His thread is a total joke. He did nothing more than cobble together false claims made by the NRC panel, Bowles, Elliott, etc., etc., all of which were refuted years ago. Some of his arguments are patently silly and were answered by the HSCA 30 years ago.
Incredibly (but not surprisingly), he does not even address the core of the acoustical evidence, namely, the fact that the echo-pattern correlations occur in the correct topographic order, the fact that the N-waves and their succeeding muzzle blasts and echoes all occur in the correct order and timespan, the fact that the shooting timespan is correct, and the fact that windshield distortions among the identified gunshots occur when they should and do not occur when they should not.
I have addressed that. So, here we go again.
To be considered good, the acoustic evidence must predict:
1. The location of the shooter.
2. The location that the shooter was aiming at, that is, where the bullet struck.
3. The position of the motorcycle.
It must get all 3 correct for all the shots in order to get a passing grade. How will did they do?
1. Using the Acoustic data, what was the location of the shooter?
Shot 1: At z176, within 10 milliseconds, there was a shot fired form the TSBD and another from the Grassy Knoll.
Shot 2: At z205, within 10 milliseconds, there was a shot fired from the TSBD and another from the Grassy Knoll.
Shot 3: At z224, there was a shot fired from the TSBD.
Shot 4: At z304, within 10 milliseconds, there was a shot fired from the Grassy Knoll and the TSBD.
Shot 5: At z313, there was a shot fired from the TSBD.
Note: I’m not making this up. Check my initial post of the following thread to look at BBN’s Exhibit F-367 where in this table they list the “Rifle Location” for each test shot that matched the 1978 Dealey Plaza tests.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2717.0.htmlThis correlation is atrocious. Dr. Barger’s solution? Just consider some of the correlations they found to be “False Alarms” and let’s just ignore them. And just pick the correlations that work out best as good.
2. Using the Acoustic data, what was the location that the shooter was aiming at, that is, where did the bullet struck.
Shot 1: At z176, within 10 milliseconds, there was a shot that struck near where the limousine was at z155 (miss limousine by 21 feet),
and another shot at where the limousine would be at z313 (miss limousine by 100 feet),
and another shot near Mr. Tague (miss limousine by 360 feet)
Shot 2: At z205, both shots struck near where the limousine would be at z313, missing the limousine by 95 feet.
Shot 3: At z224, there was one shot that struck within the limousine (they are starting to get the range).
Shot 4: At z304, within 10 milliseconds, there was a shot that struck near where the limousine was at z224 (miss limousine by 70 feet)
and at near z313 (a hit within the limousine).
Shot 5: At z313, there was a shot that struck near where the limousine was at z224 (miss limousine by 90 feet)
and another shot at z313 (a hit within the limousine)
and another shot at Mr. Tague again (miss limousine by 240 feet)
Note: Again, I am not making this up. Look at the table I talk of before BBN Exhibit F-367 and the map I found at:
www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/pdf/HSCA_Vol8_AS_2_BBN.pdfAnd go about half way down, to Page 49 of 95 in the pdf document, labeled as Page 81 (listed at top of page) and Page 41 (listed at the bottom on the page).
This map shows the location of Target 1, Target 2, Target 3 and Target 4, the four targets they fired at in the 1978 Dealey Plaza shooting tests.
Again, this correlation is atrocious. Dr. Barger’s solution? Just consider some of the correlations they found to be “False Alarms” and let’s just ignore them. And just pick the correlations that work out best as good.
3. The position of the motorcycle.
The Acoustic data found that the motorcycle was behind the limousine by 120 to 160 feet during the shooting. Finally, a result that is not totally ridiculous.
But would making a good prediction on just 1 out of 3 (position of shooter, position of target, position of motorcycle) be a good a grade?
We have a theory about how to predict the path of an asteroid. But every time it predicts the asteroid is going to hit the Earth in two-week’s time, and where an asteroid is going to hit the Earth. And at what angle it is going to hit the Earth. And the velocity of the asteroid. We always find it misses the Earth, misses the location it’s going to hit the Earth, misses the angle it is going to hit the Earth, but predicts the velocity of the asteroid pretty accurately, do we have a good theory or a garbage theory?
Mr. Griffith makes a great deal about this “success” of predicting the location of the motorcycle. But let’s remember, they expected the motorcycle to be moving around 11 mph.
And that are two factors that should bring up suspicions:
1. Given the two-week time limit to do the work, to make 2,596 comparisons and the associated calculations, is it possible they only checked the recordings where the motorcycle would have been 120 to 160 feet behind the President. That is, not check, for the “shot” at z313 at the locations the motorcycle would be predicted at z152, because of the lack of time to check all combinations. And besides, your not going to find a valid correlation there anyway. But to only look for the “shot” at z313 near where the motorcycle would be around z313. If this is the case, naturally all the correlations found would be consistent with a motorcycle trailing by 120 to 160 feet.
2. The tired workers doing the tedious checking, might miss seeing correlations on stretches where the motorcycle “cannot be” because the motorcycle was already “found” in a previous stretch of the data.
And, this “success” is not much of a success. We know from the Hughes film and Mr. Altgens photograph at z255 that no motorcycle was not 120 to 160 feet behind the limousine, the closest was Officer McLain who was about 275 feet behind.
So, again, the consistent speed of the motorcycle, as found in the BBN’s Exhibit F-367 Table, may be an artifact of where they searched for correlations. If they only searched for correlations with the “first shot” at locations corresponding to a location 150 feet behind the limousine, and did the same with the “second shot”, and did the same with the “third”, and “fourth”, and “fifth”, then the resulting data would fit perfectly with a motorcycle trailing the limousine by 150 at an average speed of 11 mph. They won’t find any random data outside of these parameters. This conjecture explains how the data could be so bad for indicating the source of the shots, so bad for the location of where the shot struck, but so go at giving a consistent picture of a motorcycle moving at 11 mph 150 feet behind the limousine.
So yes, I do address the “core” of the acoustical evidence, namely, the fact that the echo-pattern correlations occur in the correct topographic order. My conjecture may or may not be accurate. I, and apparently you don’t know how many of the combinations of the “6 Dictabelt shots” with the “432 waveforms from the 1978 tests” were actually made. But I have addressed this issue.
