Poor Scholarship on Display: Larry Sturdivan's Book "The JFK Myths"

[Joe Elliott]

By the way, I should mention that not one of the scientists on the NAS NRC panel was an acoustics expert.

But that doesn’t prevent other scientists, who really are acoustic experts, and had no involvement with the original HSCA report, from stepping up and saying that they think the HSCA had it right about the four shots. But so far, the only scientists who do this are insect experts.

[Michael T. Griffith]

One of the best responses to the NAS-NRC panel (aka the Ramsey Panel) was written years ago by W. Anthony Marsh, a computer programmer and a long-time JFK assassination researcher. Titled "Rebuttal to Ramsey," Marsh's response answers every argument raised by the NAS-NRC panel and points out several of the panel's serious errors. Here's the URL to Marsh's rebuttal:

https://the-puzzle-palace.com/rebuttal.htm

And here are some excerpts from Marsh's article:

The NAS committee worked in total secrecy without dialogue with critics. I had written to them on December 1, 1980 suggesting several solutions and points that had to be addressed. Not only did they ignore them, they didn't even acknowledge my letter. Phone calls went unanswered. If this treatment was typical, it  shows a bias that is unmistakable. Many of their glaringly obvious errors could have been avoided simply by accepting help from outside researchers. . . .

However, the most important error to me was that Bowles left out and Ramsey did not correctly include a message which I feel is the most important on the tape. In my letter of Dec. 1, 1980, I pointed out that there was a transmission on the ch. 1 tape which proves that it was McLain's cycle with the open mike. About two minutes after the shots, a fellow officer yells to the cyclist with the open mike, "Take off, Buddy.", whereupon the cyclist turns on his siren and speeds off to catch up with the motorcade. I did not expect Bowles to include that, given the fact that the DPD has been a leader in anti-conspiracy propaganda and many of its officers have destroyed or manufactured evidence over the years. Yet, Bowles does include a highly doubtful identification of the message, "hold everything", which confirms the NAS thesis of a cross-talk, when that message is not at all clear. In his report, Ramsey ignored the message completely. A simple examination of the tape at that point would have shown that the voice was speaking directly into the open mike, confirmed by the lack of a heterodyne, which results from interference, and that the siren was on the open mike, confirmed by the presence of an interference arc. H.B. McLain was the only DPD cyclist named Buddy in the motorcade. . . .

Ramsey's major thesis rests on the conclusion that Curry's message, "Go to the hospital," occurred before the purported shots. On this basis he concluded that there was no reason to look for shots. It's ironic that the NAS panel was called  a "Committee on Ballistic Acoustics" when they didn't perform one such test or deal with the topic. They went to great lengths of propaganda to just avoid having to do any ballistic acoustics. . . .

As I pointed out previously, Ramsey failed to deduct time for 2 repeats on ch. 2, amounting to app. 6.8 seconds. Further he based the timing on tapes which he and the government have kept secret. My Canadian tapes show marked differences. The timing between ch. 1 and ch. 2 can be compared by identifying any messages broadcast simultaneously over both channels. Ramsey spent a great deal of effort and money trying to do this for uncertain messages, but ignored an obvious one, Henslee's simultaneous broadcast to all emergency equipment. This one is unmistakable, well documented in transcripts, and needs no elaborate tests to confirm. Comparing ch. 1 to ch. 2 based on that message as the benchmark and making the necessary adjustments for known factors produces the following results: Henslee's ch. 2 message at 324.5 minus Curry's at 32.7 = 291.8 secs. between messages. Deducting 31.1 secs. for the 8 repeats = 260.7 secs. corrected. Two corrections must be made for ch. 1. First, 6 secs. representing a break in recording must be deducted from the 432.5 yielding 426.5. Then the time must be corrected by .99 for the difference in recording speeds (confirmed by a comparison of the frequencies of Henslee's voice during
the simulcast), yielding 422.2. The grassy knoll shot at 143.2 corrected by .99 yields 141.8. Then 422.2-141.8 = 280.4. Then comparing the corrected times, 260.7-280.4 = -19.7. This would tend to confirm that Curry's message came almost 20 seconds after the shots, rather than a minute before as Ramsey has concluded. . . .

Ramsey tried to pad the earlier part of ch. 2 with supposed silences. One of the criteria he used in establishing the existence of the silences was that the strip charts showed periods where the signal stayed below his arbitrarily imposed threshold of 10 decibels below peak voltage for more than 4 seconds. He based that on the word of DPD Capt. Bowles, with no hard evidence. But even granting the possibility that there were hold relays of approximately 4 seconds, there is no firm evidence about the threshold at which they operated or that in fact that they were operating properly on Nov. 22, 1963. Moreover, the fact that repeat 5 has a period of duration less that the estimated hold duration and the fact that its decibel level was much lower than the estimated hold threshold would suggest that such mistracking could be mistaken for a silence. Thus it is possible that none of the silences identified by Ramsey were in fact silences. Further, it seems that the signal in every supposed silence remains higher than at repeat 5. Ramsey then goes on to arbitrarily add 46 seconds to ch. 2 to account for his silences, justified by the specious argument that perhaps ch. 2 wasn't used much at that time. This can easily be refuted by pointing to the fact that many officers were trying and unable to use ch. I and switched to ch. 2 to report that fact, get orders, or try to find out what was happening. Also, BBN's study showed that ch. 2 was running "nearly continuously" during that time.

[Joe Elliott]

One of the best responses to the NAS-NRC panel (aka the Ramsey Panel) was written years ago by W. Anthony Marsh, a computer programmer and a long-time JFK assassination researcher. Titled "Rebuttal to Ramsey," Marsh's response answers every argument raised by the NAS-NRC panel and points out several of the panel's serious errors. Here's the URL to Marsh's rebuttal:

https://the-puzzle-palace.com/rebuttal.htm

And here are some excerpts from Marsh's article:

We old posters here at this forum all know Anthony Marsh. Anthony Marsh was not an acoustic expert. He wasn’t a scientist. Heck, he wasn’t even an insect expert. As I understand it, Dr. Thomas, and the 1978 HSCA acoustic experts, accept that the 4 “gunshots” were recorded out of order, about a minute after they really occurred. They now all accept Steve Barber’s observation that they were recorded one minute too late. They explain this by claiming the “gunshots” were somehow recorded out of order.

Do any of these “experts” accept Marsh’s hypothesis that they really weren’t?

[John Iacoletti]

We old posters here at this forum all know Anthony Marsh. Anthony Marsh was not an acoustic expert. He wasn’t a scientist. Heck, he wasn’t even an insect expert. As I understand it, Dr. Thomas, and the 1978 HSCA acoustic experts, accept that the 4 “gunshots” were recorded out of order, about a minute after they really occurred. They now all accept Steve Barber’s observation that they were recorded one minute too late. They explain this by claiming the “gunshots” were somehow recorded out of order.

Do any of these “experts” accept Marsh’s hypothesis that they really weren’t?

Can you explain what Marsh got wrong?

[Michael T. Griffith]

We old posters here at this forum all know Anthony Marsh. Anthony Marsh was not an acoustic expert. He wasn’t a scientist. Heck, he wasn’t even an insect expert.

More of your dishonest strawman arguments to avoid dealing with the fact that every single acoustical expert who has analyzed the dictabelt has concluded it contains at least four gunshot impulses on it.

It's interesting to see you belittle an entomologist whose acoustical research was favorably reviewed by Dr. James Barger, a recognized and leading acoustical expert, and was published in a peer-reviewed criminal science journal, yet you guys continue to peddle the attacks on the acoustical evidence offered by the NRC panel, which did not include a single acoustical experts, and by Dale Myers, who has no scientific training whatsoever.

By the way, one member of the NRC panel was a diehard WC apologist, Luis Alvarez, who was later caught rigging his ballistics tests and misrepresenting the results.

As I understand it, Dr. Thomas, and the 1978 HSCA acoustic experts, accept that the 4 “gunshots” were recorded out of order, about a minute after they really occurred. They now all accept Steve Barber’s observation that they were recorded one minute too late. They explain this by claiming the “gunshots” were somehow recorded out of order. Do any of these “experts” accept Marsh’s hypothesis that they really weren’t?

Once again you're fishing and stumbling because you haven't bothered to read the necessary research. Just the way you frame the issue here shows you don't understand the basics about the acoustical evidence. You didn't even address Marsh's points about the outright, demonstrable errors that the NRC panel made.

And you continue to dance around the core issues of the sound-distance correlations, the sound fingerprints, and the N-wave correlations. Supersonic N-waves do not just magically appear on an audio recording out of thin air.  The sound-distance correlations between the dictabelt impulses and the Dealey Plaza test-firing impulses cannot be explained as coincidence--the odds that the two sets of impulses would correlate are astronomically remote, even leaving aside the presence of the N-wave.

[Michael T. Griffith]

British JFK assassination scholar Martin Hay does a good job of summarizing Dr. Thomas's research on the HSCA acoustical evidence:

Over the past decade, no single researcher has worked as hard as Don Thomas at bringing the acoustics evidence back into the assassination debate and, as would be expected, it is a focal point of Hear No Evil. Many of the details involved in an analysis of the dictabelt recording are highly technical in nature and the average reader will, like myself, find this section of the book a little hard to absorb at times. Thankfully, as he has done in previous papers and lectures, the author shows that the most compelling reason to accept the acoustics is not particularly technical at all. This Thomas refers to as “the order in the data.”

On the day of the assassination, the microphone on a police motorcycle travelling in the Presidential motorcade had become stuck in the “on” position and the sounds had been recorded on a dictabelt machine at Dallas police headquarters. When the dictabelt was brought to the attention of the HSCA in 1978, it asked the top acoustics experts in the country to analyze the recording to see if it had captured the sounds of the assassination gunfire. James Barger and his colleagues at Bolt, Baranek & Newman (BBN) discovered six suspect impulses on the tape that occurred at approximately 12:30 p.m.—the time of the assassination—and reported that on-site testing needed to be conducted at Dealey Plaza. There, microphones were placed along the parade route on Houston and Elm Streets and test shots were fired from the two locations witnesses had reported hearing shots; the Texas School Book Depository and the grassy knoll. BBN found that five of the impulses on the dictabelt were found to acoustically match the echo patterns of test shots fired in Dealey Plaza. One of these, the fourth in sequence, matched to a shot fired from the grassy knoll. As Thomas explains, “the mere fact that the suspect sounds had matched to some of the test shots is not particularly significant. However, the order and spacing of the matching microphone positions followed the same order as the sounds on the police tape.” (p. 583)

If the sounds on the dictabelt were not the assassination gunshots, “a match would be as likely to appear at the first microphone as the last...And if all five happened to match, as these had, they would fall in some random order...But the matches were not random. They fell in the exact same 1-2-3-4-5 topographic order as they appear chronologically on the police recording.” (ibid)

The first impulse matched to a test shot recorded on a microphone on Houston Street near the intersection with Elm.
The second to a microphone 18 ft north on Houston.
The third to a microphone at the intersection.
The fourth to a microphone on Elm.
And the fifth to the next microphone to the west.

On top of all this, the distance from the first matching microphone to the last was 143 feet and the time between the first and last suspect impulse on the tape was 8.3 seconds. In order for the motorcycle with the stuck microphone to cover 143 feet in 8.3 seconds it would need to be travelling at a speed of approximately 11.7 mph which fits almost perfectly with the FBI's conclusion that the Presidential limousine was averaging 11.3 mph on Elm Street. (ibid)

Finally, the gunshots on the dictabelt synchronize perfectly with the visual evidence of the Zapruder film. There are two visible reactions to gunshots on the Zapruder film. One of these occurs at Z-frame 313 with the blatantly obvious explosion of President Kennedy's head. The other occurs between fames 225 and 230 when the Stetson hat in Connally's hand flips up and down, presumably as a result of the missile passing through his wrist. This is preceded at Z-224 by the flipping of Connally's lapel which has been cited by many as pinpointing the exact moment the bullet passed through his chest. When the fourth shot on the dictabelt, the grassy knoll shot, is aligned with Z-frame 313, the third shot falls at precisely Z-224! (p. 604) This perfect synchronization of audio and visual evidence is either one heck of a coincidence or the final proof that the suspect impulses on the dictabelt really are what the HSCA experts claimed there were. Unfortunately, this remarkable concordance was hidden from the public when HSCA chief counsel, Robert Blakey, in a “socially constructive” move, convinced the experts to label the third shot as a “false alarm.” (https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/thomas-donald-byron-hear-no-evil-social-constructivism-and-the-forensic-evidence-in-the-kennedy-assassination-two-reviews-1)

[Michael T. Griffith]

Yes. It turned out Steve Barber was correct. Which is the bottom line. Not the degrees he has versus the degrees held by the acoustic experts and Dr. Thomas. It is who is correct.

The is no explanation as to why these ‘superior’ acoustic experts did not discover this crosstalk before Steve Barber did. They had access to superior quality recordings than Steve did, but it was Steve who discovered it.

They were focused on the gunshot impulses and the N-waves on the dictabelt, and on comparing them with the gunshot impulses and N-waves from the Dealey Plaza test firings. You still can’t seem to understand the basic point that the crosstalk really means nothing, given the dictabelt’s features and the way it was recorded. Again, supersonic N-waves do not just magically appear on an audio recording unless the recording contains gunfire.

The ‘two channels were offset by a minute’ explanation by Dr. Thomas makes no sense to me. If it was true, we should hear phrases like “Hold everything secure” and then a minute later, the same phrase repeated again. Why does this never happen if the two channels can be offset by a minute? If there is such an offset, and crosstalk occurs, wouldn’t we be hearing the same phrase repeated twice?

Since Dr. Thomas’s explanation of the crosstalk seems to be too technical for you to grasp, let’s try posing these questions, which might help you understand Dr. Thomas’s explanation:

* How did the N-waves get on the dictabelt, if the dictabelt did not record gunfire?

* How could it be that an N-wave appears in each dictabelt gunshot impulse for which the police microphone was in an appropriate position to detect it, including the recorded sound of the grassy knoll shot?

* How could it be that the sound fingerprints on the dictabelt match some of the sound fingerprints from the Dealey Plaza test firings, if the dictabelt did not record gunfire in Dealey Plaza?

* How could it be that the sound-distance data of the identified gunshot impulses on the dictabelt match the sound-distance data of some of the gunshot impulses from the Dealey Plaza test firings, if the dictabelt did not record gunfire in the plaza?

* How could it be that even the windshield distortions are present on the shots when they should be, and absent on the others when they should be, when compared to the Dealey Plaza test firings? Can you fathom the odds that such specific correlations are all just a coincidence?

Yes. The original acoustic experts, who may simply be too embarrassed to admit error, still say they stand behind there work.

Or maybe they still stand by their work because the NRC panel failed to explain the evidence relating to the N-waves, the sound fingerprint correlations, and the sound-distance correlations. Maybe they stand by their work because the NRC panel, not having a single acoustics expert, committed numerous blunders and used specious criteria to discount the gunshot impulses. Maybe they stand by their work because the cold, hard scientific evidence shows that the dictabelt contains at least four gunshot impulses that were recorded in Dealey Plaza during the assassination.

But where are the other acoustic experts, not insect experts, who rally to their defense and say, yes, they were right and they are still right?

Let’s ask a different question: Has a single acoustics expert disputed the BBN and WA acoustical analysis? The answer to that would be NO. Could that be because BBN (now a part of Raytheon) is an internationally recognized acoustics authority with top-notch acoustical scientists? Could that be because Weiss and Aschkenasy were recognized as two of the leading acoustical experts in the world, which is why they were asked to evaluate the BBN findings?

This “trail”, if it is a trail, should show up in both the frontal and the side X-Ray. In the side X-Ray as a long line of fragments. And in the frontal X-Ray as a short line of fragments. But we don’t see that in the frontal X-Ray. Which leaves me to believe that there was to linear arrangement of the fragments in 3-D space. It’s just that the fragments were blasted, or moved by blood, upward from their original position, so there is no linear arrangement of them in 3-D space.

You really should just stop with this nonsense and concede the point. Here we have another case where, obviously, I can’t force you to admit an obvious, universally acknowledged fact.

Every single radiologist, forensic pathologist, and medical doctor who has examined the autopsy skull x-rays has noted the high fragment trail on the lateral x-rays, including everyone from Dr. Lattimer to Dr. Fitzpatrick, the ARRB’s forensic radiologist. If you want to continue to embarrass yourself by standing by Sturdivan’s horrible x-ray reading, no one can stop you from doing so, but in so doing, you will make it clear that you are not credible.

And I notice that you have, once again, ignored the fact that the autopsy doctors described a low fragment trail, that the autopsy doctors said nothing about a fragment trail near the top of the head, and that the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report is nowhere to be seen on the extant x-rays. Let’s be honest: You keep ducking these facts because you have no rational, believable explanation for them. Sturdivan ducks them as well, probably for the same reason.

The goat film is the best evidence we have. We don’t have 10 films of goats being shot in the head and 10 films of humans being shot in the head. If we had, and it was discovered that goats always start moving 40 milliseconds after the bullet strikes and humans 200 milliseconds after the bullet strikes, then I would say that it appears, for some strange reason, humans react 5 times more slowly than goats. I don’t know why this would be. . . .

You don’t know why this would be?! Really? Uh, well, maybe because goats and humans have very different neuro anatomy, because the necks of goats and humans are constructed differently, and because goats are much smaller than humans. Again, if you want to keep embarrassing yourself rather than admit an obvious point, no one can stop you from doing so.

This but the evidence shows this to be true. I would then conclude that the backward movement could not be caused by the neuromuscular reaction.

But we don’t have this. We can’t run this experiment on humans. If we had such a film, we could not show it. The JFK assassination, for some strange reason, is the lone exception. So, we have to do the best we can. We are allowed to shoot goats in the head and show film of this, so this is the best way, available to us today, to determine in a neuromuscular reaction could start in one Zapruder frame. So, unless human values change drastically for the worst, the goat film, or films of other animals being shot in the head, is the best experiment we will be allowed to run. And our conclusions of how fast a neuromuscular reaction can occur has to be based on these experiments.

You just can’t help yourself, can you? I have already given you the facts about the known speeds of human neuromuscular reactions in my thread on the jet-effect and neuro-spasm theories. The reaction time required for a human head and torso to be propelled violently backward is not going to be the same as the reaction time required for two human fingers to grab an object, because obviously a lot more weight, bones, and muscles are involved to move a head and torso.

And I notice that you have, once again, simply ducked the fact that JFK’s reaction is nothing like the goat’s reaction, as many scholars have pointed out, and as I have personally pointed out to you several times.

This Dr. Joseph Dolce was a ballistic expert? He was a medical doctor. A consultant with Edgewood Arsenal. So, he did consult with ballistic experts, but was not one himself. He did not study the what could happen to bullets when they struck humans. He studied what would happen to humans.

This lie again? To repeat what I’ve told you three times now, Dr. Dolce was the chief of the Army’s Wound Ballistics Board. When the Warren Commission (WC) asked the Army to provide their top wound ballistics expert, the Army selected Dr. Dolce. Maybe the Army just didn't know what a wound ballistics expert was, hey?

Before becoming the chief of the Army’s Wound Ballistics Board, Dr. Dolce was a battlefield surgeon in the Pacific, for three years, so, needless to say, he dealt with hundreds of gunshot cases. Dr. Dolce's experience and expertise were so highly regarded that if a VIP or member of Congress were injured, Dr. Dolce was asked to review the case.

He objected to the Single Bullet Theory because he did not think that CE 399 would cause the wounds to JFK and Connally and still end up only moderately deformed. He should have stuck to his field of expertise, on the expected effects on humans and not the expected effects on bullets.

No, but you should stop lying and stick to your field of expertise, whatever that might be. You never even bothered to watch Dolce’s segment in the Reasonable Doubt documentary, did you? If you had gathered up the courage to watch that segment, you would have learned that Dr. Dolce said he based his rejection of the SBT on the WC’s own wound ballistics tests, which he supervised.

Plus, I don’t know if he gave an opinion on the X-Ray of the “fragment trail” in the side X-Ray.

He was never asked about this issue. However, since he was a surgeon before he became a wound ballistics expert, he would have had some training and experience in reading x-rays, so he would have been qualified to render a credible opinion on the matter. (By the early 1900s, doctors routinely used x-rays as a diagnostic tool.)

So, try again. Give me the name of a valid ballistic expert who disagrees with Larry Sturdivan.

I already gave you the names of two ballistics experts who disagree with Larry Sturdivan: Dr. Dolce and Dr. Roger McCarthy. Plus, I reject your silly attempt to limit the experts to ballistics experts. You don’t want to expand the fields of expertise into forensics and radiology. We both know why.

I’ll try again to get you to tell me the name of a ballistics expert or forensic pathologist who has ever heard of an FMJ bullet striking a skull and exploding into dozens of fragments, leaving two fragments on the rear outer table of the skull below the entry point, and still ejecting its nose and tail from the skull.

Ballistic tests with ballistic gel show that bullets, while fragmenting, the veer, in an unpredictable direction, while traveling through ballistic gel. This is not a nutty theory, this is not a theory he is forced to resort to, but a well-established fact, maybe not known to medical doctors, even those heavily involved with forensics, but is well known to true ballistic experts who make these observations.

So you are doubling down on this stupid theory. Wow. Just wow.

Yes, it is a nutty theory because neither brain tissue nor ballistics gel can cause a bullet to veer to the drastic degree that Sturdivan theorizes. Sturdivan knows he cannot cite a single ballistics test where a bullet fired into gelatin veered so drastically horizontally and then veered upward in the space of 3-5 inches of gel. That is total hogwash. It is nutty nonsense. Bullets do veer in soft tissue and in ballistics gel, but not to that degree, not even close, and Sturdivan surely knows it.

Sturdivan also knows, or should know, that none of the bullets fired into the gelatin-filled skulls in the WC’s ballistics tests veered so drastically. Not one of them performed this magical feat. None of them did so because bullets do not veer that markedly in brain tissue or in ballistics gel or in any other soft-tissue-like substance.

You should contact some ballistics experts and ask them if they have ever seen a bullet veer so drastically in the space of 3-5 inches while transiting a gelatin block. In fact, when you ask them about this, show them Sturdivan’s diagram to ensure they understand just how sharp of a turn and an upward veer we’re talking about.

Here, again, I can’t compel you to abandon another ridiculous theory. No one can stop you from continuing to claim that a bullet entering a skull just above the EOP at a 15-degree downward angle could suddenly make a sharp right turn in brain tissue and then veer upward, all in the space of a few inches, and could even do this while supposedly exploding into dozens of fragments and somehow depositing fragments near the top of the head, several inches above the EOP. I find it hard to believe that deep down you really believe such a ludicrous theory. But, if you do, this is another indication that you are not to be taken seriously.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Quote from: Joe Elliott on September 09, 2020, 10:41:10 PM
We old posters here at this forum all know Anthony Marsh. Anthony Marsh was not an acoustic expert. He wasn’t a scientist. Heck, he wasn’t even an insect expert. As I understand it, Dr. Thomas, and the 1978 HSCA acoustic experts, accept that the 4 “gunshots” were recorded out of order, about a minute after they really occurred. They now all accept Steve Barber’s observation that they were recorded one minute too late. They explain this by claiming the “gunshots” were somehow recorded out of order.

Do any of these “experts” accept Marsh’s hypothesis that they really weren’t?

Can you explain what Marsh got wrong?

No, he can't explain what Marsh got wrong because he does not even understand the basic facts about the HSCA's acoustical evidence. He only knows what he's read in articles that attack the acoustical evidence. He doesn't even seem to have read the NAS-NRC-Ramsey report.

I don't know where in the world he gets his claim that the HSCA acoustical experts and Dr. Thomas believe that the gunshots were "somehow recorded out of order." That is the exact opposite of what they have said. But Elliott doesn't know this because he relies on pro-WC websites such as McAdams' propaganda site. If he had bothered to read any of the links I've provided, much less Dr. Thomas's book, he would have learned that one of the evidences of the gunshot impulses is that they match the Dealey Plaza test shots in the correct order, would could not happen if the matches were invalid.

After numerous replies, he still has not explained the several lines of evidence of gunfire on the dictabelt. He has not explained this evidence because the pro-WC sources that he's using don't explain it either. O'Dell doesn't explain it. The FBI attack did not explain it. And the NAS-NRC-Ramsey panel did not explain it. They don't even mention some of the evidence, such as the fact that BBN proved that the gunshot echo patterns have the amplitude, duration, and number of impulses typical of gunfire. So he just keeps going round and round about the crosstalk.

Anyone who would reject the acoustical evidence must explain the powerful correlations between the dictabelt and the Dealey Plaza test firings regarding the timing and nature of the echo patterns (e.g., they have the amplitude, duration, and impulses typical of gunfire), the appearance of the N-waves and the fact that they occur at the correct time (milliseconds before their succeeding sound impulse), the speed of the microphone's movement, and the windshield distortions that occur and do not occur exactly as they should for gunfire recorded in Dealey Plaza.