, the string-line should run to the doll's forehead, instead of its throat.
What I like about Thompson's work is that he accepts the acoustical evidence as valid (as do I) and tries to align a scenario that matches with certain witness accounts (although not with others). But the fact is that the witness accounts, the Zapruder film, and the acoustical evidence do not align, no matter how much Thompson wants them to. He completely ignores the witness accounts describing a stopping of the limousine, for example. (You can actually see the brake lights engage in the Zapruder film, although the limo never seems to slow or stop.)
You can't get the acoustics, the witnesses, and the Z-film to align!
But if you ignore the Z-film, consider that the bystanders (especially those who didn't hear the first shot/s or thought the first shot/s were "firecrackers" or "backfire"--a common theme) were prone to inattention blindness or misinterpretation of distinct shots as "echoes," then you can get the acoustics to align with witness accounts, and even the (incomplete) limousine positions given in the FBI "Visual Aid" model.
But you have to start by ignoring the Zapruder film, which doesn't show Thompson's scenario anyway, stand by the witnesses, and accept the acoustical evidence as valid. You also have to acknowledge that Kennedy was shot before the Altgens 6 picture was taken (showing Kennedy already in distress in the decorticate posture "chest-grab" position, with Jackie's hands on his arm, rather than believe that the Altgens 6 picture happened instantaneously with the first shot.
If you do all that, you might find yourself coming up with my scenario, which aligns with the acoustical evidence and witness accounts much better than Thompson's (though not with the Zapruder film):
You can't get the acoustics, the witnesses, and the Z-film to align!
But if you ignore the Z-film, consider that the bystanders (especially those who didn't hear the first shot/s or thought the first shot/s were "firecrackers" or "backfire"--a common theme) were prone to inattention blindness or misinterpretation of distinct shots as "echoes," then you can get the acoustics to align with witness accounts, and even the (incomplete) limousine positions given in the FBI "Visual Aid" model.
But you have to start by ignoring the Zapruder film, which doesn't show Thompson's scenario anyway, stand by the witnesses, and accept the acoustical evidence as valid. You also have to acknowledge that Kennedy was shot before the Altgens 6 picture was taken (showing Kennedy already in distress in the decorticate posture "chest-grab" position, with Jackie's hands on his arm, rather than believe that the Altgens 6 picture happened instantaneously with the first shot.
If you do all that, you might find yourself coming up with my scenario, which aligns with the acoustical evidence and witness accounts much better than Thompson's (though not with the Zapruder film):
But what I don't like about Thompson's scenario is Thompson's apparent trust in the Zapruder film, and thus Thompson's failed attempt to make the Z-film and the acoustics match (they don't!), and his belief that there was a "head shot" at Z313--something for which there is no real witness corroboration. See my (in-progress) article on "Shot 3, which you can read at What Happened - Shot 3 (please understand it's still in-progress at this moment), and just assumed that the Z313 shot struck Kennedy. The artwork added to Z313 (in the film which Newman later saw, and which undoubtedly influenced his recall) and the amorphous changing "blob" added to later frames completed the illusion of the Z313 "head shot."
My scenario gives Altgens
The fact remains that the Z-film and the witness accounts and the acoustic data don't align in Thompson's scenario, despite his mistaken belief that they do and his failed attempt to make them do so. The reason they don't align is because of frame removal and other alterations made to the Z-film.
The Tague miss (my "shot 5," matching with Buddy Walthers' same-day account as the "last" shot causing Tague's wound) doesn't appear in the FBI model, and the first shot, despite a string-line attribution leading from the TSBD window to the doll's throat with angle and distance noted, is not admitted to be a "shot." (The limousine's position in the Visual Aid's "not-a-shot" image with its string-line attribution [to Kennedy's throat!] and notation of angle and distance does closely match the witness accounts given by Alan Smith, Pierce Allman, and others--see my discussion on What Happened - Shot 1)
So while I like Thompson's Z328 limousine position for the second head shot of his scenario as being closer to the FBI model's last shot position, and I like the acoustical evidence (albeit using 145.15 seconds for the 4th impulse) and applaud Thompson in his acceptance of it, I don't accept Z313 as an authentic Kennedy head shot. I do believe the AR-15 head shot occurred when the limousine was in about the FBI's "shot 3" position, which more or less agrees with Thompson's Z328 position, the witness accounts that Thompson gives (Altgens and Franzen), the position given by Greg Burnham in his description of the "other" Zapruder film (of the head shot occurring when the limousine was "closer to the stairs"), and the FBI model's position for the "3rd" shot:
My scenario gives Altgens
The fact remains that the Z-film and the witness accounts and the acoustic data don't align in Thompson's scenario, despite his mistaken belief that they do and his failed attempt to make them do so. The reason they don't align is because of frame removal and other alterations made to the Z-film.
The Tague miss (my "shot 5," matching with Buddy Walthers' same-day account as the "last" shot causing Tague's wound) doesn't appear in the FBI model, and the first shot, despite a string-line attribution leading from the TSBD window to the doll's throat with angle and distance noted, is not admitted to be a "shot." (The limousine's position in the Visual Aid's "not-a-shot" image with its string-line attribution [to Kennedy's throat!] and notation of angle and distance does closely match the witness accounts given by Alan Smith, Pierce Allman, and others--see my discussion on What Happened - Shot 1)
So while I like Thompson's Z328 limousine position for the second head shot of his scenario as being closer to the FBI model's last shot position, and I like the acoustical evidence (albeit using 145.15 seconds for the 4th impulse) and applaud Thompson in his acceptance of it, I don't accept Z313 as an authentic Kennedy head shot. I do believe the AR-15 head shot occurred when the limousine was in about the FBI's "shot 3" position, which more or less agrees with Thompson's Z328 position, the witness accounts that Thompson gives (Altgens and Franzen), the position given by Greg Burnham in his description of the "other" Zapruder film (of the head shot occurring when the limousine was "closer to the stairs"), and the FBI model's position for the "3rd" shot:
-----
The Mic Placement Diagram
If you've seen Part 9 of my documentary series, you know that I have little to no faith in this "Mic Placement Diagram" created for the HSCA:
If you've seen Part 9 of my documentary series, you know that I have little to no faith in this "Mic Placement Diagram" created for the HSCA:
The diagram was created by acoustics expert Dr. James Barger. But here's the thing: Barger wasn't actually present in Dealey Plaza when the acoustical tests were conducted. He has no first-hand knowledge that this is how the mics were placed. Instead, he based his diagram on a written list of "street features" that he was given. Who created the list of "Street Features"? Apparently no one knows. The descriptive list is not available for anyone in the public to see. It might be buried in the Archives somewhere...or it might not. There are a few photographs of the mics being set up in Dealey Plaza, but those are too vague and incomplete to use to verify the accuracy of the mic placement diagram.
Honestly, this diagram makes no sense. Why don't the microphones stretch all the way down Elm Street? After all, it was (theoretically) unknown which officer had the "bike with the mic," and it might have been one of the lead motorcycle officers. Yet in this diagram, the third array ends at the Moorman photo position. Even if one believes that the Moorman photo and Z313 position were concurrent with the "head shot," there were enough witnesses who placed a shot after the head shot to warrant continuing the microphone string further towards the Triple Underpass. Why are there two number 10's in the second array, and no number 10's in the third array? Why are the mics at the intersection of Houston and Elm arranged in an almost haphazard order? Part of the purpose of the acoustical study was to look for "order in. the data" (that is, if the acoustical matches were progressive, as would be expected for a motorcycle proceeding along the motorcade route, or haphazard, as would be expected by chance, but the arrangement at the corner makes no sense to me.
As I showed in my documentary, I designed a mic placement diagram that makes better sense than the HSCA diagram, using the same criteria for spacing that the HSCA diagram supposedly used. Mine stretches all the way to the Triple Underpass, checks for the "order in the data," gives good coverage around the turn onto Elm--and makes better sense than the one reported by the HSCA (no missing or doubled-up numbers, etc.). The green dots represent the first array of mics (no acoustical matches, the transparent green circles with the cross-hairs showing how the spacing was calculated, using the HSCA-published guidelines of half of the Houston Street width), the blue dots represent the second array of mics (theoretical matches at mics 5, 6, and 11). The yellow dots represent the third array of mics (theoretical matches at mics 4 and 5). Of course, I've tweaked this to match my scenario, but it certainly makes better sense than the diagram that was supposedly actually used.
Honestly, this diagram makes no sense. Why don't the microphones stretch all the way down Elm Street? After all, it was (theoretically) unknown which officer had the "bike with the mic," and it might have been one of the lead motorcycle officers. Yet in this diagram, the third array ends at the Moorman photo position. Even if one believes that the Moorman photo and Z313 position were concurrent with the "head shot," there were enough witnesses who placed a shot after the head shot to warrant continuing the microphone string further towards the Triple Underpass. Why are there two number 10's in the second array, and no number 10's in the third array? Why are the mics at the intersection of Houston and Elm arranged in an almost haphazard order? Part of the purpose of the acoustical study was to look for "order in. the data" (that is, if the acoustical matches were progressive, as would be expected for a motorcycle proceeding along the motorcade route, or haphazard, as would be expected by chance, but the arrangement at the corner makes no sense to me.
As I showed in my documentary, I designed a mic placement diagram that makes better sense than the HSCA diagram, using the same criteria for spacing that the HSCA diagram supposedly used. Mine stretches all the way to the Triple Underpass, checks for the "order in the data," gives good coverage around the turn onto Elm--and makes better sense than the one reported by the HSCA (no missing or doubled-up numbers, etc.). The green dots represent the first array of mics (no acoustical matches, the transparent green circles with the cross-hairs showing how the spacing was calculated, using the HSCA-published guidelines of half of the Houston Street width), the blue dots represent the second array of mics (theoretical matches at mics 5, 6, and 11). The yellow dots represent the third array of mics (theoretical matches at mics 4 and 5). Of course, I've tweaked this to match my scenario, but it certainly makes better sense than the diagram that was supposedly actually used.
So long story short, I think the HSCA-published mic placement diagram, with its odd doubling up of #10 in the second array and its missing #10 in the third array and other oddities, and without any information to support its validity, is just so much more of the same bullshit we've been fed as part of the assassination "investigations." Like the altered Zapruder film, altered photographs, altered X-ray images, this image is meant to sow more confusion rather than explain the reality of what happened.
-----
Whose "Bike with the Mike"?
HSCA Chief Counsel publicly said, "If you could prove to me that there was not a motorcycle officer in the position where he had to be, you would falsify my theory" (i.e., prove the acoustics invalid).
Well, it wasn't Blakey's theory, but whatever.
However, proving there was not an officer in the predicted locations is utterly dependent on the accuracy of that prediction to begin with. And without any supporting evidence to verify the veracity of the mic placement diagram, that's a major question.
The HSCA had decided that the "Bike with the Mike" had belonged to DPD Officer H.B. McLain, who testified to the HSCA that he was halfway between Main and Elm on Houston Street when the shots were fired.
Halfway down Houston Street, of course, is not the expected motorcycle position, given the HSCA's mic placement diagram.
I take Blakey's suggestion to researchers to "prove him wrong" to have been a nudge and a wink, because eventually, researcher Dale Myers took Blakey's suggestion to heart, and set about looking for a motorcycle officer in the expected position.
And Dale Myers, not surprisingly, found that McLain could not have been in the expected position to have been the one who had the "bike with the mike."
HSCA Chief Counsel publicly said, "If you could prove to me that there was not a motorcycle officer in the position where he had to be, you would falsify my theory" (i.e., prove the acoustics invalid).
Well, it wasn't Blakey's theory, but whatever.
However, proving there was not an officer in the predicted locations is utterly dependent on the accuracy of that prediction to begin with. And without any supporting evidence to verify the veracity of the mic placement diagram, that's a major question.
The HSCA had decided that the "Bike with the Mike" had belonged to DPD Officer H.B. McLain, who testified to the HSCA that he was halfway between Main and Elm on Houston Street when the shots were fired.
Halfway down Houston Street, of course, is not the expected motorcycle position, given the HSCA's mic placement diagram.
I take Blakey's suggestion to researchers to "prove him wrong" to have been a nudge and a wink, because eventually, researcher Dale Myers took Blakey's suggestion to heart, and set about looking for a motorcycle officer in the expected position.
And Dale Myers, not surprisingly, found that McLain could not have been in the expected position to have been the one who had the "bike with the mike."
I find it absolutely laughable that the exact same film and photographic image that the HSCA used to "prove" that the "Bike with the Mike" belonged to DPD motorcycle officer H.B. McLain, Dale Myers used to prove that it was NOT H.B., McLain!
The exact same images!
Myers won an Emmy for his work. I don't begrudge it, because his 3D animation is a thing of beauty. However, I also think that Blakey knew there wouldn't be any DPD motorcycle officer in the expected position, just as I think he knew that the mic placement diagram was misleading. That's why he was basically telling researchers to "prove (him) wrong," as a way of discrediting the acoustical evidence, without really discrediting it.
So who was the motorcycle officer who had the "bike with the mike?" My candidate is Douglas Jackson, who, I believe, was also the "Knoll Rider" who attempted to drive his motorcycle up the hill in search of a shooter.
The exact same images!
Myers won an Emmy for his work. I don't begrudge it, because his 3D animation is a thing of beauty. However, I also think that Blakey knew there wouldn't be any DPD motorcycle officer in the expected position, just as I think he knew that the mic placement diagram was misleading. That's why he was basically telling researchers to "prove (him) wrong," as a way of discrediting the acoustical evidence, without really discrediting it.
So who was the motorcycle officer who had the "bike with the mike?" My candidate is Douglas Jackson, who, I believe, was also the "Knoll Rider" who attempted to drive his motorcycle up the hill in search of a shooter.
According to the acoustical experts, an acoustical shockwave was present on the evidence tape for some of the impulses. Jackson was in a perfect position to receive those shockwaves, positioned as he was between the shooter (including Hickey) and the target Kennedy/Connally). He was also situated so that he would have perceived any shots with a shockwave precedent as having originated in a direction perpendicular to the travel of the bullet, either towards the bullet's path, or away from the path. In Jackson's case, it was away from the path, to his right, where he perceived the shot as originating.
To his right was the Grassy Knoll.
Barger's report included this diagram. Jackson was in the position of "Observer."
To his right was the Grassy Knoll.
Barger's report included this diagram. Jackson was in the position of "Observer."
Since, as we learn from Weis and Aschkenasy, a greater number of people actually tend to perceive the origin of the shooter as perpendicular towards the shockwave, this diagram seems to have been created with Jackson in mind.
Jackson's attempt to capture the assassin by driving up the knoll had the effect of convincing bystanders--who may have heard a shot coming from that general direction--that the assassin was at the top of the Knoll...and thus the "Grassy Knoll Shooter" became ingrained into assassination lore.
Jackson's attempt to capture the assassin by driving up the knoll had the effect of convincing bystanders--who may have heard a shot coming from that general direction--that the assassin was at the top of the Knoll...and thus the "Grassy Knoll Shooter" became ingrained into assassination lore.
-----
Denise's Echo Pattern Correlation
Acoustical experts Weiss and Aschkenasy submitted a report explaining why the dicta belt evidence could only have been gunshots, and could only have come from Dealey Plaza. That report includes this diagram:
Acoustical experts Weiss and Aschkenasy submitted a report explaining why the dicta belt evidence could only have been gunshots, and could only have come from Dealey Plaza. That report includes this diagram:
From https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/pdf/HSCA_Vol8_AS_2_BBN.pdf
They got their "95% or better confidence" that a shot came from the "Grassy Knoll," because any other location was unlikely to contain structures that were likely to produce the echo patterns seen in the evidence tape.
I like that "95% or better," but I'm now going to say, frankly, that they were wrong. Because I can find the same distance correlation to structures by putting my shooter on the road in front of the Grassy Knoll.
I measured the distances for the echo correlations for 1, 2, and 3, above, and moved my shooter to the roadway about where I thought he was located at the time of the shot, and with my "bike with the mic" also placed accordingly. Son-of-a-gun if I didn't get correlations with exactly the same distances. My apex distances and reflection structures are different, but those are irrelevant. It's the time for the sound of the muzzle blast to travel from the point of origin to the reflecting structure, plus the distance from that reflection point to the open microphone. Moreover, when the Weiss/Aschkenasy reflection point was at the corner of a building or structure, mine was also at the corner of a building or structure. My echo 1 correlation (light blue) goes to the same wall, albeit the opposite end of that wall. My echo 2 correlation also goes to the corner of a building--but to the TSBD building instead of the County Records building. My echo 3 correlation also goes to the middle surface of a building, but to the side of the TSBD instead of the County Records Building. The distances are exactly the same. This is what I came up with (green dot represents my shooter, red dot represents my "bike with the mike," rust-colored arrow represents the direction of the bullet, light blue, orange, and purple lines represent the paths of travel for echoes 1, 2, and 3, respectively:
I like that "95% or better," but I'm now going to say, frankly, that they were wrong. Because I can find the same distance correlation to structures by putting my shooter on the road in front of the Grassy Knoll.
I measured the distances for the echo correlations for 1, 2, and 3, above, and moved my shooter to the roadway about where I thought he was located at the time of the shot, and with my "bike with the mic" also placed accordingly. Son-of-a-gun if I didn't get correlations with exactly the same distances. My apex distances and reflection structures are different, but those are irrelevant. It's the time for the sound of the muzzle blast to travel from the point of origin to the reflecting structure, plus the distance from that reflection point to the open microphone. Moreover, when the Weiss/Aschkenasy reflection point was at the corner of a building or structure, mine was also at the corner of a building or structure. My echo 1 correlation (light blue) goes to the same wall, albeit the opposite end of that wall. My echo 2 correlation also goes to the corner of a building--but to the TSBD building instead of the County Records building. My echo 3 correlation also goes to the middle surface of a building, but to the side of the TSBD instead of the County Records Building. The distances are exactly the same. This is what I came up with (green dot represents my shooter, red dot represents my "bike with the mike," rust-colored arrow represents the direction of the bullet, light blue, orange, and purple lines represent the paths of travel for echoes 1, 2, and 3, respectively:
The acoustical experts also gave a 5 foot variance in the placement of the "Knoll" shooter. They also couldn't give a "100%" certainty, but had to equivocate with somewhere around 5% margin of error. That is enough, I think, to allow for my shooter to be placed on the road in front of the knoll--especially since I can get echo correlations that match the distances--and even corner vs. flat surfaces--of the given correlations!
It might be possible to create an acoustical study using modern day computer modeling to test my assertion. I welcome such a study.
I close by pointing out one important fact: despite the "95% confidence" that the acoustics supported the conclusion of a "Grassy Knoll" shower, the fact is that no one--not one person--actually saw such a shooter. One might say that my scenario has the same problem, but there is plenty of evidence that a Secret Service agent "fell over, like he was killed, too," of a "puff of smoke" either over the roadway or "coming out from underneath the tree" (although the wind was blowing the wrong way for such smoke to have been carried from the "Knoll"), and that at least one shot sounded as if it came from "right there, in the car."
It might be possible to create an acoustical study using modern day computer modeling to test my assertion. I welcome such a study.
I close by pointing out one important fact: despite the "95% confidence" that the acoustics supported the conclusion of a "Grassy Knoll" shower, the fact is that no one--not one person--actually saw such a shooter. One might say that my scenario has the same problem, but there is plenty of evidence that a Secret Service agent "fell over, like he was killed, too," of a "puff of smoke" either over the roadway or "coming out from underneath the tree" (although the wind was blowing the wrong way for such smoke to have been carried from the "Knoll"), and that at least one shot sounded as if it came from "right there, in the car."