This is both comical and pathetic. These questions are based on a mix of misreading and/or misrepresentation and omission.
Plus, I have already debunked several of the claims in his reply, but Mr. Elliott keeps repeating them anyway: To cite just one example, regarding his claim that "BBN only checked for matches where they anticipated where the motorcycle might be," this is utterly erroneous and is the exact opposite of what they did. It is beyond me how anyone could get on a public board and make such an abjectly false statement when the relevant materials make it clear that the BBN scientists did the exact opposite of what Mr. Elliott claims they did.
Be advised that Mr. Elliott is the same guy who spent weeks claiming that the 4-second impulse pattern was rejected only because it wasn't long enough, who could not tell the difference between Barger's testimony and the BBN report, who did not even understand the basic timeline of the HSCA acoustical analysis (i.e., the preliminary analysis vs. the later analysis done after the test firing), who did not even know when the HSCA said the first shot was fired, among other egregious errors. I don't mention these things to kick a wounded horse, but just to enable readers to understand Mr. Elliott's record of making erroneous statements.
The best way to answer Mr. Elliott's ball of confusion is not to spend numerous paragraphs unpacking his errors and omissions but to provide a clear explanation of the relevant facts. I will do so by quoting from Dr. G. Paul Chambers' chapter on the acoustical evidence in his book Head Shot: The Science Behind the JFK Assassination.
Dr. Chambers is a physicist and an internationally recognized expert in the field of shock physics. He has performed extensive high-speed photographic studies of high-velocity impacts and deformations of solids as well as computer modeling of shock wave and matter interactions. He has worked with NASA at NASA's Goddard Optics Branch. He has worked as a supervisory research physicist at the Energetic Materials and Detonation Science Department of the Naval Surface Warfare Center, and as a research physicist with the Condensed Matter and Radiation Sciences Division of the Naval Research Laboratory. The quote below appears in my article on the acoustical evidence, the same article that Mr. Elliott keeps pretending to be answering:
Here is my article, the one that Mr. Elliott keeps pretending he's answering:
https://miketgriffith.com/files/hscaacous.pdf
Mr. Griffith is playing the same trick he often plays. He claims an issue has already been dealt with and provides a link to a long article. And implies that the answer is to be found somewhere in this article.
It would be easy for him to cut and paste the relevant paragraph if, it existed. As an example, I will cut and paste a random paragraph from his article to show how easy this is:
Random Paragraph:
Led by their chief scientist, Dr. James Barger, BBN converted the sounds on the
tapes [the Channel 1 tape and the Channel 2 tape] to digitized waveforms. They
then ran the waveforms through electronic filters to eliminate repetitive
background noise like the sound of the motorcycle pistons firing. The firm then
examined the processed waveforms for “sequences of impulses.” Their analysis
indicated that there were six sequences of interest, spaced together within an
eleven-second period recorded on channel 1, which could be consistent with the
sounds of gunshots. . . .
So as far as the two claims I have made, he has not really provided any quotes from Mr. Barger that either is false. These claims are:
1. There are two impulse pattern sequences recorded, just during the 5.5-minute period that the transmission key is stuck. One is 10 seconds long, the other 4. So, it appears the 10-second-long sequence is not unique. Since both were not caused by gunfire, perhaps neither were.
Perhaps if this second sequence was analyzed, they would have found correspondence with some impulse waves from their 1978 tests.
The only quotes I can find from Dr. Barger, about why the 4-second sequence was not investigated further were:
a. The sequence was too short, since the Zapruder film seemed to show the shooting lasted at least 5 seconds.
b. He claims it must have been created by someone else trying to transmit over Channel 1. But does not provide any technical reasons why he believes this, like the amplitude of the waves was too large or too small. For all I know, this is speculation on Dr. Barger’s part.
2. I believe it is likely that BBN did not systematically check all 2,592 combinations of the 432 waveforms, created in the 1978 tests, with the 6 waveforms of interest, recorded on the 1963 Dictabelt. I believe this was not done because of the lack of time, only 10 days to make the measurements and to do the calculations with calculators where all the numbers would have to be manually entered.
Instead, I speculate that after they thought they found one shot, they used this information, combined with the assumption that the motorcycle maintained a roughly 11 mph speed to tell them where to go look for other matches. If this was done, any correlation they found would match the scenario of a motorcycle moving at 11 mph. This would explain why the location of the motorcycle gets consistent results, which is what you want. While still getting random results for the location of the shooter and the area of Elm Street the bullet struck.
Again, this is speculation on my part but reasonable speculation. It provides an explanation as to why the data for the location of the motorcycle is good, while the data for the location of the shooter and where the bullet struck is so bad.
And Mr. Griffith, for all his bluster, has not provided us with a quote from Dr. Barger where he claims they did indeed conduct a systematic check of all possible 2,592 combinations in the time period of 10 days, from when the shooting tests were conducted, to when he called the HSCA to report that they had found 15 correlations.
Now, I can find claims on the internet that Dr. Barger had completed these 2,592 comparisons. But neither I, nor apparently Mr. Griffith, can find a where Dr. Barger claims that all these 2,592 comparisons were actually done.
Again, why should my speculation:
that the BBN did not conduct a thorough systematic search through all 2,592 combinations, due to a lack of time
be considered more likely than Mr. Griffith’s speculation:
that that BBN did conduct a thorough systematic search through all 2,592 combination, despite the time pressure
Because my theory explains why the BBN data is so bad at getting results that don’t contradict themselves as to the location of the shooter and where the bullet struck, while giving consistent results on the location of the motorcycle. And Mr. Griffith’s theory, does not.
